- Joined
- May 20, 2016
- Messages
- 34,432
- Reaction score
- 15,874
There is no denying that there has been a recent revitalization of political interest in strong men in the liberal democratic West, particularly in the United States.
Just recently, a person I would consider to be "alt-right" lectured me about how liberal democracy is not suited for the political demands of the 21st century, and told me that we should look to Russia, "Putinism" if you will, for inspiration on how to organize political society going forward. I obviously disagree with his proposition, and think that (domestically, at least) Western citizens have become spoiled by liberal democracy and are taking for granted internal political rights like freedom of speech and association and freedom against search and seizure. To be clear, that is not to deny the fact that liberal democracy has still fueled many an illiberal horror abroad.
However, I recognize that his perspective is not novel, and is shared by a considerable portion of the modern right (and has been similarly shared by leftists of the past). The popularity of Trump, with his chastising of the media and of the clunky nature of the democratic process, has fueled this interest. And, with some surprise, the devotion and policy-fluidity with which some Trump supporters side with their leader over liberal democratic institutions does eerily remind me of what my Turkish friends have said about popular support for Recep Erdogan.
Coincidentally, I also recently came upon a speech by Christopher Hitchens on what he believed to be the most tyrannical and "evil" authoritarian regime in recent world history: that of Saddam Hussein. And he analogized Hussein's illiberal and iron-fisted consolidation and preservation of power to Adolph Hitler's Night of Long Knives and Stalin's Great Purge, while noting that Hussein embraced some surplus value in terrorizing beyond what was necessary.
This got me thinking about what would be the moral and political limits of autocracy in the new world, where information is instantaneously accessible and ability to organize on a moment's notice newly enabled. So, if the liberal democratic West were to backslide into autocracy, what level of suppression or internal violence would be permit?
Would we stop at a relatively benevolent and minimally oppressive dictator like Josip Broz Tito? Would we stop at a more generally oppressive dictator with benevolent populist aims like Muammar Gaddafi or Fidel Castro? Would we slide further yet to permit a purely nationalistic dictator with little ideology like Putin, Erdogan, or Hitler? Or could we even be fertile for a more tyrannical, violent, and non-ideological dictator like Stalin, Mussolini, or Hussein?
Discuss (and, if possible, save the shit slinging over Trump, commies, etc. to the extent that you can)
Just recently, a person I would consider to be "alt-right" lectured me about how liberal democracy is not suited for the political demands of the 21st century, and told me that we should look to Russia, "Putinism" if you will, for inspiration on how to organize political society going forward. I obviously disagree with his proposition, and think that (domestically, at least) Western citizens have become spoiled by liberal democracy and are taking for granted internal political rights like freedom of speech and association and freedom against search and seizure. To be clear, that is not to deny the fact that liberal democracy has still fueled many an illiberal horror abroad.
However, I recognize that his perspective is not novel, and is shared by a considerable portion of the modern right (and has been similarly shared by leftists of the past). The popularity of Trump, with his chastising of the media and of the clunky nature of the democratic process, has fueled this interest. And, with some surprise, the devotion and policy-fluidity with which some Trump supporters side with their leader over liberal democratic institutions does eerily remind me of what my Turkish friends have said about popular support for Recep Erdogan.
Coincidentally, I also recently came upon a speech by Christopher Hitchens on what he believed to be the most tyrannical and "evil" authoritarian regime in recent world history: that of Saddam Hussein. And he analogized Hussein's illiberal and iron-fisted consolidation and preservation of power to Adolph Hitler's Night of Long Knives and Stalin's Great Purge, while noting that Hussein embraced some surplus value in terrorizing beyond what was necessary.
This got me thinking about what would be the moral and political limits of autocracy in the new world, where information is instantaneously accessible and ability to organize on a moment's notice newly enabled. So, if the liberal democratic West were to backslide into autocracy, what level of suppression or internal violence would be permit?
Would we stop at a relatively benevolent and minimally oppressive dictator like Josip Broz Tito? Would we stop at a more generally oppressive dictator with benevolent populist aims like Muammar Gaddafi or Fidel Castro? Would we slide further yet to permit a purely nationalistic dictator with little ideology like Putin, Erdogan, or Hitler? Or could we even be fertile for a more tyrannical, violent, and non-ideological dictator like Stalin, Mussolini, or Hussein?
Discuss (and, if possible, save the shit slinging over Trump, commies, etc. to the extent that you can)