Do Americans want a dictatorship?

[Higus]

1. Voters want candidates who will not compromise
2. Congress is divided and neither side will compromise to make deals and pass laws
3. President is faced with either doing nothing or expanding executive powers in order to fulfill campaign promises to voters that put him into office
4. President who does nothing is perceived as weak and is not re-elected; party suffers by association
5. President who uses executive action delights supporters and dismays detractors
6. Detractor resentment (or supporter delight) starts cycle back at 1

All this leads to our situation today where congress is gridlocked and the president is forced to move around them in order to make progress. I have to question the direction of the government; are we moving towards a more dictatorial form of republic, and are we doing so by necessity and voter incentive?
Is there anyway to halt the direction? Are Democracies/Republics inherently flawed and are dictatorships and revolutions part of a cycle to normalize societies?

 

[DoomPatrol]

Of course this is stupid. Nobody in America wants that. What they want is a party member who shares their exact beliefs to win. That's it.

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

No.

Republicans just want to throw a tantrum and refuse to proceed with anything (budget submission, judicial nominations, wasting time and money voting to overturn Obamacare hundreds of times even though they knew they didn't have the votes) when they don't get their way.

You can't vote until you're 18 or be a rep until you're 25, but unfortunately, having the maturity of a preschooler does not disqualify you.

 

[machidafan99]

No. The opposite. We want more voices and more choices. Not a two-party system that's really a one party system.

I would like UKIP to run America.

 

[Higus]

Of course this is stupid. Nobody in America wants that. What they want is a party member who shares their exact beliefs to win. That's it.

By electing congress members with the explicit goal of non-compromise in a system that requires majority consensus, you end up with a system that shuts down. You could argue that this is how the system is designed; if the people are divided, perhaps the best thing to happen is a freeze on any major policy changes.
The problem happens when people elect a president and expect accomplishments in the same sort of environment. With congress gridlocked, perhaps the wise thing for a president to do is wait out the gridlock. However, that position is often attacked as a weakness. The people who voted for the president still expect results, so the president's incentive is to expand executive action and work around congress since compromise is impossible due to voter preference. Current candidates for president who say they can accomplish their goals without expanding executive powers are either lying or naive. Some will openly defy congress and be applauded for it.
It may be that we don't want a dictatorship, but voters aren't incentivizing congress or the president to do otherwise. If voters say they don't want a dictatorship, but vote themselves into it, which are you supposed to believe?

 

[Skarr]

they want a totalitarian state .....just so long as the illusion of freedom is maintained enough that they can smack each on the back and proclaim what a beacon of democracy/freedom the US is, all the while failing to understand how democracy does not equal freedom at all

I speak of course about the uneducated masses....not this good bunch of guys here at sherworld

 

[klnOmega]

Most people are fine with dictatorships, as long as the dictator's views are aligned with your own.

The same people that attack Obama for executive orders, spying, drone strikes, etc... now will defend Trump when he does it, and the people who defend Obama now will attack Trump when he does it.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Every system of government is inherently flawed and democracies are no different but I'd prefer to live under Obama than Putin or Mubarak.

 

[SODACKER]

Most people are fine with dictatorships, as long as the dictator's views are aligned with your own.

The same people that attack Obama for executive orders, spying, drone strikes, etc... now will defend Trump when he does it, and the people who defend Obama now will attack Trump when he does it.

And that is why expansion of executive orders is such a double edged sword, and Trump really is doing the best job of exposing it. If you want to make a unilateral decision on something that is fine, but something that easily done is also that easily undone. That is the point of Congress, so that we don't have the swing of policy every time a different party wins. The disagreement with Congress is stabilizing and a good thing, only policy that will stick gets through.

 

[gigantalor]

No.

Republicans just want to throw a tantrum and refuse to proceed with anything (budget submission, judicial nominations, wasting time and money voting to overturn Obamacare hundreds of times even though they knew they didn't have the votes) when they don't get their way.

You can't vote until you're 18 or be a rep until you're 25, but unfortunately, having the maturity of a preschooler does not disqualify you.

Stupidest post I've read in a long time. Congrats.

 

[BVG]

Americans are being convinced that an olgicharchy is ok under the guise of capitalism. And that anything with the word social in it is bad.

 

[Gervinho]

American see their politics like 2 gangs. You either belong to one and if you the other one is evil. its us vs them. to be fair its a massive country with over 300 million people, if you dont dumb down people, its hard to control them. But either way I think the country is on downhill and no matter who gets in power next they are screwed.

 

[SODACKER]

Americans are being convinced that an olgicharchy is ok under the guise of capitalism. And that anything with the word social in it is bad.

You're comparing a government system with an economic system, which certainly aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[panamaican]

It depends on the dictator.

 

[Fawlty]

The gridlock, bad as it is, also preserves the republic when there are only two effective political parties. There are good foundational arguments for discouraging easy change. The American people seem to want the President to have more power when it's in their interest, and less when it's not. Standard stuff. Nobody really wants a dictator, but a lot of people would love a smooth 4-8 year run with all the branches leaning their way. I've noticed the more liberty-and-constitution-minded people being critical of the uses of executive authority by both Bush and Obama, even if they share a party with one of them.

 

[MusterX]

1. Voters want candidates who will not compromise
2. Congress is divided and neither side will compromise to make deals and pass laws
3. President is faced with either doing nothing or expanding executive powers in order to fulfill campaign promises to voters that put him into office
4. President who does nothing is perceived as weak and is not re-elected; party suffers by association
5. President who uses executive action delights supporters and dismays detractors
6. Detractor resentment starts cycle back at 1

All this leads to our situation today where congress is gridlocked and the president is forced to move around them in order to make progress. I have to question the direction of the government; are we moving towards a more dictatorial form of republic, and are we doing so by necessity and voter incentive?
Is there anyway to halt the direction? Are Democracies/Republics inherently flawed and are dictatorships and revolutions part of a cycle to normalize societies?

In reference to the above, part of our problem is we have gone so far into the law making school of thought that we actually have a mind boggling number of laws. Even lawyers can't tell you how many laws and regulations are in place in the United States. Thousands of laws and regulations, 10's of thousands, and we add more every year.

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

Ayn Rand


So basically I'm saying you have to look where the real power lies. Make enough laws and you can control without a dictator. The dictator is the law books you make. What that results in is a country, ironically known as the land of the free, having more prisoners than any country on earth. Think about that. The U.S. has more prisoners that the worst regimes and dictatorships, more prisoners than countries like India and China that have 4 times the U.S. population. The U.S. has mastered locking as many people as possible in cages while applying propaganda to make the free people request tougher laws.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

No, and that's why we won't vote someone like Sanders into the highest office.

 

[Gutter Chris]

No, and that's why we won't vote someone like Sanders into the highest office.

Yea we will.


I think theres a good chance that a frightening amount of americans would be alright with a dictator as long as they were there brand.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Yea we will.

Bernie Sanders will never be President.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

Republicans want a corporate oligarchy, (or at least they fight with all their might for one) neither side atm would be comfortable with a dictatorship. Although the cult of military worship is concerning.