The coming of exism movements in 2016 led to the coming of extreme democratic outcomes within majority rule based liberal democracies like in the USA.
And this brought a change in the nature of democracy as it has led to a shift from true democracy thinking to temporary democratic authoritarianism thinking.
We are probably familiar with the structure of the forces competing for power in a true democracy, I think. but not with the forces competing in a temporary democratic authoritarianism system. Which raises the question, what is the structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism? Any ideas?
Feel free to express your own views so we can exchange ideas in a positive academic environment as this is an academic question, not a political one.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Munoz,
"The structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism," is as old as the hills, or at least as old as representative, democratic-republican forms of government. The old problem is extreme polarization and "majority factionalism."
Majority factionalism arise when a majority of the electorate or their representatives move strongly toward aims and goals which do not serve the common interest of the polity (or are not perceived to serve the common good). It is usually a matter of reliance on power politics in contrast to persuasion. The opposition is not to be persuaded by evidence and argument, but instead excluded, demonized and marginalized (dis-empowered) to the point of being ineffective.
Since that kind of position will not usually be passively accepted, the political forces involved generate a polarized, counter-movement for opposition by any means available. All of this essentially involves the lack of self-constraint on acceptable means to achieve political goals.
In an important and central way, democratic systems depend on the viability of a "loyal opposition." If a "majority faction" excludes, demonizes and marginalizes the opposition, say, in order to be "more effective," then they undermine the loyalty, or at least the trust, of the opposition in the system. It is particularly important, in avoiding extremes of polarization, that economic opportunity not be monopolized by any political faction.
H.G. Callaway
Dear Callaway, thank you for your comment. When there is a paradigm shift in thinking like the shift in 2016 from true democracy thinking to temporary democratic authoritarianism thinking pushed by the coming of Brexism or Trumpism, then paradigm shift knowledge gaps appear that can not be seen from the way of thinking that worked before the paradigm shift....the thinking that worked before when traditional GOP and the democratic party were alternating power (normal liberal democratic thinking) does not work when a normal democratic outcome with the best interest of the majority in mind competes with an extreme democratic outcome with the best interest of the minority in mind as now the relevant thinking is extreme liberal democratic thinking.
The concept of majority factionalism for example does not explain Trumpism as Trumpism has never been a true majority movement, never; as it came to exist due to full true majority complacency based targeted chaos; and therefore, it has been the minority view/vote that has been fractioning the majority view/vote in the USA since 2016...because Trumpism knows that under no complacency, everybody votes conditions and under an independent rule of law system it can not come to exist and persist in power,,,,,
What I have done to fill in the knowledge gap needed to understand the current version of temporary democratic authoritarianism I have done the following:
a) Defined normal democratic outcome as the one that seeks the best interest of the majority/common good, the one driven by normal populism, the one that puts loyalty to country first, the one that sees a peaceful transfer of power as a duty, the one where no complacency means full inclusion, everybody votes, one person one, vote; the one where the true majority view wins the democratic contest;
b) Defined extreme democratic outcome as the one that seeks the best interest of the minority/private good, the one driven by populism with a mask, the one that puts loyalty to movement first, the one that sees a peaceful transfer of power as an embarrassing duty, the one where full true majority complacency means maximum exclusion, not everybody is allowed to vote, one person, one vote; the one where the true minority view wins the democratic contest;
c) with these distinctions you can define true democracy as the one where one normal democratic outcome competes with another normal democratic outcome;
d) and you can define temporary democratic authoritarianism as the one where one normal democratic outcome competes with an extreme democratic outcome;
e) the thinking that works in c) does not work in d); and the thinking that works in d) does not work in c);
f) the complacency conditions needed for a normal democratic outcome to come to exist and persist at all costs are different than the complacency conditions needed for an extreme democratic outcome to come to exist and persist at all cost;
g) And the knowledge above can be used to show that an extreme democratic outcome seeking re-election under an independent rule of law system can only lead to temporary authoritarianism as if it loses re-election, it can not persist.
All the words above can be simplified in a simple figure that I will share in the coming days as they are part of the newest article on this topic.
With the positive intentions I am sharing below three papers coming out in the coming months with food for thoughts related to the comments shared above, they may be of interest to you or to other readers:
Thank you again for your comment;
Sustainability thoughts 132: How a general majority rule based liberal democracy model can be stated step by step and how it can be linked to normal democratic outcome and extreme democratic outcome existing and persisting dynamics?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348295828_Sustainability_thoughts_132_How_a_general_majority_rule_based_liberal_democracy_model_can_be_stated_step_by_step_and_how_it_can_be_linked_to_normal_democratic_outcome_and_extreme_democratic_outcome_ex
Sustainability thoughts 131: How can the shift from normal liberal democracies to extreme liberal democracies be used to extract the democratic structure that leads to the rise of temporary and permanent authoritarianism from within?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348607163_Sustainability_thoughts_131_How_can_the_shift_from_normal_liberal_democracies_to_extreme_liberal_democracies_be_used_to_extract_the_democratic_structure_that_leads_to_the_rise_of_temporary_and_permane
Sustainability thoughts 133: Stating the expected step by step road from majority rule based liberal democracies to permanent authoritarianism: The case of the 2016-2020 rise and fall of Trumpism
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349682410_Sustainability_thoughts_133_Stating_the_expected_step_by_step_road_from_majority_rule_based_liberal_democracies_to_permanent_authoritarianism_The_case_of_the_2016-2020_rise_and_fall_of_Trumpism
.
Authoritarianism arises in democracies due to unethical wills of the masses where majority forgets to think whom the rights and responsibilities are assigned.
I agree with @H. G. Callaway that it is very old problem.
Dear Prabhat, thank you for your comment.
Can you try to provide your view on the answer to the question What is the structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism? or place your comment within the boundaries of this question.
Then I will expand
Lucio Muñoz : I can't define the term and its boundaries. However, I would like to add about internal democracies within the political parties in different countries. If presidents in political parties are fixed from any family or group of people and there is no practice of internal elections, how real democracies may develop?
Dear Prabhat, thank you for your new comment
Even thought the concept of temporary democratic authoritarianism is an old one as you agreed with Callaway, the coming of Brexist and Trumpism in 2016 has giving it a current meaning. As apparently traditional democracy thinkers have missed the 2016 shift from normal democratic outcome thinking to extreme democratic outcome thinking so you are not alone in not being able to define the term and its boundaries, and that is why I have asked the question.
To be able to define it and see its boundaries we need to think outside the box of traditional democracy thinking, and we get there by closing the knowledge gap in democracy thinking created when paradigm shifts take place just as Thomas Kuhn told us to do as the previous ideas do not work in the new paradigm.
If you read my reply to Callaway you can see that the way to define it and see its boundaries is to use the concepts of normal and extreme democratic outcomes...
In the back ground of this question I share: " We are probably familiar with the structure of the forces competing for power in a true democracy, I think. but not with the forces competing in a temporary democratic authoritarianism system. Which raises the question, what is the structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism? Any ideas? "
Under true democracy, you have democratic consistency as different normal democratic outcomes compete for the change to advance the common good under an independent rule of law system. Under temporary democratic authoritarianism there is democracy/authoritarianism inconsistency, which becomes clearly evident only when the extreme democratic outcome loses re-election under an independent rule of law system.
I just posted my new project, related to this issue and help with the closing of this knowledge gap:
Sustainability thoughts 134: How can normal and extreme democratic outcome theory be used to point out and then contrast the structure of true democracy and structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism?
"
Abstract
It can be said that normal democratic outcomes are those who seek the best interest of the majority, and therefore, they reflect the view of the true majority; and it can be said that extreme democratic outcomes are those who seek the best interest of the minority, and therefore, they reflect the view of the true minority. From this point of view it can be said i) that normal liberal democracies bring different normal democratic outcomes into competition, where the one with majority votes wins the democratic contest; and ii) that extreme liberal democracies bring normal democratic outcomes and extreme democratic outcomes into competition, where again the one with majority votes wins the democratic contest. When normal democratic outcomes compete with each other under an independent rule of law system there is true democracy; and when a normal democratic outcome competes with an extreme democratic outcome under an independent rule of law system we have temporary democratic authoritarianism. When we shifted from true democracy thinking to temporary democratic authoritarianism as we did in 2016 with the coming of Brexism and Trumpism we needed to shift our thinking as true democracy thinking no longer holds in an authoritarianism based system if we want to understand what to expect from an extreme democratic outcome in terms of behavior or how we can act to save the democratic model, and prevent the coming of permanent authoritarianism from within. Apparently democratic thinkers have missed this 2016 shift in thinking, which may explain confusion and knowledge gaps that leads to people, academics, and politicians to treat extreme democratic outcomes and their expected behavior as if they were normal democratic outcomes when they are not, missing all together the democracy/authoritarian inconsistency at the heart of this system. And the need to understand the nature of normal and extreme democratic outcomes and their role in the working of true democracy and of temporary democratic authoritarianism makes the following question relevant: How can normal and extreme democratic outcome theory be used to point out and then contrast the structure of true democracy and structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism? Among the goals of this paper is to provide an answer to this question both analytically and graphically.
Have a nice day
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
Interesting question, let us remember that authoritarianism is a sign of a lack of democracy, respecting the fulfillment of constitutional principles is vital.
Dear Celín, thank you for commenting,,,,
The question is about temporary democratic authoritarianism, not traditional authoritarianism. Temporary democratic authoritarianism is authoritarianism from within a liberal democracy as there is an extreme democratic outcome leading the dynamics under temporary democratic authoritarianism, think Trumpism,,,,
This authoritarianism from within can be temporary or it can become permanent, the question is, What is the structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism? Can you think you think about a structure that makes democratic authoritarianism temporary? That structure explains while Trumpism failed to persist when it lost re-election in 2020.
I think political scientist and philosopher Sheldon Wolin (1922-2015) foresaw this as "inverted totalitarianism" (aka "managed democracy" or "democracy incorporated"), published as Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism, 2008, with a 2nd 2017 edition including an introduction by Pulitzer winning journalist and activist, Chris Hedges.
I suspect neither Wolin nor Hedges would see your "democratic authoritarianism" as "temporary." On the contrary, I suspect they'd see it as the fulfillment of Enlightenment modernity, Manifest Destiny, and concomitant scientismic, technocratic, and industrial revolutions over the past 3-4 centuries. That's certainly how I see it, through their lenses, in my dissertation (available on this RG site), "THE END SIGNS! ARE WE GETTING THE MESSAGE?"
Trump is a symptom of that insidious sociocultural disease -- he's not the root cause. He was the death mask it wore; Biden is the smiley face. Behind both masks is the same ravenous rapacity of the fascist capitalist juggernaut of weaponized scientism and technocracy. The World Economic Forum's "stakeholder capitalism" and its "Great Reset" are the Trojan Horse to stay the course and keep that ultra-elitist class warfare full throttle into the future to the extinction of 90+% of life on Earth. The most insidiously permanent lie of the 21st century is the widespread dissonance and delusion engineered to convince and assure us that this isn't truth and reality.
To face the truth and reality head on, see the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists existential threat nexus as the extinction trifecta of our own doom. In January 2020 (and continued in January 2021), they set their 75yo doomsday clock at a categorically new low of 100 seconds to doomsday, specifically due to the existential threats to humanity and all other life on Earth posed by (1) Weapons of Mass Destruction (especially thermonuclear); (2) the Climate Crisis Emergency of the 6th Mass Extinction we're already in; and, (3) the growing plethora of disruptive technologies exacerbating the risks in (1) and (2), e.g., genetics, robotics, AI, nanotech ("GRAIN" for short). That nexus of doom now provides the contextual and conceptual frame for virtually all content presented by the Bulletin in their analog and digital media.
The root cause of the madness of our times was recognized by First Nations indigenous peoples in the western hemisphere. "Wetiko" is one variant of a term in many of their languages for the cannibalistic insanity and depravity of the white European invaders who devastated their ecosystems, decimated their populations with numerous diseases and savage militarism, and obliterated erased their social, cultural, economic, political, spiritual, and existential good faith ways of life in natural truth and reality. Replacing all that now is the 6th mass extinction we've brought and wrought upon all life on Earth and the planet itself.
Dear Terry, thank you for your comment.
I think if you, Wolin, and Hedges take managed democracy as permanent authoritarianism from the inverted angle, not as temporary authoritarianism, then you cannot explain the rise and fall of Trumpism, you would miss the transitional stage between true democracy and permanent authoritarianism from within, where there is no longer a democracy.
That is why I asked the question, if you look at the situation from the full inversion angle you miss what happens in between, if you look at the same situation from the paradigm shift point of view, you see the beginning, the middle and the end.
This question is about the structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism, but it could have been, what is the structure of permanent authoritarianism from within a liberal majority rule based democracy…..the structures are not complex, they are simple structures that govern what comes to exist, what comes to persist, and what comes to fall, and what need to be changed or change to go from temporary democratic authoritarianism to permanent authoritarianism from within.
Can you think of the structure of both Temporary democratic authoritarianism and of permanent authoritarianism from within? If yes, please share it and we can exchange ideas.
I found that Adam Smith was wrong; I found that Karl Marx was wrong, and I showed why using sustainability and paradigm shift thinking, in a respectful manner.
And I am here to exchange ideas, not to imposed my ideas.
Believe me that democratic authoritarianism can become permanent. Take a look at my country, Argentina. Populism represented in Peronismo Party has destroyed education, health and wealth, because it needs to empoverish minds to dominate people and make them depend on "thrown bones". Poor people, undereducated people, with rich and corrupted politicians. By empoverished minds and undereducation they just try to destroy "check and balances" democracy. Everything is written under a "friend/enemy" approach....where media and justice pay a key role on the "enemy side". Democratic authoritarianism is just a slippery slope to democracy. Democratic authoritarianism is at Democracy what Hitler is at Human Rights. In my country the government has found a new cute word "lawfare": the war by means of Courts. Each case of corruption that is under investigation is part of the "lawfare": the war that "right", conservative people is fighting again the populism because they are the "bad guys" that want to keep their privileges.......one of the most laughable thing about that is that all this populist people at government are extremely rich, and not because of hard work, but only because they are corrupted.
Good day Maria, thank you for commenting. Yes, temporary can become permanent if the loyalty structure of independent rule of law system is fully corrupted.
The type of populism that leads to temporary authoritarianism and that you described there is called "populism with a mask" to differenciate it from normal populism.
Permanent authoritarianism from within a democracy comes in different steps, with different structures and implications in the process....
You may find some good food for thoughts in the coming article and link them to the situation in Argentina
Sustainability thoughts 133: Stating the expected step by step road from majority rule based liberal democracies to permanent authoritarianism: The case of the 2016-2020 rise and fall of Trumpism
Article Sustainability thoughts 133: Stating the expected step by st...
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
Thank you for writing Shah!
Your comment is not related to the question, and if you have a view related to providing a possible answer the question please feel free to share it.
Respectfully yours
Democratic societies have need for decisions and actions that are too urgent to use the sometimes cumbersome democratic process. Martial law is an example of this although there are lower levels of urgent action used in most democratic communities. Police for example.
Tyrants love this loophole and can abuse the urgent use power by retaining it where it is not needed. Most people are insensitive to abuse of power and only criticize it when they personally are affected.
Dear Kurt, thank you for commenting. I agree with what you said, but can you link those thoughts to the question, What is the structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism?
Martial law is the structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism.
Dear Kurt, temporary authoritarianism a la trumpism ended in the USA with the win of President Biden, and there was no martial law....and martial law was not in place during the 4 years of Trumpism....
Hence, martial law is not the structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism.
Can you show analically that martial law = structure of temporary authoritarianism? If yes, I would like to see it.
Thank you for commenting!
Lucio Muñoz When you use the word "structure" I infer you want a theoretical explanation. In this sense, authoritarianism and democracy cannot coexist. Authoritarianism is centralized decision making, democracy is decentralized decision making. However, urgent requirements for decision in a democracy require immediate centralized decisions. The best example of a structure that supports temporary centralized decision making is called "martial law".
Dear Kurt, which democratic/complacency condition allows extreme democratic outcome like trumpism to come to exist; and which legal loyalty conditions does not allow extreme democratic outcome to persist when they have come to exist when they lose elections or re-elections? They together form the structure of temporary authoritarianism.
Trumpism was there for 4 year in the USA, it ruled without martial law and showing that authoritarianism and democracy can coexist when authoritarianism comes from within, but under an independent rule of law system if the authoritarian loses the election or re-election his authoritarianism period ends....as if he bring a claim to an independent rule of law court claiming fraud without facts/evidence seeking to persist it will lose in court.....
Now if the authoritarian exist under a court system he now owns as he manages to fully corrupt the legal system while in power and before re-election, then democracy ends and authoritarianism becomes permanent...
Martial law is just a tool that if use properly it should not be a threat to democracy, it should be an asset to democracy, but as you obviously know martial law is a tool usually misused even against democracy itself....
Let's leave it here as I have been telling you and showing you that martial law is not part of the standard functioning of extreme democratic outcomes or normal democratic outcome under democratic competition and democratic disagreements in the USA, the independent court system is the venue....
There is nothing democratic about representism. Representism is not democracy. Democracy is when you vote on laws, not on people who then vote for you for laws.
People voted for Trump because he is not part of the corrupt political elite that has been blood sucking humanity for so long.
Sky, thank you for your comment.
The question is an academic one, not a political one; and it is not about "Representism"
The question is about "What is the structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism?
If we know that we can see why and how trumpism came to exist, and why it failed to persist; and understand all that was expected to happen and which continues to happen in trying to persist after losing under an independent rule of law system.....It also helps you to see what was next if Trumpism had persisted....
You can find some good food for thoughts, academic ones, related to this question in the following articles:
Sustainability thoughts 131: How can the shift from normal liberal democracies to extreme liberal democracies be used to extract the democratic structure that leads to the rise of temporary and permanent authoritarianism from within?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348607163_Sustainability_thoughts_131_How_can_the_shift_from_normal_liberal_democracies_to_extreme_liberal_democracies_be_used_to_extract_the_democratic_structure_that_leads_to_the_rise_of_temporary_and_permane
Sustainability thoughts 134: How can normal and extreme democratic outcome theory be used to point out the structure of the 2016 shift from true democracy thinking to temporary democratic authoritarianism thinking and its main implications?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350276249_Sustainability_thoughts_134_How_can_normal_and_extreme_democratic_outcome_theory_be_used_to_point_out_the_structure_of_the_2016_shift_from_true_democracy_thinking_to_temporary_democratic_authoritarian
Sustainability thoughts 133: Stating the expected step by step road from majority rule based liberal democracies to permanent authoritarianism: The case of the 2016-2020 rise and fall of Trumpism
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349682410_Sustainability_thoughts_133_Stating_the_expected_step_by_step_road_from_majority_rule_based_liberal_democracies_to_permanent_authoritarianism_The_case_of_the_2016-2020_rise_and_fall_of_Trumpism
Sustainability thoughts 132: How can a general majority rule based liberal democracy model be stated step by step and how can it be linked to normal democratic outcome and extreme democratic outcome existing and persisting dynamics?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348295828_Sustainability_thoughts_132_How_can_a_general_majority_rule_based_liberal_democracy_model_be_stated_step_by_step_and_how_can_it_be_linked_to_normal_democratic_outcome_and_extreme_democratic_outcome_ex
Lucio Muñoz
I think I may see a fault in your logic, which is good. You believe Trump was elected by a democratic system. This seems to not be the case, and the US is currently working out a solution to the problem. Trump was elected because authoritarian forces hijacked the voting system. Trump's election was invalid in a democratic sense. The authoritarians are still trying to prevail, which can only be prevented by enforcing democratic process. Only time can tell if this will succeed.
Kurt, good day, If you had time to read any of the articles I have shared here you would not have said "you believe Trump was elected by a democratic system", you would have agreed with ideas shared in those articles and with the prediction those ideas imply given what you said "Trump was elected because authoritarian forces hijacked the voting system. Trump's election was invalid in a democratic sense. The authoritarians are still trying to prevail, which can only be prevented by enforcing democratic process. Only time can tell if this will succeed."
When you have time read the articles shared on the extreme democratic outcome/Trumpism since 2016 to 2021, please read them.
https://truesustainability.com/My%20publications%20on%20normal%20and%20extreme%20democratic%20outcomes.pdf
You will find some good food for thoughts
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Munoz & readers,
Readers of this thread may find the following paper of interest:
Presentation Majority Faction: Factionalism and Political-Economic Consol...
I take up the factionalism and discord of the early American republic and an initial discussion of James Madison on "majority faction," in order to explore the sources of factionalism and extremes of political polarization.
Please have a look. Comments invited.
H.G. Callaway
The US has evolved from a republic to a full democracy through the amendments such as the change of appointing senators from the states to the popular vote. Now it is completing the other step in the evolution to a dictatorship with a nod to older democratic ideal. This occurred in Rome when the new emperors kept the Senate for a while. The step to dictatorship has been repeated throughout history with the same general pattern. There are increased crisis, the ability to deal with them falters thru inept government, people become dissatisfied, this causes a military increase and eventual dictatorship. It happened with Germany and Hitler. It's happening now with Biden - remember the Dem party called the military to quell a protest. The problem is not that crisis occur, it's that the government cannot deal with them and more occur before any are resolved. So, is the dictator to be the Dems as they are attempting or are the next president to be the dictator. The historical result of the new dictator will be the resolution of the mounting crises.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Hodge,
You paint a dim picture, indeed. But notice that in a way, your pessimistic perspective reflects the very fear of tyranny which was built into the constitution from the start. The point makes your exaggerated fears less plausible.
It also seems to the point to recall that the U.S. has just disengaged from two "forever wars," and I think this a positive recognition of real limits on the effective power of the U.S. government. The national security state has over-promised and will be seen to have over-extended itself. We may reasonably expect greater emphasis on bipartisanship in Congress --as with the (smaller) Infrastructure bill recently passed in the Senate --and due for a vote in the House. Of course the matter is not yet resolved.
It strikes me that President Biden is an unlikely candidate for "dictator." What is true, however, is that we need to wind-down the continuous sense of crisis--which is a big money-spinner for the corporate media. What needs to be done is to reduce the expectation that ever-bigger government can solve every imaginable problem. It can't. It is important to get beyond the pandemic, and this will likely require ever broader vaccinations. The pandemic helps sustain the sense of continuous crisis. It is a very disruptive force in contemporary social and political life.
You sketch a way in which things could or might develop, but you do not show that things must develop in the way you imagine and fear.
H.G. Callaway
Dear John Hodge and H.G. Callaway ,
The US like “Rome”, and the faith of other historical democracies, has followed the “Iron Law of Oligarchy”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy
Over the last hundred years the US slowly morphed off the US Constitution to some progressive “living constitution” and it continues today.
Relative to the US, in part, the phrase “democratic authoritarianism” is shared with a “deep state” authoritarianism. That is, the democratic authoritarianism is the democratic election of a president who has the power of “executive order”, or as Obama often said, “pen and phone”; two phrases not found in the US Constitution. The “deep state” authoritarianism is known as the Administrated Branch, not found in the US Constitution, a configuration of hundreds of departments under the Executive Branch employing hundreds of thousands of nonelected officials writing regulations that have the same weight and penalty as law.
The wisdom of our Founding Fathers understood human nature when it comes to greed for power. They put in place in the US Constitution a way for the people to correct the natural flow of power in a civil way, referred to as the Convention of States to amend the Constitution in compliance with the second part of Article V of the U.S. Constitution. There is a movement today among the States to activate this process:
https://conventionofstates.com/
The caveat is, has the populous been indoctrinated with Marxist socialistic ideology, from our government-controlled educational system, to a point where the Convention of States may not have ample support.
The US needs to get back to its founding principles. A good place to start, in our post-modern time, where the term “science” is politically fashionable is summarized in the following presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvD4DHMq1Y4
The science of rights (an overview):
https://www.academia.edu/43512871/The_Science_of_Rights_an_Overview
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Takac,
I believe you mean to suggest that the "fate of other historical democracies, has followed the “Iron Law of Oligarchy”?
But usually, talk of "fate" and what is "inevitable" arise within some larger-scale quasi-political bandwagon effect, in which the followers simply refuse to question or oppose authority and power --wanting to be "on the right side of history." We might also think of this as a matter of mass "rent seeking."
Such social-political phenomena are best viewed as being based on social-political myths. The best method of opposing them is to simply practice criticism on the myth --as contrasted with producing a counter-myth.
Part of the reason for the prominence of the administrative state, by the way, is that the federal government has taken on so many tasks that our elected representatives have great difficulty keeping track of them all (as do the rest of us). In consequence the detailed "rule making" for purposes of law enforcement and policy is turned over to administrators within the executive departments. But recall that such rules and related "executive orders" (usually revisions of the rules) are subject to public transparency in the making, challenge in the courts and new legislation. One might also say, though, that by means of the "administrative state" our elected representatives avoid democratic accountability for the details of executive action.
Though the administrative state is often criticized and thought responsible for undermining democratic accountability, it is not usually thought of as "authoritarian."
H.G. Callaway
Michael T Takac
I agree with most of your statement. I note the voters are electing the government. Further, note the Constitution originally required State governments to appoint Senators. This was amended to have Senators to be more voter elected. Is this mean making the process "more" democratic, that is more responsive to individual voters? So, it seems the voters are voting the US into a dictatorship.
Dear John Hodge and H.G. Callaway ,
True, the State governments lost their representation in the Senate, by their own decision, in ratifying the 17th Amendment; the proper way to change the US Constitution.
However, the structural change to the US Constitution in the formation of the Administration Branch, and the president’s power via “executive order”, were made illegally by statute subverting Article V. The US Constitution’s design was to have a small Federal government, where the States maintained their sovereignty via the 10th Amendment.
Over the last hundred years, the States lost most of their sovereignty as the Federal government continues to grow via the progressive “living constitution”. This growth activity empirically supports the “Iron Law of Oligarchy” backed by the physical constructal law’s flow-current pair, where the tendency of governance flows towards the currents of the power to rule. And on that note, I regret to say, the US is no longer a nation of its founding.
Perhaps, it’s a good time to reminisce:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIl57cchRqs
Philadelphia, PA
Dear all,
Perhaps it will help to have a definition of "authoritarian" to work with. Webster's' says:
Definition of authoritarian
1: of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority had authoritarian parents
2: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people. Example of usage: an authoritarian regime.
---end quotation---
See:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authoritarian#:~:text=1%20%3A%20of%2C%20relating%20to%2C,the%20people%20an%20authoritarian%20regime
"Oxford Reference" says:
"Authoritarian"
A style of government in which the rulers demand unquestioning obedience from the ruled. Traditionally, ‘authoritarians’ have argued for a high degree of determination by governments of belief and behaviour and a correspondingly smaller significance for individual choice. But it is possible to be authoritarian in some spheres while being more liberal in others. Frederick the Great is alleged to have said, ‘I have an agreement with my people: they can say what they like and I can do what I like’.
---end quotation---
See:
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095435698
In terms of these definitions of "authoritarian" or "authoritarian regime," what is the evidence for the claim that the U.S. federal government is authoritarian? Surely this cannot simply rest on the fact that U.S. Senators are now elected by a vote of the people of their states instead of being selected by the state legislatures. In fact, that was changed precisely to make the system more democratic and less subject to bribes directed at legislatures from deep-pocketed Gilded Age corporations. What's the argument?
H.G. Callaway
Lucio Muñoz ,
Does your Researchgate discussion thread question encompass geopolitical situations such as the attempts of the United States to help establish a more democratic form of government (1) in Iraq: and (2) in Afghanistan? Or does the question have a different sort of a context?
With best regards.
Dear Nancy, as the US was trying to set up a liberal democracy based system, the ideas can apply, but to understand these ideas you need to think outside the box and look at the way the democratic outcome is achieved and the actual legal conditions on the ground under which that specific democratic outcome comes to exist.... The answer to this question "What is the structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism?" from the normal vrs extreme democratic outcome point of view is found in the following article:
Sustainability thoughts 131: How can the shift from normal liberal democracies to extreme liberal democracies be used to extract the democratic structure that leads to the rise of temporary and permanent authoritarianism from within?
Article Sustainability thoughts 131: How can the shift from normal l...
As these ideas fall outside the box, I wrote several other supporting articles on normal and extreme democratic outcomes, including one on Trumpconomics, which you can find at:
https://truesustainability.com/My%20publications%20on%20normal%20and%20extreme%20democratic%20outcomes.pdf
if you take time to read you will see that all exism movements including Brexism, trumpism and so on,,,,, have similar structure as they all are extreme democratic outcomes where somehow the minority view wins the democratic contest....., and depending on the legal conditions under which this minority view comes to exist it can lead to permanent or temporary authoritarianism....
Thank you for your comment
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
Lucio Muñoz
Your last comment changed my view of the question.
Any government MUST have some ability to enforce its laws. This found in the concept of police or military authority. So, as experienced in democracy even in ancient democracies, some understanding that after the vote, the voters that opposed the result must still obey the laws of the power granted the elected. Unless a society allows the people to obey only the laws each individual wants to obey the elected requires the military (or police) authority to enforce laws.
The structure then does not depend on the idea of democracy.
Dear Lucio Muñoz ,
In a constitutional republic, as in the design of the US Constitution for example, the institution of government is restricted by law, as ratified by its Citizens. That is, the Federal government’s prime mission was to embrace and protect its Citizens’ “unalienable Rights” (aka the ethical application of the physical constructal law) from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government. In other words, the Federal government via the Bill of Rights, regulated the State governments while providing national defense.
That was the US Constitution during our founding. Today, the US follows the progressive “living constitution” a slow evolution towards an oligarch, a form of “authoritarianism”. How “temporary” a government’s life is measured in units of generational time. That is, according to the historical record, empirically all governments do evolve, changing from one form to another, peacefully or by the spillage of blood.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Munoz & readers,
The "forever wars" in Afghanistan and Iraq, were, in my considered opinion vast mistakes full of neoconservative hubris --which I opposed both early and late. I am of the persuasion that the easiest way to evoke divisiveness and factionalism in the republican (small "r") polity is a combination of large-scale economic expansion and excessive reliance on military means in foreign policy.
I believe you properly focus the present question on domestic considerations and developments, though of course, there are linkages between foreign policy and domestic policies related to the fact that the American presidency is very strong in foreign relations and as "commander in chief" of the armed forces --and comparatively weak in constitutional powers over domestic affairs. There has sometimes been a tendency to compensate for domestic political weakness by means of supposed accomplishments in foreign affairs. This, of course, is not a good sign for liberal-democracy; and I think we should be pleased to see that the current administration has finally decided to end the "forever wars."
It is particularly interesting that the U.S. Congress failed to respond to executive actions overseas by imposition of restraint on the executive--both early and late. In effect, Congress surrendered its powers over peace and war. Congress could have acted to defund the wars at any time. So, one might say its was a passive "majority faction" that "went along to get along." Globalization seemed to bring a train of foreign wars in its wake, and these wars were eventually very unpopular in the U.S. --as unpopular as the loss of domestic jobs in manufacturing and the undermining of the lower middle-class.
Though the election of Mr. Trump was a shock to me and another mistake, I did sympathize with the discontents of the Trump and Sanders voters. I certainly knew enough not to vote for Secretary Clinton in 2016. After the election shock of 2016, it took months to understand exactly what was going on. That point speaks to the considerable distance between media images and the common, public interest of the American people.
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
if you take time to read you will see that all exism movements including Brexism, trumpism and so on,,,,, have similar structure as they all are extreme democratic outcomes where somehow the minority view wins the democratic contest....., and depending on the legal conditions under which this minority view comes to exist it can lead to permanent or temporary authoritarianism....
The actual problem is embedded in your question. What is rrue democracy? All political regimes evolve as part of power structures and are designed to preserve that power structure (with elites on top and a piramid of subordinated sectors), either by imposition (use of force) or by cooptation. Democracy, as existent in contemporary history is but one of those politicas regumes. As such, it concentrates power in part of society, with the ability of offering certain rights and an image of influence (power) for the many in lower echelons. The problem is when demands exced the capacities of the configuartion. In thise conditions, institutions (whether democratic or not) are put into question. Authoritarianism emerges as an alternative. History is filled witg such processes.
Dear John, thanks for your comment.
You are almost there. You need to think in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions for normal liberal democracies and extreme liberal democracies to come to exist and persist at all cost… Then you can see what to expect given specific voter complacency conditions/participation, and the type of legal system in place where the election or reelection is taking place….
:
a) In the sse of the USA/2016
Trumpism came to exist under an independent rule of law system there to protect the winner of the majority rule based electoral contest…. Claims of electoral fraud without proof do not work here….
Trumpism won, the rise of Trumpism, the rise of democratic authoritarianism, puts loyalty to trumpism over loyalty to country/constitution
b) In the case of the USA/2020
Trumpism went into re-election in 2020 under an independent rule of law system and lost the majority rule based democratic contest….and despite ongoing claims of electoral fraud filed in independent rule of law courts without proof it lost the election….Claims of electoral fraud without proof do not work here….
Trumpism lost, the fall of Trumpism, the fall of democratic authoritarianism
c) Had trumpism had time to corrupt the independent rule of law system while in power and the re-election would have taken placed under a non-independent rule of law system, even if losing Trumpism would have persisted as corrupted courts would have put the best interest of trumpism over the best interest of the country/USA, which explains the nature of the Trumpism GOP…
d) Have you noticed that since the fall of trumpism attention by Trump GOP is being placed on creating the conditions of a non-independent electoral implementation system and court system in the USA as well as trying to minimize voter participation and maximize voter complacency through chaos? This should not be a surprised for those who have taken the time to read and follow the theory right down to the ground.
Please take the time to read ideas shared in my articles to be able to see from a different angle the nature of exism movements like trumpism and be able to see things that you cannot see when inside the box. You cannot explain exism movements like BREXIT, USEXIT, BRAZILEXIT…. based on traditional democracy theory or authoritarianism views….
Thank you for your comment
Good day Ernesto, the question is '"what is the structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism?, which can be linked to a true democracy model as a desviation?
What is true democracy for you?
Thanks for your comment
Lucio Muñoz ,
Thank you for your response to my question about the possible geopolitical context and applicability of your ResearchGate discussion thread question "What is the structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism?" asked in March 2021. I also thank you for your invitation to consider your papers so that I might have a better understanding of your area of concentration. At this time, I have a research question about the following (3) item in one of the papers to which you refer me by graciously including a LINK.
"Goals of the paper 1) To point out the structure of the shift from normal liberal democracy to the world of Trumpconomics; 2) To highlight the structure of the world of Trumpconomics, to define the meaning of Trumpconomics, and to exalt its implications; 3) To stress the war structure that the world of Trumpconomics needs to have active permanently in order to come to exist and/or to persist; and 4) To use this was structure to point out the expected local and global implications of Trumpconomics."
In order to indicate a point of common ground, I would point to my initial inquiry regarding the context and applicability of your RG discussion question to 2) the United States attempting to establish a more democratic form of government in Afghanistan. In response, you suggested that it is necessary to "think outside of the box." When I read point 3) in the stated "Goals of the paper" I observed that it gives as one of the goals "To stress the war structure that the world of Trumpconomics needs to have active permanently in order to come to exist and/or to persist," I naturally thought immediately of the fact that the withdrawal of United States military troops in Afghanistan was ordered during the "world of Trumpconomics," as you refer to it. While I am grateful for this opportunity to learn more about your fascinating research, I would also find it most helpful if you clarify a bit more about what "thinking outside of the box" means from your perspective.
I would like to congratulate you on your article in the link ART137.pdf:
Muñoz, Lucio, 2019. The 2016 shift from normal liberal democracy to extreme liberal democracy in the USA: Pointing out the structure of Trumpconomics, its meaning, and its expected local and global implications, both analytically and graphically, In: International Journal of Latest Research in Humanities and Social Science(IJLRHSS), August 20, Volume 2, Issue 8, Pp 01-11, India. -----------------------------------------------------------
and H.G. Callaway ,
With respect to the timeline of the U.S. military occupation of Afghanistan, I offer the following excerpt from the CFR.ORG Timeline of the U.S. War in Afghanistan:
September 7, 2019. Trump Calls Off Peace Talks.President Trump abruptly breaks off peace talks a week after top U.S. negotiator Khalilzad announced that an agreement had been reached “in principle” with Taliban leaders. In a tweet, Trump says he canceled a secret meeting with the Taliban and Afghan President Ghani at Camp David after a U.S. soldier was killed in a Taliban attack. The Taliban says it’s “committed to continuing negotiations,” but warns that the cancellation will cause an increase in the number of deaths.
2020 📷Khalilzad and Baradar sign the agreement during a ceremony in Doha, Qatar. Ibraheem al Omari/ReutersShareFebruary 29, 2020. U.S., Taliban Sign Deal on Path to Peace. U.S. envoy Khalilzad and the Taliban’s Baradar sign an agreement [PDF] that paves the way for a significant drawdown of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and includes guarantees from the Taliban that the country will not be used for terrorist activities. The deal says intra-Afghan negotiations should begin the following month, but Afghan President Ghani says the Taliban must meet his government’s own conditions before it enters talks. The U.S.-Taliban deal doesn’t call for an immediate cease-fire, and in the days after its signing, Taliban fighters carry out dozens of attacks on Afghan security forces. U.S. forces respond with an air strike against the Taliban in the southern province of Helmand.
📷Delegates from the Afghan government and the Taliban attend talks in Doha. Ibraheem al Omari/ReutersShare. September 12, 2020. Intra-Afghan Peace Talks Begin. Representatives of the Taliban and of the Afghan government and civil society meet face to face for the first time in Doha, Qatar, after nearly twenty years of war. The direct negotiations, which were delayed for months over a prisoner swap proposed in the earlier U.S.-Taliban deal, begin after the Afghan government completes the release of five thousand Taliban prisoners. During opening remarks, both sides express eagerness to bring peace to Afghanistan and establish a framework for Afghan society after U.S. troops withdraw. The government pushes for a cease-fire, while the Taliban reiterates its call for the country to be governed through an Islamic system.
📷U.S. soldiers board a helicopter before a mission in Afghanistan. Verniccia Ford/U.S. Army/ReutersShare. November 17, 2020. U.S. Announces Troop Withdrawal. Acting U.S. Defense Secretary Christopher C. Miller announces plans to halve the number of troops in Afghanistan to 2,500 by mid-January, days before President-Elect Joe Biden will be inaugurated. Thousands of troops had already been pulled out following an agreement with the Taliban in February, moving closer to fulfilling President Trump’s campaign promise to end the so-called forever wars. The announcement comes as negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban are deadlocked and the militant group continues to launch deadly attacks. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg warns that withdrawing troops too early could allow Afghanistan to become a haven for terrorists and the Islamic State to rebuild its caliphate.
2021 📷A U.S. soldier hugs his family after returning to the United States in December 2020 following his deployment in Afghanistan. John Moore/Getty ImagesShare. April 14, 2021. Biden Decides on Complete U.S. Withdrawal by 9/11. President Biden announces that the United States will not meet the deadline set under the U.S.-Taliban agreement to withdraw all troops by May 1 and instead releases a plan for a full withdrawal by September 11, 2021. “It’s time to end America’s longest war,” he says. The remaining 3,500 troops in Afghanistan will be withdrawn regardless of whether progress is made in intra-Afghan peace talks or the Taliban reduces its attacks on Afghan security forces and citizens. NATO troops in Afghanistan will also leave. Biden says Washington will continue to assist Afghan security forces and support the peace process. The Taliban says it will not participate in “any conference” on Afghanistan’s future until all foreign troops leave.
📷Taliban fighters pose in Afghanistan’s presidential palace. Zabi Karimi/AP PhotoShare. August 15, 2021. Afghan Government Collapses as the Taliban Takes Kabul. Facing little resistance, Taliban fighters overrun the capital, Kabul, and take over the presidential palace hours after President Ghani leaves the country. Taliban leaders say they will hold talks with Afghan officials to form an “open, inclusive Islamic government.” Former Afghan President Karzai and Abdullah, formerly the chief executive under Ghani, create a council to facilitate a peaceful transition to a Taliban government. The takeover follows the Taliban’s rapid advance, during which it captured all but two of Afghanistan’s provincial capitals and seized border crossings. Afghan security forces in some areas reportedly negotiated surrenders and avoided fighting the Taliban.
📷President Joe Biden defends ending U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan during remarks at the White House. Leah Millis/ReutersShareAugust 16, 2021. Biden Defends Withdrawal. President Biden says his administration made the right decision in ending U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, arguing that the U.S. counterterrorism mission is complete. But he acknowledges that the troop withdrawal has been “messy” and blames Afghan security forces for failing to counter the Taliban. Meanwhile, the United States deploys six thousand troops to evacuate U.S. and allied personnel and secure Kabul’s international airport, where chaos erupts as thousands of Afghans attempt to flee. Biden says the military will help evacuate thousands of Afghans who worked with the United States, and he expands refugee-status access for vulnerable Afghans.
📷U.S. marines honor the service members killed outside of Hamid Karzai International Airport. U.S. Central Command/ReutersShare. August 26, 2021. Thirteen U.S. Service Members Killed Amid Scramble to Withdraw. Thirteen U.S. service members are killed and at least eighteen are injured in an attack at a checkpoint outside the Kabul airport, where thousands of people are being evacuated. They are the first U.S. service members killed in action in Afghanistan since February 2020. At least 170 Afghans are also killed. The Islamic State in Khorasan claims responsibility, and several days after, the United States launches an air strike targeting a suspected plotter from the group. However, the Pentagon later admits that the strike was a “mistake” and killed ten civilians, including seven children.
📷U.S. Army Major General Chris Donahue is the last U.S. service member to leave Afghanistan on August 30, 2021. XVIII Airborne Corps/ReutersShare. August 3...."
SOURCE LINK: https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-war-afghanistan
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Watanabe & readers,
Thanks for your collection of reports on the progress toward ending the war in Afghanistan. You correctly note that plans for a withdraw were drawn up during the Trump administration. This posed an important question at the start of the present administration concerning whether there would actually be a withdraw and an end to the war. One may imagine, of course, that Mr. Trump intentionally left the withdraw for the period after the election of 2020. He did know that the war was unpopular. I was quite encouraged that President Biden went ahead with an end to the war.
Though I did say that the 2016 election of Mr. Trump had been a mistake, this is not to say that Mr. Trump did nothing right. It is more that he was incompetent to hold the office, and his rhetoric was continually divisive and merely defiant of the prior liberal establishment. The best thing I can say about the Trump administration is that its mere existence opened up some room for more critical perspectives on the excesses of globalization and U.S. military involvement abroad. Also, perhaps, he got the liberal establishment to re-read the Federalist Papers.
I think we are now somewhat more wary of unrestricted presidential powers. I would be interested to see replies on this thread to my argument above to the effect that it was a passive "majority faction" in Congress which failed to take the needed measures. Congress could have defunded the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq at any time. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats in Congress were willing to act and take the risk to end the "forever wars."
H.G. Callaway
Dear Nancy, thank you for your comment.
Thinking outside the box can have different applications depending on the situation at hand….
Suppose there is a dominant paradigm and all scholars operate or work within that paradigm, they are thinking inside the box. Their knowledge base fits the working of the dominant paradigm.,,,,
Then, there is a paradigm shift, which leads to a paradigm shift knowledge gap….
The knowledge base of the old dominant paradigm does not work in the new paradigm, so new ideas need to be created to work in the new paradigm or the old ideas of the previous paradigm need to be corrected so they work in the new paradigm.....
Think the shift from traditional market thinking to green market thinking….If you continue to think inside the traditional economic box your knowledge is useless in the green market world….You need to go outside the traditional box to understand the nature of green markets….
Think a shift from normal liberal democracy thinking to extreme liberal democracy thinking….If you continue to think inside the normal liberal democracy thinking box your knowledge is useless in the extreme liberal democracy world….You need to go outside normal liberal democracy thinking to understand the nature of extreme liberal democracy world….
Which is what I have done, both in the area of markets and in the area of democracy….
However, I am not here to convert anybody, I am here to share ideas in a positive environment.
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
A paradigm shift is like from an Earth centered solar system to a Sol centered one. Put an awful lot of astronomers out of work. One that we could imagine today is the shift from capitalist government to democracy. It's going to make a lot of tyrants unhappy, but since we are the majority we get to do it our way!
Dear L Kurt Engelhart ,
From my recreational reading, I’m incline to say any form of government where its population produces something are “capitalist”. That is, the term “capital” is the “means of production”. The difference between the known forms of governance, is who owns and/or controls the capital.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises
Michael T Takac
With broad "reading" you will find that production is something done by all living things. They consume and produce. "Capitalism" dominates and monopolizes this process for the benefit of a few, without regard to the rest except to cultivate it as their "owned" means of production.
You will find this kind of behavior among all criminal intent, that the tyrant is supreme, and that this principle is ordained by God and nature.
Human experience has shown an alternative to this inhumane organization of resources, democracy. The fact that it is experimental and evolving lends believability to the claim it is not natural. But in that sense science is not natural.
The efficacy of science is an evolved project of humanity. Still not trusted by many, and targeted by capitalism and tyrants for control.
You might call democracy "scientific" government.
Respectfully, Kurt
Dear L. Kurt, what you are calling "democracy scientific government" I called "science based liberal democracy", the following papers have some food for thoughts that are related to your comments about science, democracy, and capitalism and the working of governments and how they can be linked.... You can take a look at them when you have time....
Sustainability thoughts 117: How the economic science based liberal democracy model should be expected to react when facing external shocks under equality?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346016716_Sustainability_thoughts_117_How_the_economic_science_based_liberal_democracy_model_should_be_expected_to_react_when_facing_external_shocks_under_equality
Sustainability thoughts 116: How the economic science based liberal democracy model should be expected to react when facing external shocks under inequality?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341833133_Sustainability_thoughts_116_How_the_economic_science_based_liberal_democracy_model_should_be_expected_to_react_when_facing_external_shocks_under_inequality
Sustainability thoughts 132: How can a general majority rule based liberal democracy model be stated step by step and how can it be linked to normal democratic outcome and extreme democratic outcome existing and persisting dynamics?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348295828_Sustainability_thoughts_132_How_can_a_general_majority_rule_based_liberal_democracy_model_be_stated_step_by_step_and_how_can_it_be_linked_to_normal_democratic_outcome_and_extreme_democratic_outcome_ex
Dear L Kurt Engelhart,
“You might call democracy "scientific" government.”
Science has nothing to do with “democracy”. Science has everything to do with deciphering empirical observations that are measurable and repeatable.
And on that note, the observation of any form of governance or markets to operate is a function of, and only of, reason and ethics in the evolution of a civil society. In unethical environments both government and markets will fail.
Throughout the world today, there is ample empirical examples of the quality of government and markets on both ends of the civility spectrum.
When I get more free time, I’ll check through Lucio Muñoz’s links.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Munoz & readers,
All your talk about "paradigm shifts" seems to be rather vague and general. As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own views, but not to your own facts.
It seems that when Watanabe challenged your analysis on the basis of the facts, you simply retreated to vague generalizations about "paradigm shifts" and "thinking outside the box" --and ignored the conflict on the facts. This is not encouraging for the success of your analysis. The question raised concerned the factual correctness of your analysis.
It seems you might have examined Watanabe's challenge to your analysis and given some more direct reply. To simply claim a "paradigm shift" begs the question of the correctness of your analysis. Or, so it seems.
I doubt that your reply was very persuasive to anyone.
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
Think a shift from normal liberal democracy thinking to extreme liberal democracy thinking….If you continue to think inside the normal liberal democracy thinking box your knowledge is useless in the extreme liberal democracy world….You need to go outside normal liberal democracy thinking to understand the nature of extreme liberal democracy world….
Dear Callaway, your comment surprised me.
You are complaining in the name of a third party, are you Nancy?
She asked me "what thinking outside the box” means and I took the time to reply to her.
If she would have thought that my answer was lacking, she would have said so including why she thought my answer was lacking so I have the change to reply, but she did not say so…
If there is a paradigm shift, Thomas Kuhn told us in the structure of scientific revolutions, those inside the box cannot see it and they will resist it at the beginning…. During the time of resistance in my view “they are a kind of living in the past”….
The question and focus here is: What is the structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism?
If you have any issue with this question or if you have something to add to this, please share it. If not, let’s leave it here.
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Munoz & readers,
I have a problem with your lack of reply when challenged on your facts.
By the way, what you say about "paradigm shifts" also seems defective --beyond its vague generality.
Note that in the "paradigm shift" from Newtonian to Einsteinian physics, measurements were made of the observed displacement of stars in the vicinity of the sun during a total eclipse. Einstein's prediction was confirmed by the observations; and of course, the defenders of the older Newtonian physics could also see the evidence. "Resisting" change in theoretical positions does often end with factual challenges.
Kind regards,
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
If there is a paradigm shift, Thomas Kuhn told us in the structure of scientific revolutions, those inside the box cannot see it and they will resist it at the beginning…. During the time of resistance in my view “they are a kind of living in the past”….
Dear Callaway, does that explains Trumpism or the structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism?
If you have nothing to add to the current question, please let's leave it here.
Dear Shah, do you have a view of that the answer to the question "what is the structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism is? If yes share it in as simple terms as you can. Then, I will reply. Please read the background provided below the question to have an idea on the grounds the question is posted.
Respectfully yours,
Lucio
Dear all,
Democracy depends on the self-confidentiality of the authorities.
Regards …
Lucio Muñoz H.G. Callaway ,
Lucio Muñoz , I would like to correct your impression, as follows: "If she would have thought that my answer was lacking, she would have said so including why she thought my answer was lacking so I have the change to reply, but she did not say so…
If there is a paradigm shift, Thomas Kuhn told us in the structure of scientific revolutions, those inside the box cannot see it and they will resist it at the beginning…. During the time of resistance in my view “they are a kind of living in the past”….
The question and focus here is: What is the structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism?"
This is my first opportunity to read your response to my question(s) because I had to work on several manuscripts, in case you are wondering, (1) a theoretical paper on Sacajawea as the matriarchal leader of the United States of America; and (2) East-West influences on Derek Walcott, the 1992 Nobel Award Winner in Literature, the first African American to win it, which blazed a pathway for Toni Morrison, in 1993 the first African American woman to win a Nobel Prize in Literature. If I had been here, I would have thanked you for responding to my request to define "outside of the box." However, it is true that my question, or rebuttal and supporting timeline, with regard to your assertion of what you posited as Trumponomics' dependency on warfare has remained unanswered.
I apologize in advance if there is another delay. Today's email brought a request that I revise a manuscript I wrote a couple of months ago and submitted for consideration for publication as a refereed journal article, which tries to argue my case for the multifaceted depiction of Capitalism in a classic film by Hitchcock, in which I also attempt to indicate ways in which the film coincides with the ideas of Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Freud, Marx, and Veblen. Needless to say, there is a good deal of generalized topical material, which makes a study like this quite vulnerable to (constructive) criticism, for which I am grateful.
I am still interested in knowing whether or not you still hold the view that what you call "Trumponomics" is inextricably bound together with a wartime economy, or have you changed your view?
With best wishes.
Dear Nancy, here the following points:
1) You posted your first comment without addressing the question at hand here, yet I took the time to reply, even though I am busy too;
2) In good faith, I shared with you an article directly related to this discussion for when you have time to read
Article Sustainability thoughts 131: How can the shift from normal l...
3) I also took the liberty to share with you other articles related directly or indirectly to the ideas presented in Sustainability thoughts 131
https://truesustainability.com/My%20publications%20on%20normal%20and%20extreme%20democratic%20outcomes.pdf
4) In your reply, you seemed to bypass reading the article related to this discussion THOUGHTS 131 and you focused your attention on a) on the abstract of the Trumpconomics article, an article indirectly related to this discussion; and b) on knowing what thinking outside the box means;
5) As the trumpconomics question is not related to your original inquire about “this discussion” I only focused my response into what “thinking outside the box” means to me and I took the freedom to give you two examples of paradigm shifts, the shift from traditional economic thinking to green market thinking/From 2012 RIO +20 Conference; and the 2016 shift from normal liberal democracy thinking to extreme liberal democracy thinking(BREXIT, USEXIT) to give the ideas of thinking outside the box;
6) As you did not reply, I assumed we will going to leave the discussion here and move on;
7) Your response to the timeline was for Callaway as I did not say anything about time lines in my comments to you;
8) your statements in your last comment like
“However, it is true that my question, or rebuttal and supporting timeline, with regard to your assertion of what you posited as Trumpconomics' dependency on warfare has remained unanswered”’
And
“I am still interested in knowing whether or not you still hold the view that what you call "Trumpconomics" is inextricably bound together with a wartime economy, or have you changed your view?
They Clearly Tell Me you have not read the article on Trumpconomics fully or carefully.
9) However, as this question is not about Trumpconomics and to keep the discussion centered on “what is the structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism” when you have time to participate again please you can start by providing your view of what is the structure of temporary authoritarianism and we go from there…..
Keep in mind, before providing your view, the context under which this question is rested, which I pasted here again:
Context of Question:
“The coming of exism movements in 2016 led to the coming of extreme democratic outcomes within majority rule based liberal democracies like in the USA.
And this brought a change in the nature of democracy as it has led to a shift from true democracy thinking to temporary democratic authoritarianism thinking.
We are probably familiar with the structure of the forces competing for power in a true democracy, I think. but not with the forces competing in a temporary democratic authoritarianism system. Which raises the question, what is the structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism? Any ideas?
Feel free to express your own views so we can exchange ideas in a positive academic environment as this is an academic question, not a political one.
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
Dear Lucio Muñoz ,
I read over your article and it is clear you are highlighting the problems with democracies. As you stated in your concluding remarks:
“In general, it was shown that the coming of extreme democratic outcomes brings real risk to the survival of normal liberal democracies, a temporary real risk in the form of temporary authoritarianism as there is a chance of democracy being restored as soon as the extreme democratic outcome loses the first re-election; and a permanent real risk in the form of permanent authoritarianism where there is no chance of democracy being restored as the extreme democratic outcome always wins, leading in this case to end of liberal democracy rule or the death of normal democracies.”
Article Sustainability thoughts 131: How can the shift from normal l...
“Normal democracies” (aka “31 – Democratic normalism”) as defined in your article, could morph to “extreme democratic outcomes”. The issue over democracies has been known during the enlightenment as James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper #10:
“… democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers
The US Founding Fathers decided to follow Charles de Montesquieu’s philosophy and designed a republic form of government. Where the people only vote for a candidate, in their local district, to the House of Representatives in the US Congress. The State government selects two officials to represent the State government to the Senate of the US Congress. The president is selected by the Electoral College. The president was to enforce only the laws passed by Congress and be the commander and chief of the Armed Forces in defense of the nation. The Federal government’s designed was to be small operating within the “Bill of Rights”, where the State governments had sovereignty over its Citizens.
Over the last hundred years, a slow migration onto some progressive “living constitution” is evolving the Federal government towards a democracy in the direction of a centralized oligarch taking sovereignty from the States, and it continues today. In addition, today’s president has the power to decide what laws to enforce, or not to enforce, and the power of “executive order”; as the Administration Branch with its hundreds of departments employing hundreds of thousands of nonelected officials writing regulations that have the same weight and penalty as law is also under the president. By the way, the Administration Branch is not part of the US Constitution. In the progressive “living constitution”, the president has become a pseudo-dictator for the length of its term.
Today, it is no longer “Trumpism”, the US is in the era of Bidenism, where the US is no longer a country of its founding.
From the historical record, it seems governments evolve towards an oligarch as defined by the “Iron Law of Oligarchy” supported by the Constructal paradigm.
Dear Michael, you can now state the structure of temporary authoritarianism the that allowed for the coming and rule of temporary democratic authoritarianism 2016-2020, right?
That structure applies to all exism movements in malority rule based democracies operating under an independent rule of law system.
Dear Lucio Muñoz ,
“you can now state the structure of temporary authoritarianism the that allowed for the coming and rule of temporary democratic authoritarianism 2016-2020, right?”
In the US, it seems the roots of “democratic authoritarianism” started during Woodrow Wilson’s administration. See Woodrow Wilson’s 1908 book, “Constitutional Government in the United States”.
Michael, we are talking about 2016, where targeted chaos allowed populism with a.mask to take over normal populism, in the UK and in the USA , conditions that did not exist in 1908.
My article states analitycally and graphically the structure that explains when temporary democratic authori tarianism can come exist and when it fails to persist...All in simple and current terms...
Dear Lucio Muñoz ,
Your time focus is too narrow missing the prime cause leading to “democratic authoritarianism” that started over a hundred years ago in the US. Are you interested in the configuration of governance aiding “democratic authoritarianism” or the politics in our postmodern time exploiting such authoritarianism?
The nemesis to “targeted chaos” is ethics.
Michael, Do you expect exism movements like Trumpism to follow ethics?.
Are you really following the actual path of Trumpism, just before 2016, during 2016 to 2020, and after election and january 6 to today?
Do you see what.my theory expected?
The nemesis of targeted chaos is the independent rule of law on elections guaranteeing one person-one vote from all eligible voters as well as independent state and federal courts and institutions.
Dear Lucio Muñoz ,
“Do you see what.my theory expected?”
“Trumpism” is no different than Bidenism, or Obamaism, or Bushism, etc. The nemesis of “targeted chaos” is a decline in ethics within a system of governance evolving towards a democracy and in the words of James Madison, “spectacles of turbulence and contention”, which supports your, “theory expected”.
I feel it would be beneficial for scholars to study the Constructal paradigm relative to the evolution of social systems and economics.
Michael T Takac
I understand the reference to Wilson.
However, I go back one more to Teddy, Certainly, Biden is much worse than Trump.
You said you read mynpaper so you know what trumpism and trumpconomics means from my point of view.
What is trumpism for you Michael?
Please le me know
Michael, can you give me 3 reasons why as you say "trumpism is no different than bidenism"?
Then I will tell you 3 reasons why they are different.
Dear Lucio Muñoz ,
Trump was not a career politician who got elected by a democratic process and exposed the “deep state” oligarchs to the populous. And by doing so, Trump broke a record by getting impeach twice.
Trump is different than Biden, where no two US presidents or any two humans are the same. However, placing any human in a form of government based on “democratic authoritarianism” is a concern for the global population. This is why we need to enhance education in our founding principles, while embracing reason and ethics in our government-controlled educational system.
Michael, 3 reasons 1, 2, 3, why Trumpism and bidenism are not different? Simple as that.
This is not a political question, it is an academic one.
Dear Lucio Muñoz ,
Academically, Trump and Biden are different! What is “not different”, or evolves slowly, is the office of the presidency and the “deep state” behind it.
Okay Michael, you are not sure what Trumpism is; and you think biden system and trump system not different, but you can not see ornsay exactly why.
let's leave here Michael....
Respectfully yours
Lucio
Lucio Muñoz ,
Since you do not discuss by making any attempt to focus on your interlocutor's statements, but, instead, your make statements that build a hedge, I have decided that it is best for all concerned that I let you know that I am withdrawing from this Researchgate discussion thread. My main complaint is that when I tried to inquire if U.S. occupied Iraq and U.S. occupied Afghanistan might be proposed as hypothetical models for what you term "the structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism," you failed to respond appropriately. Instead, you decided to ignore what I was saying. Next, I tried to cooperate by consulting one of the articles you suggested, and then you failed to focus on the point I raised, which is a flaw that looms as a barrier to further talks between us. It would have been a simple matter to respond to either or both of these two points I raised, but, instead, you obfuscate communication by chastizing me and your rhetorical method is to build a defensive shield of extraneous matter, which appears to be intended to bury my original point without dealing directly with it. If this is your strategy to generate argumentation, while it may work effectively with other RG members, in my view, all it does is frustrate straightforward exchange of ideas. From my perspective, anybody's failure to focus and attempt to distract from the main point is a tactic that is directed to the interlocutor instead of a counterargument that addresses the topical point. In sum, begging the question is quite different from the art of genuine argument and counterargument. In addition, there is nothing scientific about it. Nonetheless, my apologies if my "building inspector" approach is objectionable to your way of thinking. It is as though you are concerned about the building you have constructed, and I suddenly appeared and I detected a crack. But when I brought it to your attention, you did not look at it, and instead, tried to distract my attention by criticizing me!
In any case, I wish you well with your scientific research in other areas, such as sustainability and other issues of mutual concern.
Nancy, it is okay, you came in without even attempting to provide your view about the answer to the question "what is the structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism", yet I took the time to reply. I am glad I replied.
I wish you well too
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
Hi Dr Lucio Muñoz . I hope the following link could help: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-structure-of-temporary-democratic-authoritarianism
Also, see the following link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13510341003700196
In addition to, see the link: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.14361/9783839451267-008/pdf
Interesting in Stichweh and Ahlers’ article they classified the US as an “L-democracy”.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.14361/9783839451267-008/pdf
There you have it, James Madison. The US morphing from a republic to a L-democracy, and in the end, to an oligarch.
Aref, do you think that the current Russia system is in temporary democratic authoritarianism?
Dear Lucio Muñoz ,
“can you tell me how they [Stichweh and Ahlers] classify Trumpism?”
The term “Trumpism” is not mentioned in Stichweh and Ahlers’ article. What their article did say about Trump is in the following quote:
“The hypothesis of disintermediation makes a clear path from populism to authoritarianism visible. Populist regimes and their followers have strong motives to weaken and sometimes abolish intermediary institutions. These motives are easily observed in the Trump administration. In this case, there has been a hollowing out of administrations, a weakening of expert organizations such as the EPA or the FBI, a denigration of science, a disrespect for diplomatic competencies, a contestation of the legitimacy of democratic elections, and a massive fight against critical news media.”
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.14361/9783839451267-008/pdf
Trump was trying to move the Federal ruling-class in the opposite direction from morphing towards an oligarch (aka “intermediary institutions”) back towards the US Constitution; and that was a good thing. By the way, it was those “intermediary institutions” that led to Trump’s twice impeachment; perhaps, a badge of honor to his supporters.
As for the "sciences", Trump was selective in supporting the sciences in developing a vaccine (aka “Operation Warp Speed”) for the pandemic that Dr. Fauci (a member of the “deep state”) funded the CCP’s work in gain-of-function.
As for the US president’s “authoritarianism”, whether Trump or any other president, is a function of the US progressive “living constitution”.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/operation-warp-speed-trump-pfizer-moderna-vaccine-1.5806820
https://nypost.com/2021/09/07/wuhan-lab-documents-show-fauci-untruthful-about-research-critics/
Dear Michael, it is too bad that they are not in the discussion to exchange ideas. If they do not mention trumpism probably means their views can not explain the coming and going of trumpism.
As you can not defend the ideas of others, I will just make one general comment:
There are two types of populism:
1) Normal populism where the majority view wins the democratic contest, it produces an outcome that has the best interest of the majority at hand and put country first when there are party/political/electoral disagreements. Tax cut policies to the poor are normal....
and
2) Populism with a mask where the minority view some how(EFFECTIVE TARGETED CHAOS) wins the democratic contest, it produces an outcome that has the best interest of the minority at hand at hand and put movement/leader, not country first when there are party/political/electoral disagreements. Tax cut to the rich are normal....
Since the researcher you cite are using Trump movement/Trumpism as normal populism, from then and on things get mixed up....as Trumpism is not normal pupulism...
If you want to see more about my approach to understanding exism movements like Trumpism, take a look at the following article also directly related to the question of what is the structure of temporary democratic authoritarianism, I am sharing in good faith for you to see the following article:
Sustainability thoughts 133: Stating the expected step by step road from majority rule based liberal democracies to permanent authoritarianism: The case of the 2016-2020 rise and fall of Trumpism
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349682410_Sustainability_thoughts_133_Stating_the_expected_step_by_step_road_from_majority_rule_based_liberal_democracies_to_permanent_authoritarianism_The_case_of_the_2016-2020_rise_and_fall_of_Trumpism
It is better to share your own ideas as then you can defend them if needed
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
Dear Lucio Muñoz ,
The issue is not with any political personality “populism”. The issue is the progressive “living constitution” moving the US towards a democracy.
The problem is democracy. That is, you will not find the term “democracy” in the US Constitution, or the US Declaration of Independence, or in any of the 50 US States’ Constitutions. The US Federal government and its 50 States are republics.
In a republic, populism is overshadowed by the rule of law. The problem is not with “Trumpism”, the problem is “democracy”.
In your Abstract’s first sentence you nailed it:
“It can be said that the coming of exism movements like Trumpism in 2016 pose a serious threat to the survival of majority rule based liberal democracies as they have an autocratic nature, ….”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349682410_Sustainability_thoughts_133_Stating_the_expected_step_by_step_road_from_majority_rule_based_liberal_democracies_to_permanent_authoritarianism_The_case_of_the_2016-2020_rise_and_fall_of_Trumpism
The problem is “democracies” not “Trumpism”, because democracies have an “autocratic nature”! The solution, a republic form of governance; a government by the rule of law, not by “executive orders” from some populist personality!
Dear Michael, you cannot understand the other point of view on Trumpism and temporary and permanent authoritarianism by looking at the abstract only, I hope you read the whole article...
You should be able to see that Trumpism came to exist within a majority rule based democratic contest and as Trumpism is inconsistent with democratic values it will work hard after unexpectedly coming to exist to weaken and if possible, to eliminate democratic values to operate better and/or to persist….
Michael, who is trying to undo democracy in the USA right now? Democracy itself or Trumpism? According to your view democracy is undoing itself because democracy is the problem.... According to my view trumpism is undoing democracy as it is the only way it can have a change at having power again and chamption the best interest of trumpism....
As it can be extrapolated from the paper Trumpism should be expected to focus its attention on corrupting democracy values and government institutions in the USA to have a comeback; and if it comes back to power within a non-independent rule of law system or corrupted legal and political system it will mean the end of democracy in the USA as it will persist in power even if it loses elections.....
However if trumpism comes back to power still under an independent rule of law system, specially if federal voting laws are passed by congress and senate, then its rule will end as soon as losing a clean re-election as it cannot count on an independent rule of law system to help it to stay in power without proof of electoral fraud.....
Michael, let’s agree to disagree and move on so we stop going around in circles.
I wish you well and I appreciate your comments
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
Dear Lucio Muñoz ,
Your work is in alignment with James Madison’s take on democracy, where they are “spectacles of turbulence and contention”. According to Stichweh and Ahlers’ article they classified the US as an “L-democracy”. Their work is in alignment with your work in that the US is no longer a republic.
From my observations, the US is evolving closer to an oligarch (both domestic and foreign), as democracy becomes a façade. That is, when Trump exposed the populist to the “deep state” he got impeached twice, he got thrown off of social media and failed to get democratically reelected by the progressive media’s bias.
Today, the “deep state”, or the progressive oligarch, is using Marxist tactics to divide the nation by the classes of wealth (aka the proletariat vs. bourgeois), race (aka “Critical Race Theory”), gender identity, cancel culture, and selective prosecution as a function of protest type, irrespective of their physical destruction and civil violence; while authoritarianism is on the rise relative to the pandemic thanks to Dr. Fauci (a member of the “deep state”) funded the CCP’s work in gain-of-function.
This kind of instability of a once free and stable superpower should be of concern. How to fix it, we need to enhance education in our founding principles, while embracing reason and ethics in our government-controlled educational system. In the meantime, the populous should support the Convention of States to amend the Constitution in compliance with the second part of Article V of the U.S. Constitution. There is a movement today among the States to activate this process, but they need the populous support:
https://conventionofstates.com/
Dear Michael, I started to focus on framing exism movements before 2016 when I saw Brexism coming and I realised that extreme democratic outcomes may come from inside an independent legal system based liberal democracy.... A situation that falls outside traditional democracy thinking as then you have a normal political party that puts country first and an extreme political/social movement that puts the movement first as inverse loyalty takes place, as competitors under a majority rule base election system....
Then Brexism happened and just as the theory suggest wide spread surprised was expressed after the winner was formally announced.... then I saw trumpism coming in the same unexpected fashion as again, Murphy's law, what seems to be impossible happened and again widespread discontent was displayed as the winner was formally announced.
Then, other exism movements in other countries were coming.... that gave me in real time a practice matching the theory. Then trumpism fell as expected as the independent rule of law system and independent electoral system held ground...
My goal was to develop a theory that explains the coming and going of exism movements born within a majority rule based liberal democracy, not just in the USA, but all over the world... I have used Trumpism as a case study to bring the theory out.
That is all!
Have a nice day Michael.
Dear Lucio Muñoz ,
Your work is noble in showing the issues with democracy, our US Founding Fathers were aware of in the 1700 hundreds. Using “Trumpism” as a data point in your work is overlooking the root of the problem the US is facing in our postmodern time. There are a number of books on the subject, I would recommend Mark Levin’s book, American Marxism:
https://www.amazon.com/American-Marxism-Mark-R-Levin/dp/150113597X/ref=sr_1_1?adgrpid=1340305704676569&dchild=1&hvadid=83769246617460&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=86001&hvnetw=o&hvqmt=e&hvtargid=kwd-83769794634156%3Aloc-190&hydadcr=22567_10773397&keywords=mark+levin+american+marxism&qid=1633719697&s=books&sr=1-1
Dear Michael, the Founding Fathers were afraid of strong man still loyal to the country coming to the presidency and going amok... The founding fathers, I think, could not see that a strong man not loyal to the country, but to an exism movement, could come out of effective targeted chaos into the presidency since the ability of implementing an affective targeted chaos campaign did not exist then...
Now that you mentioned Marxism, I have also taken a systematic academic view from the sustainability angle at the perfect traditional market of Adam Smith and at the red socialism market of Karl Marx, in a similar detailed fashion as I have done it with democracies.
When you have time you can take a look at these articles below
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
---------------------------
Adam Smith and Karl Marx Under the Sustainability Eye: Pointing Out and Comparing the Sustainability Gaps Behind these Two Great Simplification Failures.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290607852_Adam_Smith_and_Karl_Marx_Under_the_Sustainability_Eye_Pointing_Out_and_Comparing_the_Sustainability_Gaps_Behind_these_Two_Great_Simplification_Failures
An Overview of the 1848 Karl Marx's Capitalism Fix Dilemmas: How a Step by Step Road Towards Economy Friendly Red Socialism May Have Looked Had Marx Stated it?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334479026_An_Overview_of_the_1848_Karl_Marx's_Capitalism_Fix_Dilemmas_How_a_Step_by_Step_Road_Towards_Economy_Friendly_Red_Socialism_May_Have_Looked_Had_Marx_Stated_it
The 1991 fall of red socialism and the flip back to pure capitalism: Pointing out the market structure of the paradigm shift from red socialism to economy friendly red socialism that never took place
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336252091_The_1991_fall_of_red_socialism_and_the_flip_back_to_pure_capitalism_Pointing_out_the_market_structure_of_the_paradigm_shift_from_red_socialism_to_economy_friendly_red_socialism_that_never_took_place
Nationalization as Privatization in Reverse: Understanding the Nature of the Commons to Identify a Possible Point of Optimal Nationalization
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281244564_Nationalization_as_Privatization_in_Reverse_Understanding_the_Nature_of_the_Commons_to_Identify_a_Possible_Point_of_Optimal_Nationalization
Do you think Biden (bidenism) is trying to undo democracy with their mandates and attacks on parents?
Dear John, Biden does not qualify for the "ism" as "Bidenism" as he is not a leader of an exism movement; it is a return to the normal before Trump, someone with a majority view mandate to implement the policy program he told the voters he would implement....
Trump qualifies for the "ism" as it leads an exism movement.
John, did Measles mandates (and other vaccination mandates to attend school or the military) destroyed US democracy when they came into place since the 1980s?
All mandates, including covid19 mandates have not destroyed democracy in Canada because they reflect the majority view, be it majority government or coalition government.
Remember John, this is an academic discussion, not political discussion, so it is based on the facts.
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
Check https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13510341003700196
Authoritarian democracy is a form of democracy directed by a ruling elite of an authoritarian state that seeks to represent the different interests of society. Authoritarian democracy has also been called "organic democracy" by some proponents. In use for cases of fascism and Stalinism it has also been referred to as totalitarian democracy.
Authoritarian democracy was first developed and used by Bonapartism.The Bonapartist conception of authoritarian democracy was based upon Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès's maxim, "confidence from below, authority from above", which he claimed must be an enlightened authority that is responsive to the needs and clamour of the people https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_democracy
Temporary authoritarianism takes care of negotiated democracies and last for the period the parties are still in agreement.
Dear Chinaza, thank you for your comment.
I tend to look at information from wikipedia with a careful eye as sometimes it may not be accurate....
You mentioned there two concepts/ideas from Wikipedia: Totalitarian democracy and Authoritarian democracy. There is also liberal democracy, both normal and extreme, and there is true democracy....
Hence 5 concepts that can be linked through a simple democracy model, from where you can see their internal structures in terms of equality and freedom, a framework I am currently working on....
The question here relates to the state of temporary democratic authoritarianism that you find when normal liberal democracies under majority rule voting contests shift to extreme liberal democracies when the minority view somehow wins that democratic contest under an independent rule of law system.
Both the totalitarian model and the authoritarian model you mentioned do not fit a temporary state relevant to this question in my view, but the shift from normal to extreme liberal democracies do have this temporary authoritarianism state, such the case of trumpism showed 2016-2020.
If Trumpism were to lead to a permanent authoriarianism stage it would be an authoritarian democracy and the end of liberal democracy as indicated in my paper.
Chinaza, I guess you shared these two concepts, not because you think they relate to the structure of this question, but just for sharing, right?
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Munoz & readers,
I would think that on the face of it "authoritarian democracy" is a contradiction in terms, and something of a oxymoronic phrase --like, say "cruel kindness."
Right?
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
If Trumpism were to lead to a permanent authoritarianism stage it would be an authoritarian democracy and the end of liberal democracy as indicated in my paper.
Dear Lucio Muñoz ,
Thank you for your links on your “systematic academic” approach relative to “Marxism” and “Adam Smith”. When I read the philosophies of Marx, Adam Smith, and others, I systematically approach their work using science through the prism of the physical constructal law attempting to decipher the evolution of their philosophy relative to the culture of their time.
You made reference to the US Founding Fathers in the following quote:
“the Founding Fathers were afraid of strong man still loyal to the country coming to the presidency and going amok...”
Are they your words, if not, please provide references?
On a related subject of “going amok” in Federalist 51, Alexander Hamilton or James Madison said the following:
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers
An example of my approach to analyze Hamilton and Madison’s “no government” scenario through the constructal law’s prism results in taking issue on such scenario. That is, according to biblical scripture, implies a hierarchy, the empirical signature of the constructal law, between those “angels” relative to the top level of Divinity. Here on Earth if men were angels, we still would need a social hierarchy where the top-level (government) partners with society overseeing the design of infrastructure needed to improve flow, etc., resulting in dendritic configuration, including hierarchies, also found in social organization and interesting enough, in scriptures as well.
Even those Founding Fathers could get it wrong.
Dear Callaway, thank you for commenting.
In my paper I called it permanent authoritarianism, and its stucture is the same as what is known as "Authoritarian democracy", perhaps we should tell Franco and Mussolini that they coined an oxymoronic phrase still used today.
Glad to see you seem to accept my paper conclusion.
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Munoz & readers,
Exactly what conclusion do you have in mind?
By the way, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary,” is, quite famously, a quotation from James Madison.
I am still wondering what you may mean by democracy. Whatever its authoritarian tendencies, I would think to emphasize that the Trump administration was still subject to judicial and legislative control. His executive orders were often overturned in the federal courts (he obeyed the orders); and, of course, he was brought up on impeachment charges by the lower House and tried before the U.S. Senate twice.
I'd say the Madisonian structures of the division of powers held up quite well. Keep in mind the American distinction between "the government" or "the federal government" and "the administration." The government may remain a democratic "government of laws" (subject to "the consent of the governed"), though the administration goes off track.
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
Glad to see you seem to accept my paper conclusion.
in my view, ... the shift from normal to extreme liberal democracies do have this temporary authoritarianism state, such the case of trumpism showed 2016-2020.