Politics : Canadian professor predicts a "right-wing dictatorship" in the US by 2030

Canadian professor predicts a "right-wing dictatorship" in the US by 2030

By 2025, American democracy could collapse, causing extreme domestic political instability, including widespread civil violence. By 2030, if not sooner, the country could be governed by a right-wing dictatorship.

We mustn’t dismiss these possibilities just because they seem ludicrous or too horrible to imagine. In 2014, the suggestion that Donald Trump would become president would also have struck nearly everyone as absurd. But today we live in a world where the absurd regularly becomes real and the horrible commonplace.

Leading American academics are now actively addressing the prospect of a fatal weakening of U.S. democracy.

This past November, more than 150 professors of politics, government, political economy and international relations appealed to Congress to pass the Freedom to Vote Act, which would protect the integrity of US elections but is now stalled in the Senate. This is a moment of “great peril and risk,” they wrote. “Time is ticking away, and midnight is approaching.”

I’m a scholar of violent conflict. For more than 40 years, I’ve studied and published on the causes of war, social breakdown, revolution, ethnic violence and genocide, and for nearly two decades I led a centre on peace and conflict studies at the University of Toronto.

Today, as I watch the unfolding crisis in the United States, I see a political and social landscape flashing with warning signals.
The cracks have steadily widened, ramified, connected and propagated deeply into America’s once-esteemed institutions, profoundly compromising their structural integrity. The country is becoming increasingly ungovernable, and some experts believe it could descend into civil war.
A U.S. civil-military expert and senior federal appointee I consulted noted that a re-elected president Trump could be totally unconstrained, nationally and internationally.

A crucial factor determining how much constraint he faces will be the response of the U.S. military, a bulwark institution ardently committed to defending the Constitution. During the first Trump administration, members of the military repeatedly resisted the president’s authoritarian impulses and tried to anticipate and corral his rogue behaviour – most notably when Joint Chiefs Chairman General Mark Milley, shortly after the Capitol insurrection, ordered military officials to include him in any decision process involving the use of military force.

But in a second Trump administration, this expert suggested, the bulwark could crumble. By replacing the civilian leadership of the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs with lackeys and sycophants, he could so infiltrate the Department with his people that he’ll be able to bend it to his will.

After four years of Mr. Trump’s bedlam, the U.S. under Mr. Biden has been comparatively calm. Politics in the U.S. seems to have stabilized.

But absolutely nothing has stabilized in America. The country’s problems are systemic and deeply entrenched – and events could soon spiral out of control.

More here:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-american-polity-is-cracked-and-might-collapse-canada-must-prepare/

He's a friggin' moron!

He's a friggin' moron, because that will never happen!

And BTW, the USA is NOT a democracy, as that would be mob rule and chaos.
It's a Representative Republic! So he's a double moron!



😺 Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 🤨 Let's go, Brandon! 🤨 Try that in a small town.

He's a friggin' moron!

What do you think of these articles?

Is the United States a democracy?
Yes, the United States is a democracy, since we, the people, hold the ultimate political power. We’re not a “direct democracy,” but we are a “representative democracy.”

This is where our history education might add some confusion. We are commonly taught that democracy is a product of ancient Greece. It’s their word – demokratia – after all. The city-state of Athens is credited with implementing a system of government of and by the people, whereby eligible citizens would congregate to make decisions. They’d make these decisions themselves (or “directly”), not through any elected representatives.

That system of government, better understood today as direct democracy, lives on in the United States in the form of ballot initiatives and referenda. Some states and localities afford their citizens the right to use these measures to directly enact, change, or repeal laws themselves.

More commonly, we exercise our political power in a different way: by voting in elections to choose our representatives. That’s representative democracy.

The Constitution does not use the term “democracy.” It’s true. But as Eugene Volokh notes in the Washington Post, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Justice James Wilson and Chief Justice John Marshall all used the word. These scholars understood representative democracy – the American variety – to be democracy all the same.

Is the United States a republic?
Yes. The United States is a republic because our elected representatives exercise political power.

History also tells us that Rome was a republic, unlike Athens. When its monarchy was overthrown, Rome developed a republican system of government whereby citizens elected officials who were empowered to make decisions for the public. That’s the core of how our government works. While “democracy” and “republic” have been historically pitted against one another, the reality is that the two terms enjoy considerable overlap.

So, which term should I use?
It’s really up to you. In practice, the word “republic” has the same meaning as the term “representative democracy.” And a representative democracy is a form of democracy in the same way that a Granny Smith apple is a form of apple. We wouldn’t say it’s inaccurate to use “apple” to describe a Granny Smith apple, so it’s OK to follow in the footsteps of Jefferson, Adams, Webster, and Chief Justice Marshall and simply call our “representative democracy” a “democracy.”

But it’s also accurate to call the United States a “republic.” It’s mostly about your preference of words. Hopefully, this post will help lower the heat in the online debate. Let’s put our energy toward working to fix our government so it represents the people!

What type of government is the US, exactly?
To be very specific, the United States could be defined as a “federal constitutional representative democracy.” You might also call it a “federal constitutional republic.” Let’s break those terms down.

Constitutional: Our system of government is considered constitutional, because the power exercised by the people and their representatives is bound by the constitution and the broader rule of law.

Federal: Our government is also a federal system, since power is shared between a national government, representing the entire populace, and regional and local governments.

These two terms can come in handy when you want to get really exact with your description. It’s accurate to call our government a “federal constitutional republic” or a “federal constitutional democracy,” but it’s probably overkill to be that specific. These terms just help us further define our governmental structure, especially when comparing the United States to other countries.

Bonus: Is the United States still a democracy/republic?
In the literal sense of the word, yes. In practice, the answer is more complicated. In 2016, The Economist Intelligence Unit downgraded the United States from a “full democracy” to a “flawed democracy” in its Democracy Report, an annual study of the “state of democracy” around the world.

There were a number of reasons the nation’s rating fell, but one of the most important was the American public’s declining trust in government. Our system of government depends on citizens being able to freely elect leaders who will represent their interests. Unfortunately, that doesn’t always happen. In a study published 2014, two political scientists found that, on average, the policies representatives pursue are not in fact dictated by public opinion. This is the mark of a flawed democracy/republic: election without true representation.

So, is the United States a democracy or a republic?
The United States is both a democracy and a republic.

https://act.represent.us/sign/democracy-republic

‘America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy’ Is a Dangerous—And Wrong—Argument
High-minded claims that we are not a democracy surreptitiously fuse republic with minority rule rather than popular government. Enabling sustained minority rule at the national level is not a feature of our constitutional design, but a perversion of it. Routine minority rule is neither desirable nor sustainable, and makes it difficult to characterize the country as either a democracy or a republic. We should see this as a constitutional failure demanding constitutional reform.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/yes-constitution-democracy/616949/

He's a friggin' moron!

This country is a Representative Republic.



😺 Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 🤨 Let's go, Brandon! 🤨 Try that in a small town.

He's a friggin' moron!

The first thing every rightwinger learns is that we're "a Republic, not a Democracy". And the lies continue from there.

Mean people suck.

👺 ¡He's a friggin' moron!

…a republic if you can keep it.

                                        -Benjamin Franklin
Better a republic of living states than a democracy rife with dead voters.

[center] [hr] [poll multiple] [s] [sic] [sub]2[/sub] [sup]th[/sup] [u]  

Re: Canadian professor predicts a "right-wing dictatorship" in the US by 2030

The writer is trying to scare people into not voting for Trump, but it won't work.

Re: Canadian professor predicts a "right-wing dictatorship" in the US by 2030

At least we know that the filmboarders who don't live in the US will take in American filmboarders if a civil war really does break out.

Which non-US posters will sign the pledge to help their American comrades??

Re: Canadian professor predicts a "right-wing dictatorship" in the US by 2030

I doubt there will be a civil war.
The military is sworn to uphold the constitution and they will squash any uprisings like potato chips.
Things are different now than the last time we had one.
And besides, it means that states would have to organize and unite to fight as they were last time and I doubt they would do that again.

"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall

Re: Canadian professor predicts a "right-wing dictatorship" in the US by 2030

3v77 (soul venoms iq v rocketmans iq)

Re: Canadian professor predicts a "right-wing dictatorship" in the US by 2030

I mostly said that because I wanted to see which of our non-US brethren would volunteer to take us in if we needed them; to shelter us, feed us, bathe us, dress us, should the dictatorship scenario come to pass and we seek refuge. But not one of them signed The Pledge.

Re: Canadian professor predicts a "right-wing dictatorship" in the US by 2030

Ah, so you gave them a test and they failed.

Would you trust any strangers here and let them into your abode right away without meeting them first?
I wouldn't. We would have to meet at least for coffee first and they would have to pass the pun test.
Except for you because I am sure you would pass so you are half way there already!

"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall

Re: Canadian professor predicts a "right-wing dictatorship" in the US by 2030

They failed, but I guess I'd fail too if the roles were reversed.

That's true, I'd only allow pun-loving posters into my home. My motto would be, "If you're not into punning, then you're in for a shunning."

Re: Canadian professor predicts a "right-wing dictatorship" in the US by 2030

So my chances of being the pun to get in are pretty good?
I could be your number pun?

"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall

Re: Canadian professor predicts a "right-wing dictatorship" in the US by 2030

150 professors of politics, government, political economy and international relations
Have these people ever correctly predicted anything? They are constantly surprised by the events of the world.

Re: Canadian professor predicts a "right-wing dictatorship" in the US by 2030

It is possible and anything can happen.
Rome fell apart as well as all sorts of civilizations through history.
Ours is doomed to fail at some point as well.

What they need to do is to change the criteria to make it stronger so that any moron cannot run and be president as it was in 2016 and to make sure that Turd Face cannot ever run again.
"Have you ever been impeached? Yes? Then you cannot run for president."

"By 2025, American democracy could collapse…"

Well, you have to have a democracy first to make that claim. What we really have is a one party system controlled by corporations.

Which is another reason why we won't have a civil war. The military will protect corporate interests from any domestic terrorists.

"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall

Re: Canadian professor predicts a "right-wing dictatorship" in the US by 2030

Won't happen. Trump and his fascist supporters are mostly fat and old and will thankfully all be dead by then. Younger generations are much more liberal.

Re: Canadian professor predicts a "right-wing dictatorship" in the US by 2030

Because he was pres. Turd Brain gets top health care in the country.

I mean, look at Prick Cheney. That fucker should or would be dead by now if he was in the private sector.

"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall

Re: Canadian professor predicts a "right-wing dictatorship" in the US by 2030

It won't happen. This guy doesn't understand the Government of the United State, nor our checks and balances.

Re: Canadian professor predicts a "right-wing dictatorship" in the US by 2030

What about this part?

A crucial factor determining how much constraint he faces will be the response of the U.S. military, a bulwark institution ardently committed to defending the Constitution. During the first Trump administration, members of the military repeatedly resisted the president’s authoritarian impulses and tried to anticipate and corral his rogue behaviour – most notably when Joint Chiefs Chairman General Mark Milley, shortly after the Capitol insurrection, ordered military officials to include him in any decision process involving the use of military force.

But in a second Trump administration, this expert suggested, the bulwark could crumble. By replacing the civilian leadership of the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs with lackeys and sycophants, he could so infiltrate the Department with his people that he’ll be able to bend it to his will.

If the possible future dictator (let's say Trump in this scenario) is surrounded by people who won't say no to him, then he can just ignore Congress and anyone else who tries to get in his way, and nobody who's in the position to stop him will do anything - thus leading to the riots (etc.) that eventually become the next Civil War.

I know that sounds farfetched, but a lot of people were afraid to say no to Trump. For example, in 2020, the CDC came out with some Covid guidelines that Trump didn't like, so they were later changed. The head of the CDC and the head of the FDA were afraid to say anything negative about Trump (or even contradict him) in interviews back then. They actually appeared to be afraid of him.

Re: Canadian professor predicts a "right-wing dictatorship" in the US by 2030

Separation of powers is division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. The intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.

The legislative branch of the U.S. government, Congress, has the power, according to Article 1 of the Constitution, to make certain kinds of laws. In Article 2, the Constitution says that the executive branch, headed by the President, has the power to enforce or carry out laws. The judicial branch, headed by the Supreme Court, is established in Article 3 of the Constitution to interpret and apply the laws in court cases that come before it. Further, the first article of the Constitution divides legislative power between the two houses of Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives. A majority vote in both houses is required for a bill to become law.

The Constitution provides to each branch of the government means to share in the power of the other branches. The mechanisms by which the three separate branches are able to restrain the others are called checks and balances.

There are several ways that one branch of the government checks the actions of another branch to maintain a balance of powers so that no branch can dominate the others. The President, the chief of the executive branch, can check Congress by vetoing bills it has passed. But the President’s veto can be overturned by a subsequent two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress. The President appoints executive branch officials and federal judges, including Justices of the Supreme Court. But the Senate, one part of the legislative branch, must approve the President’s appointments by a majority vote; if not, the President’s appointments are rejected.

The President is the commander in chief of the armed forces. But only Congress can enact legislation to provide funds to the armed forces and their commanders for their military operations. The Constitution grants power to the resident to make treaties with foreign governments, but the Senate has the power to confirm or reject them. Additional examples of the separation and sharing of powers among the executive and legislative branches, involving checks and balances, are found in Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution.

The judicial branch of government uses its power to interpret the Constitution and the laws made under it in order to check the other two branches of government and to maintain the separation of powers among the three branches. For example, the Supreme Court uses judicial review to prevent either the legislative or executive branch from violating the Constitution. The Court can declare null and void actions of the Congress or the President that exceed or contradict their powers as expressed in the Constitution.

The principle of judicial independence, established in Article 3 of the Constitution, prevents the other two branches from intimidating the judicial branch and impeding it from properly checking them if they overstep their constitutional boundaries. The Constitution provides for lifetime terms of office and prohibits Congress from punishing judges by reducing the level of payment for their services in order to buttress the judicial branch’s independence.

Separation and sharing of powers among the three branches, through checks and balances, is the basic constitutional means for achieving limited government and thereby protecting the people from governmental abuses. Each branch of a constitutional government has some influence over the actions of the others, but no branch can exercise its powers without cooperation from the others. The constitution of a presidential democracy prevents any one branch from encroaching upon the domains of the other branches.

Under the system of checks and balances, no branch of the government can accumulate too much power. But each branch, and the government generally, is supposed to have enough power to do what the people expect of it. So, the government is both limited and empowered; neither too strong for the survival of the people’s liberty nor too limited to be effective in maintaining order, stability, and security for the people.

During the founding era of the United States, James Madison expressed the importance of separated powers in a constitutional government. In the 47th paper of The Federalist, Madison wrote, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the hands of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” In the next Federalist paper, Madison cautioned that unless the separate branches of government “be so far connected and blended [balanced] as to give each a constitutional control [check] over the others the degree of separation . . . essential to a free government can never in practice be duly maintained.”

. . .

Defenders of separated and shared powers emphasize the importance of deliberate decision making in support of their system of constitutional democracy. They believe that the compromises necessary to achieve agreement among different groups empowered with checks on the actions of the other groups result in a government that cannot act recklessly.

Justice Louis D. Brandeis of the U.S. Supreme Court nicely summed up the justification for separated and shared powers in the Constitution. In his dissenting opinion in the 1926 case Myers v. United States, Justice Brandeis wrote:

The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the Convention of 1787, not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was not to avoid friction but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy.
           Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835)

Re: Canadian professor predicts a "right-wing dictatorship" in the US by 2030

150 professors
those who can't do, teach

Re: Canadian professor predicts a "right-wing dictatorship" in the US by 2030

150 professors

those who can't do, teach
Those who can, do; those who can't, teach.
                                                                    -George Bernard Shaw, 1905


[center] [hr] [poll multiple] [s] [sic] [sub]2[/sub] [sup]th[/sup] [u]  

Re: Canadian professor predicts a "right-wing dictatorship" in the US by 2030

Leftist propaganda in a desperate ditch to remain relevant, and the irony is, they are the current totalitarian dictators.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Canadian professor predicts a "right-wing dictatorship" in the US by 2030

That's highly unlikely, given the left's total control over education, mass media, big tech, and Hollywood, but if it does happen, it'll be because that's the only way to wrestle that power from the left.

Like most things on this planet, politics is an arms race.

Until the left show some restraint, the right will have no choice but to escalate. It's beyond tragic that the world has become so polarized. Thank you, Karl Marx.

Check my block list because you're probably on it.

Re: Canadian professor predicts a "right-wing dictatorship" in the US by 2030

This professor has obviously done way too many drugs in his life.

The only poster who had his account banned 4 times without ever breaking any rules each of those times.
Top