That’s not the proof of quality you seem to think it is.
Let’s be like the Romans! Yeah, like, totally rad, with an empire, and senators, and bread and circuses, and slaves and stuff! Whoo hoo!
Would you be open to extend this anti-endorsement to all flavours of fascism? Or are you insinuating there are possibly some rare variants of acceptable fascism, like there are, as you posit, nice dictators and good autocrats?
And don’t tell me about Nazis; I’ve met my share of the original two batches.
Yeah, no. History has made it clear that you can’t really have a good dictator. First, even if someone were generally benevolent, they still have bad days, and with absolute power those turn into deaths…like how Theodosius apparently once had a town massacred with a frustrated remark, or the famous “will no one rid me of this turbulent priest”. A good system of government needs checks and balances to avoid casualties.
And that’s before you get to the question of how, exactly, they keep their position as autocrat in the first place. That doesn’t happen without stomping on people, especially now that there’s democracy to aspire to instead.
The original Roman dictators were a temporary and constitutional position, so weren’t such a bad thing for the Roman Republic. I hope nobody thinks the Roman Republic had a standard of respecting human rights that we should aspire to. It didn’t.
It was the opening racist speech about Mexicans that did it for his supporters, not his vague whinging about “corruption”… but they knew what he meant about corruption, and it wasn’t the kind of corruption that was/is rampant in the Trump organization - it was the kind that the “globalist” are committing (you know, by corporate regulation and such like).
Who happens to be Jewish and have an actual track record of embracing Democratic means of serving the people.
But sure… otherwise, they were just alike! TWINSIES, in fact!!! /s
Only if one’s take on such things is very shallow and superficial. Sanders discussed substantive issues of corruption. Von Clownstick just spouted catchphrases fed to him by Bannon and his bigoted conspiracist ilk while anyone with sense knew that this lifelong avatar of corruption was (and is) just trying to put his own fascist kleptocracy in place.
Populist rhetoric has to be handled carefully. When (as is usually the case) it isn’t, you get BernieBros voting for Biff or crunchy wellness types going fascist or (going back further in history) Beefsteak Nazis.
And even then, Trump ran on very deeply racist themes… It was obvious from the start who and what he was, and it’s getting a little tedious to have to keep explaining that shit to some.
Even more than that, 45 oozed corruption from every pore long before he ever entered public office; it’s literally how he ran all his businesses and it’s why he’s finally on trial now.
To say that Bernie’s message and 45’s were anything anywhere near “similar” is not only to insult Bernie, but it’s to deny the reality of what actually makes 45 popular with some folks - unchecked racism, sexism, jingoism, and authoritarianism.
Some people have been so dedicated to not admitting what’s behind the far right, I think they would go to the extermination camps still crying about how the left should have been more understanding to them.
Bernie’s concept of “corruption” is “when people use their positions of power to illegally or unethically benefit themselves at the expense of the greater society.”
Trump’s concept of “corruption” is “when people try to prevent me from doing whatever I want without facing any kind of accountability for my actions.”
I mean, this has got to be the strangest thing I have read all year. First off, can you name a single benevolent dictator? I think being bad is a defining characteristic.
What we call a dictator, or authoritarian, existed long before the Romans. That they invented the word is a technicality.
However much one may agree with Bernie Sanders’ politics, I doubt there are any who would support violence against those who are enemies of his agenda. It’s not likely those enemies would go quietly into the night. You either need agreed upon systems/rules by which policy is made and implemented, where everyone agrees to accept decisions, even if they disagree (i.e. democracy), or you have an authoritarian government that is eventually going to have to suppress/oppress somebody that disagrees with them.
It’s easy to just say “well, I wish we had a benevolent dictator” because you don’t want to do the hard work of living alongside people who disagree with you.
It’s like saying “just because almost all Olympians have been physically fit and good at sports doesn’t mean those things are defining characteristics.” Of course they are; if you don’t meet the criteria you’re not going to get the job in the first place.
That’s as Useful as saying that Gamergate was “about ethics in games journalism” or that the resurgence of fascism in the West is mainly due to “economic anxiety” or that we’ll “get peace for our time” by appeasing dictators.
Literally no. That’s part of what makes a dictator a dictator.
Putting aside that bin laden was not really a dictator anyway, you actually just don’t see dictatorships much without purging of undesirables and extreme methods of coersion. That’s why dictatorships aren’t great for anyone who might find themselves getting purged, and while ultimately that could be anyone, the honor typically goes to whomever the society finds easiest to hate. Domination, control, oppression… And when no one is safe to question the leader that is when the dictatoship is strongest even if it ultimately destroys the society like we see in Russia.
I think maybe there is not so much a swamp to drain but a harsh ecosystem to compete in. The swamp drainers are all liars. There is no simple answer and just purging the “bad people” won’t be enough to do anything but consolidate authoritarian power.
that are bad!!!
