[News] Post a Political News Story

Ongoing discussion of the political news of the day. This thread is for 'smaller' stories that don't call for their own thread. If a story blows up, please start a new thread for it.

strangederby wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:
strangederby wrote:

1. When did we try [benevolent dictatorship]?

Which ‘we’ are you referring to at this point? I’m not the one putting forth an absolute - “dictatorship does not and cannot be a workable system of government “. That tends to go along with “democracy is the best system of government”.

Democracy has been around for roughly 2500 years. Homo sapiens have been around for roughly 300k years. The unblinking assertion that democracy is _the best_ system of government is straight up political exceptionalism.

All the arguments that seem to work for benevolent dictatorship seem to always compare it against a poorly educated and divisive democracy. Assuming that a dictator can be benevolent, why can't we assume also that a democracy CAN be educated and reasonably committed to the good of society?

Reality.

Or, why would we assume that a democracy can be educated and reasonably committed to the good of society? What in recorded history suggests that that is an appropriate assumption to make?

Besides, assuming that a dictator can be benevolent is a lot easier; we know that a person can be good (for whatever definition of good you want to use). I don’t think it’s near as clear cut for a large group of people.

Wait, the suggestion of turning over the keys to a "benevolent" dictator is actually serious? Really?

dejanzie wrote:

Wait, the suggestion of turning over the keys to a "benevolent" dictator is actually serious? Really?

Not necessarily, though I don’t see why not, seeing as we are entertaining - if not actively encouraging - malevolent dictators with a veneer of democracy.

I'd take a hypothetical benevolent dictator over the possibility of Trump or one of his followers being president again, so long as there's a way to ensure they're actually benevolent. I'll take what we have now over a questionably benevolent dictator, and an educated democracy over all of it. I'd also like a million dollars and a pony. 100% serious.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
dejanzie wrote:

Wait, the suggestion of turning over the keys to a "benevolent" dictator is actually serious? Really?

Not necessarily, though I don’t see why not, seeing as we are entertaining - if not actively encouraging - malevolent dictators with a veneer of democracy.

This. We coukd turn the question around. What is it about the current slide into madness that makes you think a benevolent dictator wouldn't be better?

Stengah wrote:

so long as there's a way to ensure they're actually benevolent.

What do you suggest? A system of checks and balances? A term limit in case we're wrong?

Oh, wait.

The problem I have with most folks who posit the hypothetical of a "benevolent dictator" is that it fundamentally misunderstands how power and governance works.

All dictators are "benevolent" to the constituencies they represent. Those constituencies can be as small as a single clan or party or as large as a sizeable coalition of them. All of that said, there is no ruling the country without some significant degree of cooperation from the constituency that implements the management and enforcement of policy or the collection of revenues.

Dictatorships have the advantage of having fewer constituents and infrequent (or non existent) referenda on their performance. They don't generally care about "the people" because they are generally easily cowed by coercive methods and there are no elections to worry about so no great pressure to affect changes quickly. They maintain power and affect policy by through patronage with their power bases. They, in turn, push the combination of benefits and punishments downward. In these sorts of arrangements, there is more often great disincentives for change as the constituent power groups generally favor stability over, well, revolution.

An excellent primer on this can be found in Bruce Bueno De Mesquita and Alastair Smith's book The Dictator's Handbook.

Trump was actually a wonderful benevolent (wanna be) dictator to his constituency. That’s why they adore him.

Y'all are f*cking insane if you think benevolent dictators exist.

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" is a saying for a reason.

It’s okay to still be pro democracy. The founding fathers were right that Democracy needs guardrails. I disagree with their limits (white male landowners) but not the concept.

Any institution needs guardrails. I’m not honestly sorting the States needs a benevolent dictator, but y’all need to enact enough change that the foxes aren’t guarding the henhouse. There is very little in the current system other than (possibly) scope that differs substantially from a dictatorship.

Lee Kuan Yew is probably the closest thing to a benevolent dictator we've had in recent times, and even there I think the number of asterisks that would need to be put on that statement plus the lack of other examples says a lot.

Yep. Our founding document which was supposed to be living and changing has become ossified over the last century. We should’ve changed the first and second amendment decades ago, and we should’ve rooted out confederates with violence: not appeasement. With the exception of the end of chattel slavery, nothing has happened like the founders hoped.

And it took a f*cking war to do that.

This video answers a lot of the recent questions.

Yep, the very best Roman emperors (of which there are many to choose from) were extremely sh*tty to large groups of people.

"Seth"And it took a f*cking [i wrote:

war[/i] to do that.

A war and two Constitutional amendments (and about 100 years).

hbi2k wrote:
Stengah wrote:

so long as there's a way to ensure they're actually benevolent.

What do you suggest? A system of checks and balances? A term limit in case we're wrong?

Oh, wait.

Well, those aren't doing squat for ensuring benevolence in our current leaders, So I'm not sure they'd help in making sure the dictator is actually benevolent or just "benevolent". But that is the main problem, you can't find someone who would truly be benevolent to everyone they ruled. That's why they're only hypothetical.

Echoing some points made above.

Trump *was* a benevolent dicatator to sections of the USA. He hurt the people they wanted to hurt and he handed out largesse where it would benefit him most.

When you ask for benevolent dictator you are really asking for: benevolent to *me* and that probably means the opposite for a decent chunk of the country. I can see no way for that to be effectively implemented.

I don’t agree with the comments about Trump being benevolent. That requires him to actually consider other individuals when he acts. His actions and choices are done for one thing only, himself. If you happen to be impacted by a choice he makes, and can take advantage of a decision he made, then you might benefit from that choice. But that’s not benevolence. That’s disgusting opportunism or dumb luck, depending on where you are in the food chain.

Trump cares about no one other than himself. Full stop.

JC wrote:

I don’t agree with the comments about Trump being benevolent. That requires him to actually consider other individuals when he acts. His actions and choices are done for one thing only, himself. If you happen to be impacted by a choice he makes, and can take advantage of a decision he made, then you might benefit from that choice. But that’s not benevolence. That’s disgusting opportunism.

Agreed. Timothy Snyder coined the phrase "sado-populism" to describe it. You harm your followers, but blame that harm on others convincingly enough for your followers to support you even more.

Stengah wrote:
hbi2k wrote:
Stengah wrote:

so long as there's a way to ensure they're actually benevolent.

What do you suggest? A system of checks and balances? A term limit in case we're wrong?

Oh, wait.

Well, those aren't doing squat for ensuring benevolence in our current leaders,

No, but they limit the damage a monster can do.

Who decides what counts as benevolent? Everyone?
Most? 50%+1?

Bruce wrote:

When you ask for benevolent dictator you are really asking for: benevolent to *me* and that probably means the opposite for a decent chunk of the country. I can see no way for that to be effectively implemented.

Bruce wrote:

Who decides what counts as benevolent? Everyone?
Most? 50%+1?

The 1%.

Benevolence for me but not for thee!

Fulton County fires two workers who allegedly shredded voter registration applications

Georgia Public Broadcasting wrote:

Two election workers in Fulton County have been fired for allegedly shredding 300 paper voter registration applications instead of processing them.

Fulton County elections director Rick Barron said Monday that other employees reported the alleged violation and the two were quickly terminated on Friday following an investigation.

"We believe that these two employees may have checked out batches of applications for processing," he said. "Instead of fully processing them, in some instances, the employees allegedly shredded some of the forms."

Barron said he notified the Secretary of State's office and requested an investigation, and Fulton County Commission Chairman Robb Pitts also contacted the Fulton County District Attorney's office for further review.

State election law requires all election documents related to a primary or general election to be maintained for 24 months after the election.

Because the applications have been shredded, it is not possible to know how many of them were valid voters creating or updating their registration, how many were duplicates or would have ultimately been illegible or invalid.

The paper voter registration form includes information like name, address, driver's license, state identification or Social Security number and other personal information. That information is verified before a new voter precinct card is delivered in the mail and information is updated on the state's My Voter Page.

Most new or updated voter registrations are processed through the state's online voter registration portal or through interactions with the Department of Driver Services, thanks to Georgia's automatic voter registration law. According to federal election data, Georgia actually has one of the highest voter registration rates in the country, with more than 95% of its eligible voting age population on the rolls.

There is also no evidence that the shredding was done to target voters of one political party or another. There is no space on the registration form for voter political party preference, and Georgia does not have closed primaries where partisan intent must be declared.

It is not clear why the two employees shredded the paper applications, and the Fulton elections office cited the ongoing investigation when asked for more comment.

The news comes as the beleaguered Fulton County elections office is under constant scrutiny and attack for missteps real and imaginary over the last few years.

Republicans in the state legislature have used a new state law to initiate a new performance review of Fulton's appointed bipartisan elections board — separate from the elections office staff where this and other issues have occurred — under the guise of addressing Fulton's election woes. But many public statements these lawmakers have made about the process show a misunderstanding of what will be examined and potential outcomes.

And so it begins.

Fulton County is home to 10% of the Georgia's voters, an overwhelming proportion of Democrats, and a sizable chunk of the state's Black voting population.

Georgia's legislature passed a radical "reform" of it's election law over the summer. It created a new chair of the State Election Board, one that's supposed to be nonpartisan, but, in reality, is appointed by the Republican-held state legislature. The State Election Board also got new powers to suspend county election officials for poor performance or violations of state election regulations as well as the power to temporarily replace county officials with people of their own choosing. Georgia's election board currently has three Republicans and a single Democrat serving.

It's virtually guaranteed that this incident is going to be "investigated" and then used as an excuse to replace Fulton County election officials with Republican lackeys before the 2022 election.

hbi2k wrote:
Stengah wrote:
hbi2k wrote:
Stengah wrote:

so long as there's a way to ensure they're actually benevolent.

What do you suggest? A system of checks and balances? A term limit in case we're wrong?

Oh, wait.

Well, those aren't doing squat for ensuring benevolence in our current leaders,

No, but they limit the damage a monster can do.

I took hbi’s first comment as sarcastic. I think you’d be hard-pressed to say that checks and balances are working as intended. The term limit is looking more and more tenuous. Any system is only as robust as the enforcement of that system.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
hbi2k wrote:
Stengah wrote:
hbi2k wrote:
Stengah wrote:

so long as there's a way to ensure they're actually benevolent.

What do you suggest? A system of checks and balances? A term limit in case we're wrong?

Oh, wait.

Well, those aren't doing squat for ensuring benevolence in our current leaders,

No, but they limit the damage a monster can do.

I took hbi’s first comment as sarcastic. I think you’d be hard-pressed to say that checks and balances are working as intended. The term limit is looking more and more tenuous. Any system is only as robust as the enforcement of that system.

I agree.

I disagree that the solution to that problem is to throw those safeguards out and put "our" strongman in charge.

When the safety measures start to fail, you strengthen them, not weaken them.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
hbi2k wrote:
Stengah wrote:
hbi2k wrote:
Stengah wrote:

so long as there's a way to ensure they're actually benevolent.

What do you suggest? A system of checks and balances? A term limit in case we're wrong?

Oh, wait.

Well, those aren't doing squat for ensuring benevolence in our current leaders,

No, but they limit the damage a monster can do.

I took hbi’s first comment as sarcastic. I think you’d be hard-pressed to say that checks and balances are working as intended. The term limit is looking more and more tenuous. Any system is only as robust as the enforcement of that system.

Term limits don't seem to matter when a political party has changed the rules on the back-end to ensure that they get to choose the winner, or the winner is destined to be from their party? Seems like they might already be moot.

hbi2k wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:
hbi2k wrote:
Stengah wrote:
hbi2k wrote:
Stengah wrote:

so long as there's a way to ensure they're actually benevolent.

What do you suggest? A system of checks and balances? A term limit in case we're wrong?

Oh, wait.

Well, those aren't doing squat for ensuring benevolence in our current leaders,

No, but they limit the damage a monster can do.

I took hbi’s first comment as sarcastic. I think you’d be hard-pressed to say that checks and balances are working as intended. The term limit is looking more and more tenuous. Any system is only as robust as the enforcement of that system.

I agree.

I disagree that the solution to that problem is to throw those safeguards out and put "our" strongman in charge.

When the safety measures start to fail, you strengthen them, not weaken them.

Thinking I only want to put "our" strongman in charge is drastically underestimating how serious I was about the bit you quoted. Actual and unambiguous benevolence or bust.

hbi2k wrote:

I agree.

I disagree that the solution to that problem is to throw those safeguards out and put "our" strongman in charge.

When the safety measures start to fail, you strengthen them, not weaken them.

Fully agree.