The Authoritarian Playbook (2022)

https://protectdemocracy.org/work/the-authoritarian-playbook/

by rzk • 2 years ago

55 36 2 years ago

201984• 2 years ago

(2022)

roenxi• 2 years ago

Ironically, I suspect the biggest threat to democracy would be a staunch refusal to admit that your political opponents are human beings and do, on a fair number of issues, have good points. Democracy is impossible if two groups of people start convincing themselves it is a fight to the death where the fate of the country is actually on the line.

I take heart in the US case that nearly 10 years into the Trump era the Democrats are being beaten back from "Nazi" to "Weird". My hope is that in another 5 years they'll retreat to "well we just don't agree with some of this".

candiddevmike3• 2 years ago

Democracy is impossible if two groups of people start convincing themselves it is a fight to the death where the fate of the country is actually on the line.

From my perspective, only one group wants to marginalize groups of people and roll back decades of social progress. For the people being unjustly targeted, it is becoming a fight to the death for them if they want to maintain their dignity, autonomy, and quality of life.

Not to mention the whole electing a dictator thing. Kinda weird.

Eddy_Viscosity2• 2 years ago

Unironically, the republicans aren't shy of calling liberal opponents 'nazi' either. Do conservatives have any responsibility to also tone down their rhetoric?

There was a time when the two parties had a very different dynamic and could, at times, work together when a given policy was in line with both. I think this degraded and then the tea-party conservatives broke it for good, opting for a much more confrontational style where democrats ceased being people with a different opinion and started being 'the enemy' with whom no compromise would be entertained. This trend continued, even strengthened into MAGA trumpism. Biden's bipartisan immigration bill for example, which had many components which conservatives wanted, was rejected because Trump thought it would be seen as 'a win' for 'the other side'. I can't think of an example where a bipartisan bill was rejected by the democrats for similar reasoning.

lasc4r• 2 years ago

Republicans have been calling their "enemies" communists for years, the actual politicians that the people elected. Democrat politicians don't generally behave like that, but if there ever were a time this would be it.

Yiin• 2 years ago

I see your point and I do agree completely.

From what I've witnessed many people see democrats being "rotten to their core" which makes the discussion not about values or policies, but fundamental stance on how to govern a country. Who cares about good points of democrats if those points are perceived to push a hidden agenda, while whatever you don't agree with is them "pushing agenda in plain view!".

kerkeslager4• 2 years ago

Ironically, I suspect the biggest threat to democracy would be a staunch refusal to admit that your political opponents are human beings and do, on a fair number of issues, have good points. Democracy is impossible if two groups of people start convincing themselves it is a fight to the death where the fate of the country is actually on the line.

The Republicans are human being who do, on a fair number of issues, have good points.

The problem is they also literally are saying:

"Christians, get out and vote! Just this time – you won’t have to do it any more!"[1]

"Get out – you gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not gonna have to vote."[1]

And they aren't afraid to put physical violence behind those words. They literally broke into the capital building.

So, the fate of the country is actually on the line.

Meanwhile, you don't seem to take any issue with Republicans saying their opponents are socialists, nazis, and communists, somehow all at once, because we want to do something as benign as provide healthcare for poor people. Is it only okay to say the fate of the country is at stake when Republicans do it?

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/27/trum...

EDIT: I'd be interested in hearing where downvoters think I'm wrong.

marcuskane22• 2 years ago

You've highlighted a couple snippets of a quote, which taken out of context and interpreted through a cynical and paranoid lens, could be taken to mean "There won't be voting anymore after I'm elected".

Of course, everyone understands this wasn't the intended meaning, so nobody really cares.

Trump is legitimately pretty terrible and says and does all sorts of bad things, so focusing on these type of "gotcha" intentional misinterpretations seems unnecessary. You might have a more compelling argument if you picked any of the many things he's said where the actual intended meaning was horrible.

MSFT_Edging• 2 years ago

I take heart in the US case that nearly 10 years into the Trump era the Democrats are being beaten back from "Nazi" to "Weird". My hope is that in another 5 years they'll retreat to "well we just don't agree with some of this".

This seriously minimizes the issue of the dichotomy to the point of bad faith.

stonethrowaway• 2 years ago

Reading this with sincerity is near impossible. I sympathize with the people who complain that it takes a disproportionate amount of energy to refute nonsense. This page is full of just-so things we are supposed to take at face value and I can’t take it seriously. It’s written in a tragic comedy sort of way lacking self reflection of the situation.

I’m done pretending to play along with these narratives. This is just another propaganda piece.

kerkeslager4• 2 years ago

Reading this with sincerity is near impossible. I sympathize with the people who complain that it takes a disproportionate amount of energy to refute nonsense. This post is full of just-so things we are supposed to take at face value and I can’t take it seriously. It’s written in a tragic comedy sort of way lacking self reflection of the situation.

I’m done pretending to play along with these narratives. This is just another propaganda post.

squigz7• 2 years ago

I'd be curious to hear why this is being downvoted/flagged. In the meantime, vouched.

Edit: Bit interesting that even this comment is being downvoted, with few replies.

ozr2• 2 years ago

Because it's Trump hysteria. It's nonsense.

squigz7• 2 years ago

Would you care to elaborate a bit? It looks like you have to get quite a bit into the article before Trump is mentioned, and the article is clearly not just talking about America.

ecocentrik• 2 years ago

As far as I can see the biggest authoritarian conflict at play in the Americas right now is in Venezuela, not the US. Trump might model much of his behavior on Venezuelan dictators but he's currently out of power and unlikely to be elected this year. I'm more worried about 2028 when someone like DeSantis, who's policies and tendencies are already significantly more authoritarian, could be leading the Republican ticket.

There is value in educating Americans on the benefits of Democracy and the cost of giving it up regardless of who the wannabe dictator is.

lolinder5• 2 years ago

Because I get enough end-of-democracy content from just about everywhere else these days and I come here for something different. It's exhausting to have to read titles like this and filter it myself, and "flag" better communicates that I think this is not just something I'm uninterested in but also something I feel violates the guidelines and shouldn't have been posted in the first place.

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity.

I see no evidence that discussion on this article will evolve to be better than discussion on most political submissions, so I see no reason for it to remain on the front page.

squigz7• 2 years ago

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.

Most.

> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity.

Personally, I don't really consider an article talking about threats to democratic societies as a political or ideological battle. I suppose I can see why some people would though.

I see no evidence that discussion on this article will evolve to be better than discussion on most political submissions, so I see no reason for it to remain on the front page.

Several comments on this thread, and many discussions on many political posts in the past, seem to indicate that political discussions on this site are constructive.

It's exhausting to have to read titles like this and filter it myself

As an aside, isn't it more exhausting to go and flag it then? (Leaving alone that reading an article title is, you know, not very difficult)

candiddevmike3• 2 years ago

There are quite a few accounts on HN that flag comments and articles that could be considered critical of Trump. They abuse the guidelines like "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle." as a censorship tool.

lolinder5• 2 years ago

I'll happily flag articles that are critical of Harris and Biden too, but they seem to get flagged to death long before I get to them.

Based on what I've seen, I suspect it's more accurate to say that there are a few accounts that are consistent in flagging all political content, while a majority will only flag if they disagree with it. If you notice Trump-critical articles getting flagged more often that probably says more about your politics than the state of HN.

AnimalMuppet• 2 years ago

How do you vouch for a submission that is flagged but not dead? I can't see a way to do it.

squigz7• 2 years ago

I think you can only vouch a dead post/comment? I'm not entirely sure though.

xtiansimon• 2 years ago

Technically the website works well on my smaller iPhone screen. No glitches.

Content is well organized. High level outline, lists authors who influence their work.

Sidebar for Journalists reveals the community this is written for.

Since it is written in 2022, I wonder if the publisher still believes the work is accurate.

tharmas2• 2 years ago

Isn't the real sad truth that there is very little difference between the Democrats and the Republicans when it comes to economic policy?

Sure theres differences on social policy eg Gender rights, abortion etc.

Both Parties are captured by the Donor class.

HDThoreaun• 2 years ago

The parties follow what the voters support. If you want unpopular economic policy to have a party we need third parties to be relevant. There’s an economically progressive group in the house but they don’t have much support and in fact some of their members are defecting as they realize the stance isn’t politically relevant.

tharmas2• 2 years ago

Change ur first sentence from voters to Donors and i would agree with u.

Govt funded medical care? That doesn't have public support?

The Authoritarian Playbook (2022)

Related Stories