Do You Think Bush is Truly A Dictator?

I can only speak for myself. I'm glad to have entertained you. But, I'm sorry you feel that my post was made in jest, because really, I wasn't being funny.

But that's okay. Think what you want. You're free to do so.

BTW, what about our posts made you laugh? And you're free to answer my second question in the post: if you like GWB so much, why do you follow him, good or bad?

I'm curious to know.



[edit on 22-3-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by seagull
It would require the aquiesence of not only Congress, but the military, not to mention the American people, who aren't the doorknobs that some seem to think they are. None of these are going to go along with any sort of attempted dictatorship.

This is the big, overlooked factor that the naysayers fail to take into account. The will and the strength of the American people... it will ultimately overcome the negative attitudes that are becoming more prevalent each day.

Excuse me, Becky, but you just turned what Seagull said on its head and changed the meaning to its exact opposite.

If the American people are going to prevent us from going into a dictatorship, they will be motivated to do so only by those "negative attitudes" you are referring to. It's when people take a "positive attitude" towards a would-be dictator that he is more likely to get away with it.

A party dictatorship? Only in that the dem's insistence that America's voters, those who bother anyway, want a liberal democrat in the White House as President. The last two elections seem to indicate otherwise. If they would run a more moderate or even, heaven forbid, a concervitive democrat I think they would find a pleasent surprise come the next morning. Not to mention what I think is going to happen in the midterm elections coming up, I think that control of at least one house of congress is going to revert back to the dem's. Haven't decided whether or not that's a good thing, or not.

The 'checks and balances' folk so like to relie on mean you have to go through 'proper channels' which are nothing more than long complex sewers; if you do survive being flushed down them without drowning, you're so covered in excrement, no one will let you near them let alone hear what you have to say.

"We've had an enquiry, through proper channels, and no case has been found", in it's many forms, is the, 'get out of "Traitors Gaol" free' invocation.

Originally posted by seagull
A party dictatorship? Only in that the dem's insistence that America's voters, those who bother anyway, want a liberal democrat in the White House as President.
:
I think that control of at least one house of congress is going to revert back to the dem's. Haven't decided whether or not that's a good thing, or not.

That's the problem with the Democrats. They still can't understand that the average American doesn't relate to the fringe element in either party. And they won't be fooled by Hillary, who is now trying to act like a moderate. People will remember her past words, such as:

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Clinton said, according to the Associated Press. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you.

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Tax increases

Emphasis added

Sounds like socialism to me.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
If the American people are going to prevent us from going into a dictatorship, they will be motivated to do so only by those "negative attitudes" you are referring to. It's when people take a "positive attitude" towards a would-be dictator that he is more likely to get away with it.

You assume that most people buy into the "would-be dictator" hype. I'm saying they don't. That is not equivalent to blindly following the party line, btw. That's seeing things for what they are, and are not.

The latest posts have asked really tough questions. And I just have to say this:

I think that this goes beyond the fact of Hillary Clinton and her attempt to be moderate. I tend to think that before the Democrats can find their soul, they have to work on trying to get solid leadership first.

Molly Ivans has some interesting things to say on this point:

Free Press


AUSTIN, Texas --- I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.

The recent death of Gene McCarthy reminded me of a lesson I spent a long, long time unlearning, so now I have to re-learn it. It's about political courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief.

Sen. Clinton cannot solely be the only choice. There has to be a "dark horse" in the race.

That is why dissent from "we, the people" is highly important to let the powers that be on both sides that the direction of America is heading down a tenuous track. Our voices need to be heard to balance the scales. No one truly wants a dictatorship except those who can benefit from them.

But then again....history has shown that even decent people can just let their leaders do disasterous things just to keep everything "status quo"





[edit on 22-3-2006 by ceci2006]

I think that this goes beyond the fact of Hillary Clinton and her attempt to be moderate. I tend to think that before the Democrats can find their soul, they have to work on trying to get solid leadership first.

Very true. They need solid leadership. So do the Repub's, but that's another story.

Who do you think fits the bill, ceci? Or, instead of giving a name, how about listing what characteristics and stances you would like to see in a leader? Then we can determine if s/he exists on today's menu of candidates.

Originally posted by jsobeckyYou assume that most people buy into the "would-be dictator" hype.

Not at all. I'm saying that once it becomes so obvious that a dictatorial takeover is in the works that the average person can see it, the American people will not support it.

If Bush does have dictatorial aspirations, it's that unwillingness of Americans to go along, or what you were calling "negative thinking," that will save us. If he doesn't, as you're asserting, then the question doesn't arise, and whether the people think positively or negatively of Bush doesn't matter w/r/t his potential dictatorship. Either way, your response was inappropriate.

I would also say that it isn't "hype" to call Bush a "would-be" dictator. It's only hype to say he's already one, or that he has a realistic chance of achieving his ambitions.

What I'm really worried about is not that Bush himself will become a dictator, but that he will succeed in changing our position in the world to one of constant wartime emergency, which will make it possible for a successor -- someone both more popular and more capable -- to become a dictator. I fear Bush is ripening us for a Caesar, should we have one in the wings.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by Two Steps Forward]

[edit on 23-3-2006 by Two Steps Forward]

Oh, and the person who said that dictators don't give a fig for the common people couldn't be more wrong. The greatest historical dictators -- Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler -- all took great steps to benefit the common people and so secure their political support. The thing that goes furtherst to make me think Bush himself is no dictatorial danger is that he's so right-wing. If America ends up under a dictator, that dictator will be a liberal. Will have to be, because only a liberal dictator will give enough economic benefit to ordinary Americans to make them accept the loss of their political liberties. A conservative dictatorship would spark a revolution. A liberal one might not.

We have potentially a situation comparable to the last days of the Roman Republic. Now as then, the machinery of our constitutional government is showing itself unable to govern well in a situation radically changed from the days of its founding. Too much wealth is flowing into the country and concentrating in too few hands, resulting in a concentration of political power among those of much privilege and little enlightenment. Jobs are being lost overseas, income gaps are widening, debt is spiraling out of control, public resentment and discontent are growing. A conservative aristocracy has taken over the governance of our nation and is misgoverning it badly out of greed.

Caesar was a liberal. He destroyed the Republic, but the Roman people adored him (all except the richest and most privileged, who murdered him). His benign autocracy governed well, after decades of aristocratic misrule. In the same way, my chief worry is that Bush has misruled us so badly that we may resort to desperate measures, like the support of a liberal, Caesar-like dictator, to put things right. And because no such dictator is immortal, that cure will be worse than the disease in the long run.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by Two Steps Forward]

Wow, Two Steps Forward, that is truly deep what you said. I would only disagree on one point. Bush does care about the people. If he didn't, why else wouldn't he use carefully constructed audiences to make it seem like the people love him? Why wouldn't he stand on a war ship (military folks, correct me) and say in front of soldiers, "Mission Accomplished?". I think it depends on what segment of the people he is trying to appeal to.

He may not be like Caesar, but he may be bordering on (Okay, I'm sorry to repeat the mantra yet again) Hitler-like concepts.No, he is not trying to practice ethnic cleansing inside the country. But yes, he is using fear, "superpatriotism", media propaganda and health to engage Americans as members of the "Perfect superpower". He is trying to act like a benign tyrant--just enough to let the people love him for his "folksy" personality while trying to gain all the power and money for a small group of people behind the curtain. Of course, it has not escaped you that people actually defend his actions--especially when it comes down to the more heinous things that he does. And Karl Rove, the man holding the puppet strings, seems to me like Goebbels--except the writing everything down in his diary. Rove has ruled the Republican party with an iron hand--even down to giving warnings to Republicans who dissent against his doctrine. Rove runs the propaganda and cultivates the image of the "benign leader".

So, Mr. Bush is just as dangerous as a "liberal" dictator. But wait, then again, didn't he use "compassionate conservative"? Did that seem a little left wing for a politician clearly in the Republican camp?

jsobecky, I am still thinking about your question. I will get back to you on it because I think it's truly relevant to piece together some characteristics for a Dem candidate.

But I will put out a teaser: someone who can fix health care, break down the deficit, and run the "War on Terrorism" more efficiently.

Right now, I don't know who might fit even that. But, I will give you a heads up later on.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
The greatest historical dictators -- Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler -- all took great steps to benefit the common people and so secure their political support.

Hitler preyed upon Germany's economic woes and tried to wipe out the Jews. This is an "enlightened man"?

If America ends up under a dictator, that dictator will be a liberal. Will have to be, because only a liberal dictator will give enough economic benefit to ordinary Americans to make them accept the loss of their political liberties. A conservative dictatorship would spark a revolution. A liberal one might not.

Like this benevolent, "enlightened" dictator?





I'm sorry, but I always get a laugh out of the "enlightened" label that liberals like to wear. Under close examination, their "enlightened" policies are no more than a re-hash of failed policies of the past.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
The greatest historical dictators -- Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler -- all took great steps to benefit the common people and so secure their political support.

Hitler preyed upon Germany's economic woes and tried to wipe out the Jews. This is an "enlightened man"?

Don't put words in my mouth, please. I stated above that Hitler "took great steps to benefit the common people and so secure their political support." That's the truth. And it's ALL I said. It is not incompatible with his trying to wipe out the Jews, or initiating the most terrible war in history, which is also true of him. And by itself, it does not make him "enlightened."

I'm sorry

You should be. That last post of yours was nothing but cheap shots, devoid of any content worthy of a response. You can do better.

I'll forgive you just this once, though.

Ceci2006:

Bush does use a fair amount of liberal rhetoric. But his actions usually run a course 180 degrees away from his words.

Please don't misunderstand what I was saying. I don't mean that a liberal is more likely to want or try to become a dictator than a conservative. Actually, I think liberals are less likely to want that. But those that do want to are more likely to succeed in the long run.

A dictatorship, to succeed even temporarily, must have the support of the military and of either the people as a whole, or the aristocratic elite. But a military-aristocratic (i.e., right-wing) dictatorship is unstable. It's imposed on the majority of the population purely by force. It creates seething resentment and radicalism. I can think of no historical example that has lasted beyond a single lifetime without being propped up by a foreign power.

A military-populist (i.e., left-wing) dictatorship, on the other hand, is one that enjoys popular support. It's disliked only by the aristocratic elite, whose privileges it restricts, and by a few principled people who have a problem with dictatorship regardless of its character. The problem is that for the average person, political liberty just isn't all that important; what's important is a decent lifestyle, being able to pay the bills, being able to raise a family, being able to have some fun. A tyrant that oppresses people to make the rich richer will be resented by the oppressed, but one that clamps down on the rich and enables a better lifestyle for the average person will be loved. So what if nobody has a meaningful vote any more? So what if free speech and a free press are curtailed? That's the way people are likely to think, if they're living better under the dictatorship than uner the democracy.

The underlying problem in our case, though, is that our democracy has ceased to be one. We don't have a dictatorship, but we do have a situation in which money rather than votes controls public policy. (And that's setting aside possible electronic voting machine fraud.) Democracy, if it's real, can enable a fairer sharing of a society's wealth without resorting to dictatorship. But at present, we don't have one, so that job's not being done, and resentment is growing. And that's what worries me.

As dictators go, Caesar was wonderful to live under. But I'd rather have real democracy back.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

Originally posted by jsobeckyYou assume that most people buy into the "would-be dictator" hype.

Not at all. I'm saying that once it becomes so obvious that a dictatorial takeover is in the works that the average person can see it, the American people will not support it.

If Bush does have dictatorial aspirations, it's that unwillingness of Americans to go along, or what you were calling "negative thinking," that will save us.

Wrong. The average American is not a negative thinker. The average American filters out those whiney, plaintive wails as insignificant noise. The average American will not allow a dictatorship to flourish in spite of the negative thinkers.

If he doesn't, as you're asserting, then the question doesn't arise, and whether the people think positively or negatively of Bush doesn't matter w/r/t his potential dictatorship. Either way, your response was inappropriate.

No, there was nothing wrong with my response.

I would also say that it isn't "hype" to call Bush a "would-be" dictator. It's only hype to say he's already one, or that he has a realistic chance of achieving his ambitions.

It sure is hype. You can't say that he has no chance of being a dictator, and then try to defend the hype of calling him a would-be dictator. You're taking three steps back.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
The greatest historical dictators -- Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler -- all took great steps to benefit the common people and so secure their political support.

Hitler preyed upon Germany's economic woes and tried to wipe out the Jews. This is an "enlightened man"?

Don't put words in my mouth, please. I stated above that Hitler "took great steps to benefit the common people and so secure their political support."

Why would a dictator need the political support of the common folk?

It is not incompatible with his trying to wipe out the Jews, or initiating the most terrible war in history, which is also true of him. And by itself, it does not make him "enlightened."

Yes but you called him one of the "greatest historical dictators". Greatest in what way? The amount of misery he visited on mankind?

I'm sorry

You should be. That last post of yours was nothing but cheap shots, devoid of any content worthy of a response. You can do better.

No cheap shots here. You need to learn to debate without taking things so personally. And it would be good if you'd tone down your anger.

Technically we are probably in the early stages of an oligarchy, but we are only one disaster away from martial law. That $385 mil the govt gave to KBR to expand the so-called immigrant detention camps looms on the horizon. You can check out one of those centers a www.lonelantern.org
Look for the video of the Beach Grove Indiana facility.

Becky:

That's much better.

Genuine arguments, and no inflammatory pictures. I knew you had it in you.

The average American will not allow a dictatorship to flourish in spite of the negative thinkers.

What Seagull was saying, though, was that, IF Bush in fact DOES want to become a dictator, then the American people will not allow that, so that we are really in no danger.

But it's the "negative thinkers," i.e. those who suspect Bush of dictatorial ambitions, who will be in the forefront of any resistance, should they be right.

You spoke as if you were agreeing with Seagull, but in fact you were stating the precise opposite.

You can't say that he has no chance of being a dictator, and then try to defend the hype of calling him a would-be dictator.

A "would-be" dictator is simply someone who WANTS to be one, whether he can become one or not. It's a judgment on Bush's character, no more, and one that is easy to draw based on his own words and actions. Really, not hype at all.

To say that he IS a dictator, though, or that the military would support him in becoming one, is IMO a much greater stretch. And I realize that some people do say such things, and THAT is hype.

Why would a dictator need the political support of the common folk?

Because without it, he's likely to be overthrown. To paraphrase Jefferson, governments derive their powers, just or unjust, from the consent of the governed. Even when there is no voting allowed, or no meaningful voting, popular opinion still matters.

Yes but you called him [Hitler] one of the "greatest historical dictators". Greatest in what way? The amount of misery he visited on mankind?

That's one measure of greatness. "Great" does not necessarily equal "good."

I was thinking in terms of his political skill, and his successes before the spectacular failure of World War II. How he managed to achieve dictatorial power through manipulating the Weimar constitution, then turned the German economy around from utter ruin to prosperity, re-armed the country in spite of the Versailles treaty, and pulled off a series of diplomatic coups that created a German nation larger and stronger than the one that had existed prior to the defeat in the earlier war.

These are significant achievements and show that Hitler should be called a great leader. In no way was I suggesting that he was a GOOD leader, or a good man. The greatest mass murderer in history does not deserve that label, obviously, no matter what other achievements he had.

The point I was making, though, was that he, as well as other great tyrants, DID take action to benefit the common people. Hitler was a very popular tyrant because of these actions, up until the war began to go south.

You need to learn to debate without taking things so personally. And it would be good if you'd tone down your anger.

You need to learn the difference between anger and scorn. Admittedly, not always easy to tell when the words are expressed only in print.

Two Steps Forward,

Re-reading jsobecky's and your comments started me thinking about reframing the argument of a "dictatorship". I can tell through your writing that both of you are very passionate about your positions. And I think that the arguments you both give show the dichotomy questioning if Mr. Bush is overstepping his bounds and how the American people react to such a move.

Originally quoted by Two Steps Forward
Please don't misunderstand what I was saying. I don't mean that a liberal is more likely to want or try to become a dictator than a conservative. Actually, I think liberals are less likely to want that. But those that do want to are more likely to succeed in the long run.

I didn't misunderstand you. I know that liberals--in the traditional sense--are rather laissez faire in their approach to government. However, it brings to mind the policies of Fidel Castro. Would you think that Castro's policies are "liberal"? By definition, he is a "dictator". There are state run schools and hospitals. Everyone has a job. However, the embargos against Cuba have caused tremendous poverty. He has even allowed religion to be practiced despite the "communist" (or derivative of) policy. Do you think that Castro is a person that falls under your criteria for a "dictator"?

With that being said, I do agree with you that Mr. Bush tries to say things that are "liberal" even though it mirrors "doublespeak". It again brings up my point that the POTUS is "populist" in his public facade, yet works for corporate greed in his private face. His support of the military is especially indicative of this. I can't presume to know what he thinks, but the "military" is always being equated with "patriotism" even though at home, he cuts the funding right off the legs of the Veteran Administration. And strangely, the defense and oil industries seem to benefit from Mr. Bush's two-faced policies.

Does that make him a dictator? I still say no. But do I think that his leadership is troubling? Yes.

Tell me, how can a man in such a powerful position still have people in the country defend him and still endeavor to cut off their rights in the Patriot Act? How can people actually embrace the POTUS and forget that their fellow countrymen are being spied upon? And then again, I still inquire how can Mr. Bush get away with a segment of the population that is willing to say that all of his work is "benevolent" when he slowly encroaches upon violating the Executive powers laid out in the Constitution?

Who is that type of leader? A leader who has his cake and eats it too.

At the same time, he is using the "superpatriot" card and lining his and his cohorts' pockets with money. I didn't say he was a "liberal" dicator at all. No way. I said that he uses "liberal" witticisms in order to lull the American populace to sleep while he grabs all he can at the pedistal of power.

But I believe jsobecky's comments when he says that the American people do notice. And that is causing the resistance and instability that you are talking about. I also believe that democracy during this time is troubling, because of the slow dismantling of the freedoms we as a country hold dear. Do the American people see this breakdown of freedom on the surface? Of course not, because they believe Mr. Bush is doing the right thing in the name of safety. But, when other elements of the population begin to dissent and try to prove these troubling instances by alternative facts and notions, then unrest begins. And instead of being the "uniter" that Mr. Bush aspires to be, he becomes a "divider" instead.

The dispute featuring whether the American people would respond to a dictator, depends on this: how much are people willing to take in the name of safety? If the "enlightened" tyrant puts up a facade of safety, good times and quality living, then it is easier for citizens to adopt his policies. Don't you think that this is being done under the guise of democracy? I think that with the media, a segment of the population is being fooled that we are living in good times and that what Bush is doing is right. Even when information shows the contrary, they still continue to put the blinders on--as long as they believe that Mr. Bush is the "father figure" protecting the country.

Okay. Maybe he's not a dictator. But, would a "benevolent" despot do?



[edit on 25-3-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally quoted by jsobecky
Who do you think fits the bill, ceci? Or, instead of giving a name, how about listing what characteristics and stances you would like to see in a leader? Then we can determine if s/he exists on today's menu of candidates.

jsobecky, I am still thinking about your question. But, I will do my best to lay out a few characteristics that might point the way toward a candidate.

First off, I agree with polanski and others when there is an ogliarchy at work. But, I tend to think that this phenomenon is happening in both the Democrats and the Republicans. Since, I am solely focusing on the Democrats, I really want a shake-up in the leadership enabling a leader that actually listens to his/her constituents and works with that to form policy. We need politicians besides those with the inability to act on the people's will in Congress. I do not know whether there is a strong enough voice that will pull the party together and encourage them to start revisiting the tried and true tenets of the platform.

In a leader, I would really like integrity. No one in real life is that saintly, but it would be nice if someone would speak what's on their mind to the American people instead of engaging in "doublespeak" all the time. This candidate does not have to be a MENSA member, but possesses a wide breadth of knowledge and common sense when applying policy. For someone to be the POTUS, they would have to be practical. They would have to possess skills of diplomacy and tact when dealing with international leaders and making speeches on foreign policy. A candidate of this type would also have the "common touch" when dealing with his or her citizenry. He or she must be human enough to relate to a majority of Americans and at least empathize with them when chaotic incidents occur (not a few fly-throughs and back to Camp David). Spend time building back the domestic infrastructure. And it may be risky, but to shed their corporate interests so that they solely focus on the needs of the country and not themselves.

Okay. I'm off my soapbox. Here's a short list:

Rehabilitation of the health care system that makes it fair and equitable for everyone in the country, regardless of class.

Immigration policy that is fair. We should not deny immigration. However, for people who have filled out the paperwork, attended the citizenship classes and did what they needed to do, get to be nationalized. A wall should not be built on the border. However, more funding needs to be put into the law enforcement policing the borders in the name of national safety and catching those who transgress on both sides of the border illegally. Yet, it should be exacted by a "case by case" basis.

Taking care of the national debt. It probably won't be solved in the short term, but we need someone that can fiscally take care of the budget so that much needed programs won't be cut.

The educational infrastructure needs to be rebuilt from pre-school to post-graduate school.

Veterans need to be taken care of. If more funding was put into VA, half the homeless problem would be taken care of.

Work on ways to revitalize the job market within America so outsourcing won't be needed.

Build a sensible plan that helps alleviate the "War on Terror".

Government reform so that abuses will not be swept under the rug.

Whew! That's enough for now. Is there a candidate supporting these issues? I don't know. But if I think of any more, I will post it. Until then, I will keep on thinking on this matter. And next time, I'll try not to be so long-winded.






[edit on 25-3-2006 by ceci2006]