The Path to American Authoritarianism
21 comments
·February 13, 2025EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK
bananapub
this has already happened, we're already in the post-coup world, most people just haven't caught up yet.
much of the media is already de-facto captured - look at the headlines on a major news website today and compare it to what has actually happened. they don't need to be bought or sued into the ground like happened in other countries - the US media has just bowed down without force.
roenxi
> Even in countries such as the United States that have relatively small, laissez-faire governments...
What US is this article talking about??? The US government makes up about half the US economy by GDP [0]. It is the largest government in the history of history. Arguably maybe 2nd to China in recent years.
I quite like this article - it has two obvious implications. (1) Reduce the size and scope of government and (2) Maybe the US Democrats should experiment with nominating better candidates and policies. I'm not sure the situation is dire enough to justify either of those things, the Republicans have been in similar straits in the past and just kept on keeping on.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_Uni...
fatuna
Some quick googling tells me the US gov spends between 35 and 40% of the US GDP. Also, the article says 'relatively'. Compared to other nations, especially other developed nations, the US government can definitely be called 'relatively small'.
roenxi
That is the spending, then there'll be a bump up beyond the official figures because of regulation (ie, control of companies that would turn up in categories other than direct government spending). That gets it to most of the economy in my mind.
And things like all the private businesses servicing government workers. Eg, in Washington - sure there'd be a lot there that isn't officially government spending but the ostensibly private infrastructure investment and consumption but really it is all supporting the operation of government.
Once the official stats say the government has reached 40% of the economy, the practical influence is going to be a bit larger again. I'm still happy to say >50%.
> Compared to other nations, especially other developed nations...
I don't think the difference can be defended as important. The US is running a large modern mixed economy. It hasn't been a small-government country since the 70s; at best.
That isn't a compelling case to say 40% of the economy is a small government. The ratio of government spending to private is getting pretty close to 1:1. I'd accept that it isn't "big" in the sense that some places manage to spend even more in % terms, but to call that behemoth "small" is a bridge too far. It is standard sized. Small governments don't control that much of the market.
EDIT And if you want to lean on the "relatively small", in the sense the article is using it makes sense to compare the sizes related to each other, in which case the US government is much larger than every other contender except China. Relative to the German or French government, the US government is enormous. It is a corruption honeypot.
scarab92
The government share of GDP is a silly thing to care about.
The important questions are:
1. What services do voters want (enough to pay for)
2. How can we meet that need at the lowest cost
The first has a broad range of valid answers, the second is something that everyone ignored until DOGE
anovikov
I think the existence of states and the need for 2/3 of the states to agree to change Constitution, with no chance for 2/3 of them to ever become red, is a good protection against authoritarianism, so people shouldn't worry.
Also, blue states are free to ignore Presidential decrees and laws accepted by Congress if their Supreme Courts see them as unconstitutional, and it will become very inconvenient to rule the country if many of the states start ignoring Washington, which they have full right to do.
autoexec
> is a good protection against authoritarianism,
The increasing authoritarianism disagrees with you, and states can only ignore federal law to the extent that the federal government allows it. There has been an increase in defiance recently, but nothing stops the feds from storming in and enforcing their laws beyond it not being seen as worth doing.
anovikov
Because states have their own armies - the National Guard - it can be only done by military, not police, or even FBI/SWAT/whatever. That is, real military with tanks and fighter jets. A civil war.
I seriously doubt military loyalty to Trump can be THAT high.
autoexec
The National Guard is only authorized in the first place by the US constitution, and every member of the National Guard swears an oath to support and uphold the US constitution against all enemies (foreign and domestic), and also to obey the president of the US.
The idea that the national guard will rise up against their own commander in chief is a fantasy. We've already seen how it plays out when states raise an army against the federal government and it doesn't work out very well for them.
Even if (and it's a big if) the military didn't agree with Trump specifically, they'll still largely believe in the country and the constitution. If the federal government does something terrible and unconstitutional enough that it becomes necessary for states to attack the federal government they will have abandoned anything resembling 'state's rights' and moved into lawless/oath-breaking civil war.
ben_w
> I seriously doubt military loyalty to Trump can be THAT high.
While the military have sworn an oath to the constitution first and only the person of president to the extent that orders are lawful, the most recent opinion poll I found suggests 2:1 support in favour of Trump in the closest proxy I have for active military — I'll have to let everyone else argue how good a proxy "veterans" is, as I'm neither military nor Ami:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/30/military-...
spiderfarmer
It also helps that the blue states have bargaining power. The typical red state gets back 19 cents more for each dollar sent to Washington than its blue-state friends. In other words, they subsidize the red states.
injidup
Blue states should start putting tariffs on red states, threatening to annex them, steal their resources and disenfranchise their voters.
nathanaldensr
That's illegal. The Import-Export Clause of the US Constitution forbids it.
pjmlp
Maybe, then again,
https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/civil-war-c...
At the rate things are going after two months, who knows if in four years democratic elections are still a thing.
null
dyauspitr
Only if there are repercussions to ignoring the constitution. There are plenty of illegal initiatives currently happening with no one really physically stopping them from happening.
cess11
Didn't protect against the Patriot/Freedom Acts, The CLOUD Act. Didn't protect against presidents actually ruling by decree. Didn't keep the US from illegally invading and occupying other countries, or put an end to its colonies and colonial practices.
scoperesolution
[flagged]
How this is going to unfold? I think the first step is to seize the media, using buyouts (Twitter) and law suits (Gawker), and at a later stage using made up felony charges against owners (everyone is guilty of something).
From there on, the road is clear. People are gullible, majority will believe anything media tells them.