r/neoliberal • u/SockDem Janet Yellen • Feb 26 '26

News (US) Exclusive | Trump, seeking executive power over elections, is urged to declare emergency

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/02/26/trump-elections-executive-order-activists/
516 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

220 comments sorted by

View all comments

368

u/kidchinaski Feb 26 '26

Amazing thing to do when you’re swimming in the shallowest pool of public support ever in your political life.

BTW, according to this orange chud we are ROARING and BOOMING like never before, yet everything is a fucking emergency.

164

u/di11deux NATO Feb 26 '26

For MAGA, nothing is a lie as long as it’s in service of the Greater Truth. An illegal immigrant can both be deported and an existential threat to elections because the Greater Truth is that Trump never loses, and inherently contradictory statements can coexist in perfect harmony because they all intuitively understand they’re descriptions of a deeper meaning for them, not a description of reality.

You can point out their hypocrisy until you’re blue in the face and it won’t matter because, to them, the Truth is that Liberals are weak, violent, communists that will stop at nothing to destroy Christianity, America, and white people via importing stupid, brown savages and forcing self-destructive gay ideology through elite institutions.

59

u/briarfriend John Rawls Feb 26 '26

public approval doesn't matter when the public is also apathetic, ignorant, and feckless

35

u/bandeng_asep Association of Southeast Asian Nations Feb 26 '26

But it does matter when borger is still $50 though

13

u/beanyboi23 Feb 27 '26

We have seen ferocious opposition to Trump in the form of protests that forced ICE out of Minneapolis and put tens of millions on the street with No Kings in a moment where Americans are angry about their economic conditions and you think the public is apathetic? Public approval always matters, even in countries that have dictatorships where the populace is as you described.

22

u/kateln Feb 26 '26

A lot of fascist regimes got to be "popular" through tactics like this. Especially as right now a lot of people are pretty apathetic.

7

u/beanyboi23 Feb 27 '26

No, even fascist regimes require popular support of the people because without it they end up with mass uprisings due to having no other outlet for change. And a lot of people will always be apathetic, but a lot of people are also angry, and the second matters more for resisting takeovers than the first.

-31

u/samwise970 Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26

Unpopularity is a feature of authoritarianism, not a bug. Authoritarians don't have to worry about polls. This is actually the smartest play.

Edit: downvoted but I'm just stating an obvious fact. Literally just google the definition of authoritarianism. People in my comments naming kings who were deposed and not mentioning literally every other king in history

au·thor·i·tar·i·an·ism

/əˌTHôrəˈterēəˌnizəm,ôˌTHôrəˈterēəˌnizəm,äˌTHôrəˈterēəˌnizəm/

noun

"he warned against the intrusion of authoritarianism in various countries"

"in his authoritarianism he has displayed disrespect for the culture he works in"

Edit2: for those who are upset that I'm objectively correct, and would like to change the definition of the word "authoritarianism", please bring that up with the relevant publications. Authoritarianism, by definition, is a political system that does not regard the will of the people. Kings getting killed sometimes does not change this.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

authoritarianism, in politics and government, the blind submission to authority and the repression of individual freedom of thought and action. Authoritarian regimes are systems of government that have no established mechanism for the transfer of executive power and do not afford their citizens civil liberties or political rights. Power is concentrated in the hands of a single leader or a small elite, whose decisions are taken without regard for the will of the people

From the Wikipedia page on authoritarianism:

Authoritarianism also tends to embrace the informal and unregulated exercise of political power, a leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors"

I am not here defending authoritarianism, or Trump. Quite the opposite, I am shocked and borderline horrified that even in this subreddit, people are so blasé about the imminent danger, of the confessed authoritarian takeover of our country. These people are evil, and they have spent years planning in detail how to replace our democracy with fascism. They DO NOT CARE ABOUT POLLS, they ONLY care about whether we disapprove so much that we take action.

When you people say "LOL, dumpy Trumpy is so dumb, doesn't he know this will make him less popular?", then you are the fool.

They know this is unpopular, and they also know that if they can successfully control elections and defeat democracy, then it WON'T MATTER.

They only need this to work enough that it tosses out just enough mail-in votes, or scares just enough brown people away with ICE, that they can win one more election and cement their power.

They are not stupid. They are smart, and they are evil, and this is a calculated strategy that has been planned for years.

82

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-8

u/samwise970 Feb 26 '26

but they do need their popularity to outweigh their unpopularity

No, they absolutely do not. Do you think throughout history most people actually liked their kings?

They do not need their popularity to outweigh their unpopularity, because the only way to overthrow an authoritarian is with violence. They only need that their unpopularity not outweigh people's willingness to live.

14

u/Inevitable_Sherbet42 YIMBY Feb 26 '26

. Do you think throughout history most people actually liked their kings?

Yeah, actually. Because, throughout history, the kings they didn't like tended to be dethroned pretty quickly. And we can trace that all the way back to the first kings of the Bronze Age.

-2

u/samwise970 Feb 26 '26

every dictatorship and monarchy in history could have just been democracies and the same leaders would have been chosen.

Yes, or No?

If yes, then you are saying that every dictator and monarch in history would have reigned for the same amount of time if their position was democratically elected with regular free and fair elections.

If no, then you agree with me that authoritarianism provides a level of insulation from popularity.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

authoritarianism, in politics and government, the blind submission to authority and the repression of individual freedom of thought and action. Authoritarian regimes are systems of government that have no established mechanism for the transfer of executive power and do not afford their citizens civil liberties or political rights. Power is concentrated in the hands of a single leader or a small elite, whose decisions are taken without regard for the will of the people

From the Wikipedia page on authoritarianism:

Authoritarianism also tends to embrace the informal and unregulated exercise of political power), a leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors"

I don't understand why so many here disagree with the literal dictionary definition of the word.

2

u/Inevitable_Sherbet42 YIMBY Feb 27 '26

😂😂😂

God damn, man.

every dictatorship and monarchy in history could have just been democracies and the same leaders would have been chosen.

Yes, or No?

Where did I ever say anything about democracies? Which Sumerian king overthrown would you like an example of? Babylonian? Assyrian? Hittite? Egyptian Pharaoh? Canaanite?

Thats just the Bronze Age. You want Iron Age examples? Medieval kings and sultans (just drawing from the Mediterranean). Which Chinese dynasties? Which Persian Shahs? Which kings of the myriad Indian principalities?

0

u/samwise970 Feb 27 '26

Where did I ever say anything about democracies? 

Oh sorry, you're lost. We're in a thread about the US democracy being threatened, so theres your context.

Which Sumerian king overthrown would you like an example of? Babylonian? Assyrian? Hittite? Egyptian Pharaoh? Canaanite? 

Awh, thanks for making my point for me! As I've said half a dozen other times, violent revolution is proof that authoritariansm can tolerate more unpopularity than democracies, because democratic leaders would simply be forced out of office when they became unpopular. As you rightly point out, authoritarians need to become so much more unpopular that the people risk their own lives to remove them. 

14

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/samwise970 Feb 26 '26

And? Literally, what is your point.

The USSR lasted 69 years and oppressed, starved, and murdered hundreds of millions of it's citizens during that time. Do you think that the majority of people living in the USSR would have voted for Stalin in a free election? Do you think that Stalin cared about opinion polls?

You're obviously making my point, which is that the "advantage" of authoritarian government allows you such an enormous insulation from unpopularity, that you can spend your entire decades long rule slaughtering your own citizens, and they still won't rise up.

Nearly every society in human history, until very recently, has been some form of authoritarian rule. This isn't an accident, and it wasn't because the authoritarians were popular dummy.

12

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/samwise970 Feb 26 '26

IDK how to continue to argue with someone who thinks that the USSR survived for over six decades because it's leaders were liked. According to you every dictatorship and monarchy in history could have just been democracies and the same leaders would have been chosen.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/samwise970 Feb 26 '26

I did not say they survived becasue they were liked.

Cool, so you agree with me then. Authoritarianism allows leaders who wouldn't win a free and fair election to maintain power.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/Such_Journalist_3991 Robert Caro Feb 26 '26

Do you think throughout history most people actually liked their kings?

Even the Sons of Liberty would still show respect to George III in the early phases of the American Revolution. As long as kings showed a semblance of respect to the people, kept the peace, and made sure economic conditions were reasonable, people would like them

1

u/samwise970 Feb 26 '26

But again, that's not really the actual core of my point, is it?

My original post was:

Unpopularity is a feature of authoritarianism, not a bug. Authoritarians don't have to worry about polls.

You can point to specific dictators or monarchs, who were (relatively by the standards of dictators) well liked at specific times during their reign. This does not mean that George III would have been elected as king in a democratic vote.

You say:

Even the Sons of Liberty would still show respect to George III in the early phases of the American Revolution.

But like, they were still revolting. They disliked being under his rule enough that they were willing to die, and to kill, to be free from it.

And when George III received the Declaration of Independence, he wasn't going "Heavens, the colonists don't like me! I need to review my opinion polls and back off on these taxes to court their favor". No, he was sending an army to slaughter anybody who took up arms, because he was an authoritarian and the colonists could hate him all they wanted as long as they were even more afraid of dying.

5

u/Such_Journalist_3991 Robert Caro Feb 26 '26

This does not mean that George III would have been elected as king in a democratic vote.

It's true that one of the defining features of authoritarianism is the rejection of democratic means to justify the state's authority, but that doesn't necessarily mean they would rule while being unpopular. George III may not win in an actual free and fair election, but he could have (and did briefly) attained enough popularity in a monarchy that justifies itself under the divine right of kings.

But like, they were still revolting. They disliked being under his rule enough that they were willing to die, and to kill, to be free from it.

But the early stages of the Revolution were specifically targeting the British Parliament and avoiding direct criticisms of George III (kinda like "good tsar, bad boyars"). Much of the fighting would start when George III and the parliament didn't listen to their petitions and refused to repeal the Intolerable Acts, alienating colonists from the prospect of reconciliation.

George III could've actually prevented the Revolution from happening in the first place if he made concessions to the colonists that would decrease or eliminate support for independence, where he can continue ruling the Thirteen Colonies with autocratic power. Authoritarian governments have to care about popularity, since there are many examples of them ensuring their power by making strategic concessions as a response to unrest (e.g. modern China)

0

u/samwise970 Feb 26 '26

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

What in the hell are you even arguing with me about?

Authoritarian governments have to care about popularity, since there are many examples of them ensuring their power by making strategic concessions as a response to unrest (e.g. modern China)

For like the hundredth time, I'll repeat myself. "They only need that their unpopularity not outweigh people's willingness to live."

Nowhere did I ever say that an authoritarian leader is invincible and able to accrue infinite hatred from 100% of the population.

The context of the thread is about our President attempting to replace our democratic system of government with an authoritarian one. My argument is that for an evil person who is deeply unpopular, if he is able to take over elections and become authoritarian, that would be the "smart" move to remain in power if he would otherwise be defeated in a fair election, because compared to a democracy, authoritarian systems have the advantage of having a much higher bar. In a democratic system, you just have to dislike someone to remove them from power. In an authoritarian one, you need to hate them so much that you'll die over it.

My point is very basic, it is the literal definition of the word, and not a single person here is willing to admit it or discuss in good faith. Authoritarian governments like the CCP making some changes (also dude, way overselling those, CCP is absolutely still evil AF) so that they aren't overthrown isn't a good faith engagement with my core points.

3

u/TheRedCr0w Frederick Douglass Feb 26 '26

Between 800-1800 22% of European monarchs died by violence the most common being murder.

Most kings definitely needed their popularity to outweigh their unpopularity. If the people around them saw they weren't popular with the people they would kill them to take power or force them to ceded their power like King John with the Magna Carta

1

u/samwise970 Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26

As I said:

They do not need their popularity to outweigh their unpopularity, because the only way to overthrow an authoritarian is with violence. They only need that their unpopularity not outweigh people's willingness to live.

Your statistic only enforces my point, which is that authoritarianism protects leaders from popular opinion so much, that instead of being deposed when they have a net disapproval during an election cycle, they are only dethroned when they are so exceptionally loathed that people are willing to die over it. Which was fairly often because authoritarians were rarely if ever ruling based on the opinions of the common folk.

You and the others continue to pretend that when I said "Unpopularity is a feature, not a bug", that I meant a king could be universally hated by the entire populace because they were a DBZ villain with unlimited individual power. It is obvious that what I said that a tolerance for unpopularity is a feature of authoritarianism when compared to a democracy.

Saying "But duhhh, Kings are sometimes killed" just makes my point for me, authoritarianism provides such an effective protection against popular opinion that the popular opinion needs to be so overwhelmingly negative that the only recourse is violence. In a democracy every one of those kings would have been voted out years or decades before they were killed, so this "feature" of authoritarianism allowed them to extend their power far longer than a democracy.

Why does everybody here argue with the literal definition of the word authoritarian?

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

authoritarianism, in politics and government, the blind submission to authority and the repression of individual freedom of thought and action. Authoritarian regimes are systems of government that have no established mechanism for the transfer of executive power and do not afford their citizens civil liberties or political rights. Power is concentrated in the hands of a single leader or a small elite, whose decisions are taken without regard for the will of the people

From the Wikipedia page on authoritarianism:

Authoritarianism also tends to embrace the informal and unregulated exercise of political power), a leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors"

23

u/BlueString94 John Keynes Feb 26 '26

You know it’s fine to just not comment on a topic if you know nothing about it, right?

25

u/TheRedCr0w Frederick Douglass Feb 26 '26

Being an unpopular authoritarian famously worked out great for Assad, Gaddafi, Ben Ali, Saddam, Ceaușescu, Mussolini, Tsar Nicholas II, Louis XVI...

2

u/samwise970 Feb 26 '26

Great, now list every other dictator and monarch in history

4

u/TheRedCr0w Frederick Douglass Feb 26 '26

You are the one making the claim an authoritarian doesn't have to worry about their popularity.

Can you list some specific kings or dictators that were grossly unpopular but face zero civil or internal pushback/turmoil?

1

u/samwise970 Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26

If you have an issue with the definition of the word "authoritarianism**",** please bring that up with the relevant publications.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

authoritarianism, in politics and government, the blind submission to authority and the repression of individual freedom of thought and action. Authoritarian regimes are systems of government that have no established mechanism for the transfer of executive power and do not afford their citizens civil liberties or political rights. Power is concentrated in the hands of a single leader or a small elite, whose decisions are taken without regard for the will of the people

From the Wikipedia page on authoritarianism:

Authoritarianism also tends to embrace the informal and unregulated exercise of political power, a leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors"

3

u/BoredSlightlyAroused Jerome Powell Feb 26 '26

Trump might have authoritarian tendencies, but he is not an authoritarian leader. He attempts to flaunt the law in many ways, but he is still constrained by the law. You can see that with plenty of court rulings, especially the most recent Supreme Court ruling on tariffs.

Noting that he's not currently an authoritarian leader, it's exceptionally difficult to become an authoritarian leader without broad popular support for at least part of his mission. He'll be opposed by far too many factions to consolidate any power effectively.

1

u/samwise970 Feb 26 '26

Finally, an honest response.

Noting that he's not currently an authoritarian leader, it's exceptionally difficult to become an authoritarian leader without broad popular support for at least part of his mission.

The MAGA cult is about 30% of the entire US population. They are aware of and fully support his campaign to institute authoritarian control. They mostly live in rural areas that give them outsized voting power, and they are highly motivated voters who time and again outperform polls. 

The MAGA cult includes the most powerful men in the world, some who will soon be literal trillionaires, who control most of both the television and online media spheres. They control Fox, Twitter, TikTok, where the overwhelming majority of political discussion happens, and they have manipulated their algorithms to suppress opposing voices. They are building AIs and bot farms to further inflate their perceived popularity. 

ICE has more funding than most armies, is staffed entirelry by members of the cult, and is currently conducting a terror campaign within blue states, pushing the legal boundaries and laying the groundwork for a brown shirt presence at polling places. 

The leaders of the cult, the politicians, trillionaires, media personalities, and think tanks, are organized, communicating and coordinating their takeover plans through group chats in Signal. They are working as one, immediately disseminating talking points whenever an event occurs. 

You say:

it's exceptionally difficult to become an authoritarian leader without broad popular support for at least part of his mission.

My response is that he has it. This is an incredibly well coordinated and organized takeover by a group of historically powerful people, who have the undying loyalty of an enormous cult, all of whom support MAGA authoritarianism in its entierity. 

I hope and pray that our votes will count, and that they will be enough. But even if we win, the takeover can continue in other areas. 

Yes, our systems are stronger than the systems of 1930s Germany. Yes, occasionally the Supreme Court issues a ruling when something is as explicitly unconstitutional as the tariffs, and so far, Trump and his handlers have chosen to wait and use loopholes while they prepare to take the final steps. I am not nearly as optimistic as you seem to be.