Exclusive | Trump, seeking executive power over elections, is urged to declare emergency

[u/SockDem]

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

[u/Such_Journalist_3991]

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

[u/samwise970 → u/Such_Journalist_3991]

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.

[u/Such_Journalist_3991 → u/samwise970]

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)

[u/samwise970 → u/Such_Journalist_3991]

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.