It can hapÂpen here, and it has.
By “it” I mean the enorÂmous conÂcenÂtraÂtion of wealth and politÂiÂcal powÂer in the hands of a very few, and by “here” I mean the UnitÂed States of AmerÂiÂca, a counÂtry that adverÂtisÂes itself as a democÂraÂcy, but should rightÂly be referred to as an oliÂgarchy, ruled by a wealthy elite.
But the counÂtry is not a dicÂtaÂtorÂship yet. I say “yet” because that too can hapÂpen here, givÂen the aforeÂmenÂtioned conÂcenÂtraÂtion of wealth and powÂer, the increasÂing tolÂerÂance for nationÂalÂism, cruÂelÂty, xenoÂphoÂbia, and near-conÂstant lying, and the craven acquiÂesÂcence so many of the country’s legislators—who are supÂposed to put a check on such things—have shown to the whims of a baldÂly autoÂcratÂic execÂuÂtive.
PerÂhaps it is only a matÂter of time, givÂen the above. How much time? Maybe ten years, argues Jared DiaÂmond, Pulitzer Prize-winÂning anthroÂpolÂoÂgist, geoÂgÂraÂphÂer, hisÂtoÂriÂan, and ecolÂoÂgist, and author of The Third ChimÂpanzee; Guns, Germs, and Steel; ColÂlapse: How SociÂeties Choose to Fail or SucÂceed; and The World Until YesÂterÂday.
In the Big Think video interÂview clip above, DiaÂmond frames the probÂlem as one of an unwillÂingÂness to comÂproÂmise, using the analÂoÂgy of a hapÂpy marÂriage. “The best you can hope for in a marÂriage is an agreeÂment on 80%. If you agree on 80%, that’s fanÂtasÂtic.” For any two peoÂple, marÂried or othÂerÂwise, 80% agreeÂment seems optiÂmistic. For an entire counÂtry, it seems almost utopiÂan.
But whatÂevÂer numÂber you want to set as a realÂisÂtic goal, the U.S. has fallÂen far below it—at least when it comes to the way our govÂernÂmenÂtal bodÂies work, or don’t, togethÂer. This is not a probÂlem reducible to “both sides.” One parÂty in parÂticÂuÂlar has conÂsisÂtentÂly refused to work with the othÂer and used every dirty trick—from extreme gerÂryÂmanÂderÂing to refusÂing to let a sitÂting PresÂiÂdent appoint a Supreme Court Justice—to hold powÂer.
PolÂiÂtics is a dirty busiÂness, you may say, and yes, it is. But—to return to Diamond’s point—a funcÂtionÂing democÂraÂcy requires comÂproÂmise. These days, conÂgress canÂnot pass legÂisÂlaÂtion; “legÂisÂlaÂtures are at odds with the judiÂciaÂry” (DiaÂmond cites the examÂple of the RepubÂliÂcan-conÂtrolled West VirÂginia conÂgress impeachÂing the state’s entire, DemoÂcÂraÂtÂic-majorÂiÂty, supreme court in 2018); state govÂernÂments are suing the fedÂerÂal govÂernÂment, and vice-verÂsa.
The failÂure of comÂproÂmise, says DiaÂmond, is “the only probÂlem that could preÂcipÂiÂtate the UnitÂed States into the end of democÂraÂcy and into a dicÂtaÂtorÂship in the next decade.” The usuÂal hisÂtorÂiÂcal examÂples can be more or less instrucÂtive on this point. But there are othÂer, more recent, dicÂtaÂtorÂships that do not receive nearÂly enough attention—perhaps by design, since they have been “friendÂly” regimes that the U.S. helped creÂate.
DiaÂmond describes the sitÂuÂaÂtion in Chile, for examÂple, where he lived in the late 60s. When he first moved there, it had been “the most demoÂcÂraÂtÂic counÂtry in Latin AmerÂiÂca,” a counÂtry that pridÂed itself on its abilÂiÂty to comÂproÂmise. But this qualÂiÂty was in decline, he says, and its loss led to the country’s milÂiÂtary coup in 1973, which brought the bruÂtal dicÂtaÂtor AugusÂto Pinochet to powÂer (with the help of the CIA and cerÂtain AmerÂiÂcan econÂoÂmists).
The new Chilean govÂernÂment “smashed world records for sadism and torÂture,” says DiaÂmond, shockÂing those Chileans who believed their counÂtry was immune to the excessÂes of othÂer Latin AmerÂiÂcan nations that had sucÂcumbed to represÂsive authorÂiÂtarÂiÂanÂism. If that hapÂpens here, he argues, it will not come through a milÂiÂtary coup, but rather through “what we see going on now”—namely restricÂtions on the right to vote and votÂer apaÂthy.
VotÂing is the priÂmaÂry soluÂtion, DiaÂmond claims, but votÂing alone may not address the probÂlem of oliÂgarchy. When a handÂful of the wealthy conÂtrol mass media, fund local and nationÂal politÂiÂcal camÂpaigns, and othÂerÂwise exert undue influÂence, through mass surÂveilÂlance, manipÂuÂlaÂtion, and the use of forÂeign agents, the posÂsiÂbilÂiÂty of free and fair elecÂtions may disÂapÂpear, if it hasn’t already.
NonetheÂless, Diamond’s point deserves some seriÂous conÂsidÂerÂaÂtion. If we want to avert dicÂtaÂtorÂship in the U.S., how can we encourÂage compromise—without, that is, relinÂquishÂing our most funÂdaÂmenÂtal valÂues? It’s a point to ponÂder.
RelatÂed ConÂtent:
Aldous HuxÂley Warns Against DicÂtaÂtorÂship in AmerÂiÂca
UmberÂto Eco Makes a List of the 14 ComÂmon FeaÂtures of FasÂcism
Josh Jones is a writer and musiÂcian based in Durham, NC. FolÂlow him at @jdmagness
“This is not a probÂlem reducible to “both sides.” One parÂty in parÂticÂuÂlar has conÂsisÂtentÂly refused to work with the othÂer and used every dirty trick—from extreme gerÂryÂmanÂderÂing to refusÂing to let a sitÂting PresÂiÂdent appoint a Supreme Court Justice—to hold powÂer.”
In othÂer words, vote for DemocÂrats or the US might/will be a dicÂtaÂtorÂship in 10 years. Ok, got it. Who would have guessed it that Joe Biden holds in his gropÂing pawÂing hands the very last hope for the UnitÂed States of AmerÂiÂca.
DiaÂmond is talkÂing about comÂproÂmise. Yea… but there are also times when comÂproÂmise is not to be embraced. Should we have comÂproÂmised durÂing the aboÂliÂtion moveÂment when the southÂern states pushed back? The idea that slavÂery would have been outÂmodÂed withÂin 20 years is a myth. It took not comÂproÂmisÂing, even to the point of a civÂil war to rest the counÂtry from the grips of slavÂery. Should MarÂtin Luther King Jr. have comÂproÂmised when Kennedy asked him to slow down the civÂil rights moveÂment a touch? Kennedy was well meanÂing but King knew betÂter — sysÂtemic change does not hapÂpen withÂout some type of force, in his case non-vioÂlent force, but force nonetheÂless. As a supÂportÂer, Kennedy folÂlowed. Today, should the ProÂgresÂsive wing of the DemoÂcÂraÂtÂic parÂty comÂproÂmise on cliÂmate change issues with an adminÂisÂtraÂtion and RepubÂliÂcan parÂty (and modÂerÂate DemocÂrats) who are in the pockÂets of the fosÂsil fuel indusÂtry — whose overÂwhelmÂing interÂest is in slowÂing down a tranÂsiÂtion to a green econÂoÂmy? (someÂthing we must do for human surÂvival). Should they comÂproÂmise with RepubÂliÂcans and Trump on immiÂgraÂtion, when their “partÂners” across the aisle want to shut the doors on famÂiÂly based immiÂgraÂtion (which has been the corÂnerÂstone of AmerÂiÂcan culÂturÂal diverÂsiÂty) and want to replace it with skill-based immiÂgraÂtion? Or who want to offiÂcialÂize EngÂlish as the lanÂguage of the land, which is code for whiteÂwashÂing LatiÂno culÂture, banÂning MusÂlims, and mainÂtainÂing the supeÂriÂorÂiÂty of white Anglo culÂture? ComÂproÂmisÂing on any of these issues inchÂes the neeÂdle slowÂly toward the unjust, the unethÂiÂcal and the “unAmerÂiÂcan” valÂues that have takÂen over half of the conÂgress and now the execÂuÂtive office. There are times to dig in, even if the risk is dicÂtaÂtorÂship. Because, if that’s the result we run from by comÂproÂmisÂing, then we have a much deepÂer seatÂed probÂlem, that can only be remeÂdied by some kind of ethÂiÂcal revÂoÂluÂtion. And hey, if it takes a physÂiÂcal revÂoÂluÂtion to rid us of this growÂing dicÂtaÂtorÂship, then yes, that’s what it takes. ComÂproÂmisÂing as DiaÂmond describes here is simÂply avertÂing the inevitable: dicÂtaÂtorÂship by lack of govÂernÂing by the conÂgress, which allows the presÂiÂdent to govÂern by conÂsolÂiÂdatÂing powÂer, OR dicÂtaÂtorÂship of ideÂolÂoÂgy cedÂed by conÂtinÂuÂous comÂproÂmise with partÂners who have no real interÂest in givÂing up anyÂthing themÂselves. That’s increÂmenÂtal creep toward the same thing. SorÂry, I’m not buyÂing DiaÂmond’s overÂsimÂpliÂfied analyÂsis. There are two AmerÂiÂcÂas. The soonÂer we accept that, the betÂter we’ll get at anticÂiÂpatÂing how to navÂiÂgate this storm.
The probÂlem is when the media starts telling the peoÂple who to vote for
So our politÂiÂcal parÂties do not comÂproÂmise. That is what elecÂtions are for. The parÂty in powÂer gets to call some shots for a while until votÂed out. And on and on it goes. What I canÂnot fathÂom from this post is how this gets us to dicÂtaÂtorÂship.
Sounds like we should have as small a fedÂerÂal govÂernÂment as posÂsiÂble.
FinalÂly, someÂone with a brain to state the obviÂous.
The only answer to the probÂlems of democÂraÂcy, is more democÂraÂcy.
How do we leave it to votÂing when the parÂty in powÂer won’t address elecÂtion fraud, votÂer supÂpresÂsion, votÂing interÂferÂence? NothÂing has been done to make sure our elecÂtions are tamÂper proof.
Well, the good news is the dicÂtaÂtorÂship will only last 2 years, as the end of the world will occur in 12 years, accordÂing to AOC, so, no worÂries!
THe fact is we do not have slavÂery as an issue today. We have aborÂtion but that is not a salient issue to most peoÂple. It is a social issue. Issues like immiÂgraÂtion, aborÂtion, the deficit, etc. are conÂveÂnient litÂtle issues that are trotÂted out near elecÂtions to firm up the RepubÂliÂcan base and divide the nation’s elecÂtorate. They are non-issues in terms of what is actuÂalÂly imporÂtant to most AmerÂiÂcans.
Poll after poll shows that the DemoÂcÂraÂtÂic poliÂcies are what AmerÂiÂcans want. The reaÂson AmerÂiÂcans can’t have them is because of the dicÂtaÂtorÂship of SenÂate MajorÂiÂty Leader Mitch McConnell, who is sitÂting on more than 100 bills sent to the SenÂate from the House.
AnothÂer reaÂson is the incomÂpeÂtence in the White House and its cynÂiÂcal manipÂuÂlaÂton of the pubÂlic through the press.
No, DemocÂrats are willÂing to comÂproÂmise. They showed it with Trump’s ill-conÂceived wall. ObaÂma showed it with the stimÂuÂlus bill.
The probÂlem with comÂproÂmise is that one side won’t. That side is the RepubÂliÂcan ParÂty and that is a fact.
Joan,
The only votÂer tamÂperÂing that is perÂpeÂtratÂed is done by the DemocÂrats.
Maybe if we are lookÂing for how counÂtries fall into authorÂiÂtarÂiÂanÂism, there should be less in this artiÂcle about Chile in the 1960s, and a bit more about Venezuela right now.
But then, some peoÂple only recÂogÂnize “strong-man” authorÂiÂtarÂiÂanÂism, and overÂlook the hisÂtorÂiÂcal totalÂiÂtarÂiÂanÂism driÂven by ParÂty orgaÂniÂzaÂtions instead of just one dicÂtaÂtor. If it’s a PolitÂburo runÂning things instead of some guy with medals on his chest, it doesÂn’t seem to count as “authorÂiÂtarÂiÂan.”
Often of course, as in Venezuela and othÂer colÂlecÂtivist nations, you end up with both.
If DemocÂrats are worÂried about a dicÂtaÂtorÂship then maybe they should lay off of gun conÂtrol for a bit