> Corruption is the #1 thing that destroys countries. Nothing else comes close.
Really? Militaristic jingoism has historically been a pretty popular choice to commit national suicide, for example.
The thing about corruption is that it's not violently destructive. It slowly erodes the system, but it takes a lot of time, and the process is reversible at practically any point.
> A "sociopath with megalomania" on the other hand can't really do much to hurt the country (no one would let him).
That seems to be a common retort that I've encountered among reluctant Trump supporters - that checks and balances would prevent anything really damaging.
I don't feel like it's particularly well supported by experience. Just to give a simple example, not only Japanese-American internment during WW2 was found to be legal and constitutional, but the corresponding SCOTUS decision (Korematsu) still stands. Which means that the president can sign a similar EO, and it'll be in force per existing precedent until SCOTUS gets a chance to overturn - and even then there are no guarantees.
And then there's a slew of accumulated post-9/11 precedent, which, in the hands of someone who thinks that torture is a good idea, among other reasons, "because they deserve it", could blow up big time.
> And I don't see how "a definitive authoritarian streak, and a massive populist backing" are a problem.
I'm not sure how to respond to that.
If you mean that you don't see it as desirable, but also don't think that it's dangerous, I would like to remind you that this is something that has repeated many times in history in the past 100 years alone, and pretty much every time resulted in authoritarian societies, with all that entails - political dictatorships, massive human rights violations, and often, wars with neighbors.
If you mean that you actually see it as desirable, I don't think that we have sufficient common ground to meaningfully discuss this subject.