Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The war on terror primed America for autocracy

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 301 posts

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#231

Post by fallous »

jmyeet wrote: post #91
fallous wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument/timeline seems a bit confused in a couple of places. Our problem was "not stringing up all the slave owners after the Civil War," yet you then point out American industrialists (going back to the robber baron era) loved fascism. But the industrial parts of the US were the Northern states, not the South. Additionally you complain that the Democrats are no effective opposition but don't appear to consider…

Saying the Democrats were the Southern secessionists ignores the revolt against civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s and the Southern Strategy [1]. All the Dixiecrats simply became Republicans. Also, the slave owners who got strung up should probably have included Andrew Johnson. Without Lincoln's unfortunately untimely demise or without Johnson we may well have avoided Confederate leaders regaining power and the whol…

There are no Dixiecrats if you've hanged all the slave owners after the Civil War, and clearly Reconstruction is entirely different since you've purged most of the white population in the South (as well as some from the Union, since Delaware, Kentucky, and New Jersey still had slavery).

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#232

Post by frogperson »

pstuart wrote: post #90
SubiculumCode wrote: post #77

The elevation of the Executive branch the last and this century has led to this primordial autocracy. Say no to the royal perogative, and accept the more limited powers of Execution of Law. https://jach.law.wisc.edu/exec-power-royal-prerogative-found...

It would help if Congress wasn't sabotaged to enable this; and to have a major political party that effectively wants a king. We were rightfully warned on the dangers of political parties and it's well demonstrated that that warning was correct in its assessment. The fact that millions of Americans declare themselves to be loyal to their party first and foremost is terrifying. Evil people have weaponized the tribal s…

You are right. So many parts of are system were designed for minority rule and haven't been changed in 250 years. The senate, fptp voting, no voting holidays, the electoral college and more. the wealthyvhave always and will always try to by pass democracy.

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#233

Post by like_any_other »

pas wrote: post #226
like_any_other wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In two of these posts, people might take issue with some of the sources. The rest should all be considered trustworthy by anyone. All flagged: Posts flagged for showing how politics has meddled in science (unfortunately one of those facts was overstated, as a commenter kindly alerted me to. Including the correction did not prevent flagging): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48578344 https://news.ycombinator.com/i…

people flag things that are obvious and boring, or that are very incendiary, technically dense, and not easily argued (and thus it's not the place and time to discuss it) topics. eg. migration politics and economics (and crime and so on) and some of those comments are just incorrect (like the last one about Loomer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National... )

So now the goalposts have moved from "stupidly confrontational or promoting known conspiracy theories" to the vague "obvious and boring, very incendiary, technically dense, and not easily argued" (flagging purely factual statements as "very incendiary" is, of course, the original complaint!).

But I'm genuinely confused - you say my last comment was incorrect. Can you explain how saying that someone would have tried to stop Jews from fleeing Nazis, doesn't create the impression in the average reader that that someone isn't Jewish?

The claim isn't even grounded in any kind of reality - Loomer frequently advocates for Jewish and Israeli interests - i.e. for her own people:

According to Loomer, she was banned for a tweet about Omar in which Loomer called her "anti-Jewish," [..] According to Media Matters, Loomer has said that "if you don't vote for Donald Trump, then you just hate this country." Loomer claims that the Democratic Party is supportive of Jews "getting wiped off the face of the Earth" and that Jews who vote for Democrats "might as well just go put yourself in a gas chamber yourself if this is how you're gonna behave." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Loomer

Laura Loomer, a far-right activist and Zionist Islamophobe, denies Israel's genocide in Gaza, spreads dehumanizing narratives that frame Palestinians as inherent terrorists, and calls for their ethnic cleansing to bolster Israel's settler-colonial project and genocide. - https://www.reversecanarymission.org/person/laura-loomer

Laura Loomer, the far-right media figure, has emerged as one of the president’s most aggressive, pro-Israel enforcers. - https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/06/us/politics/israel-maga-r...

Why would we think she'd switch sides in 1940? Nor do I see how the existence of an extremely niche ("Contemporary estimates range from 3,000 to 10,000 members.") organization changes any of this - can you walk me through your logic?

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#234

Post by JeremyNT »

derektank wrote: post #64
Animats wrote: post #19

Yes. History will record that bin Laden won. There's a pre-9/11 book about bin Laden, "The Man Who Declared War on America". Bin Laden was interviewed. Consider the situation at the end of the Clinton administration. The US was at peace. The Soviet Union was gone. The US got along with China and Russia. No major enemies remained. The federal budget was balanced. Bin Laden looked at that, and realized that America had…

Bin Laden’s ultimate objective was to evict US military forces from the Middle East. In response to 9/11, we massively expanded our footprint in the region and formed even deeper relationships with the Saudi government (whom Bin Laden hated for in his view, “[suspending] Islamic laws, and replacing it with statuary laws”). You can read it all in his original, late 90s declaration of jihad against the United States[1]…

I think there's a reasonable case to make that 9/11 broke American politics in a fundamental way, by fully unlocking and granting a permission structure for politicians to reach for nativism and xenophobia to justify basically everything.

It's clear that Bin Laden did not "win" in any immediate sense, but America might have still lost, so there's a claim to a Pyrrhic victory.

The truly erratic and unstable nature of the US regime in this moment unlocks strange possibilities that would otherwise have been unthinkable - for example, the current regime seeming to throw Israel to the wolves in order to cover its own military blunders.

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#235

Post by thunky »

fsflover wrote: post #205
GJim wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

My entire posting and submission history go against the adtech. I only get flagged when I write stupid things or off-topic.

Both of you can be correct:

Valid posts get flagged frequently, enough for people to notice it. But not every, or even most, posts in this category get flagged.

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#236

Post by ghtbircshotbe »

marssaxman wrote: post #5

This seemed obvious to me at the time. It was hard to understand why people in the cultural mainstream let themselves get swept up in it. I felt like I lost my country, back then, as they pretty much all went off into crazyland together.

If you weren't for the Patriot act you were pro terrorist. If you suggested that the terrorists might be motivated by us involvement in the middle east rather than pure evil then you were probably also evil. Mob mentality has been around since forever. And yet the current situation is making Bush seem like a statesman by comparison

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#237

Post by ricree »

constantius wrote: post #180
rayiner wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Failure to integrate” is one way to describe the Goths sacking Rome. But I agree the barbarians did them in at the end. My point was that the Iran fiasco is more like the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, where Rome backed off after taking a beating. That didn’t mark a transition away from Empire, simply a retreat after a military loss.

Teutoburg wasn't a battle but an ambush, and Rome killed almost everyone involved in the next years. This didn't represent a retreat: Germans weren't conquered because they had nothing to conquer. Rather, hopefully, Iran will be to the US what Turks were to Byzantium.

> Rather, hopefully, Iran will be to the US what Turks were to Byzantium.

An invading force that settles within it and ultimately destroys it before launching expansionist invasions to all of its neighbors?

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#238

Post by Schmerika »

JeremyNT wrote: post #234
derektank wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bin Laden’s ultimate objective was to evict US military forces from the Middle East. In response to 9/11, we massively expanded our footprint in the region and formed even deeper relationships with the Saudi government (whom Bin Laden hated for in his view, “[suspending] Islamic laws, and replacing it with statuary laws”). You can read it all in his original, late 90s declaration of jihad against the United States[1]…

I think there's a reasonable case to make that 9/11 broke American politics in a fundamental way, by fully unlocking and granting a permission structure for politicians to reach for nativism and xenophobia to justify basically everything. It's clear that Bin Laden did not "win" in any immediate sense, but America might have still lost, so there's a claim to a Pyrrhic victory. The truly erratic and unstable nature of…

> America might have still lost, so there's a claim to a Pyrrhic victory.

Might have??

America has spent - at the lowest possible estimate - at least 8 trillion dollars on the "war on terror". Probably more like 20-something. Trillion.

That's enough money to have transitioned to entirely clean energy, housed every homeless American, and solved world hunger. With change.

The DOW is over 50 thousand though, I guess, and the Epstein class are richer than ever.

> for example, the current regime seeming to throw Israel to the wolves in order to cover its own military blunders.

Uh, what?

Israel threw themselves to the wolves, if 'wolves' are what we're calling the consequences of doing ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and genocide.

America have been the single greatest force by far holding the 'wolves' at bay. If they stop because the 'wolves' are threatening their own stability, that's not really "throwing Israel" anywhere.

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#239

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

rayiner wrote: post #215
watwut wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> America’s current troubles are political polarization and ballooning deficits. American problem is one sided right wing radicalization, not polarization. If left of center moved the the right even more, the issues would remain.

The U.S. is simply one of the developed countries where right wing populism has grown in response to mass immigration. If center-left folks flipped on immigration, the current right wing populism would collapse, just like happened in Denmark: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mgkd93r4yo

> If center-left folks flipped on immigration, the current right wing populism would collapse,

This theory is false, it does not work. It was tested to destruction in the UK this year and tl;dr: it's how to annoy everyone. When the centre-left party chases the right-wing, they disillusion their base and lose votes there, without gaining any significant number or right-wingers, who still prefer what they see as the "real thing". And the right-wingers are emboldened, not collapsed - they take one step back for every step taken towards them.

The long version is here: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/zbmp3_v2

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#240

Post by rayiner »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #239
rayiner wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.S. is simply one of the developed countries where right wing populism has grown in response to mass immigration. If center-left folks flipped on immigration, the current right wing populism would collapse, just like happened in Denmark: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mgkd93r4yo

> If center-left folks flipped on immigration, the current right wing populism would collapse, This theory is false, it does not work. It was tested to destruction in the UK this year and tl;dr: it's how to annoy everyone. When the centre-left party chases the right-wing, they disillusion their base and lose votes there, without gaining any significant number or right-wingers, who still prefer what they see as the "r…

It does work. It’s exactly what happened in Denmark: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mgkd93r4y. But you have to actually mean it and follow through on it. People need to believe the party has genuinely changed its position on the issue, instead of merely changing its messaging. Every thing Starmer said indicated he was soft on immigration and he took no meaningful steps to stop it and send refugees back.
Post reply on HN