Enemy of the People

The Great Zaganza

Maledictorian
The Great Zaganza
Joined
Aug 14, 2016
Messages
30,019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_people


Enemy of the People.

That term has a very specific meaning, historically and legally. It has been extremely popular with Dictators and oppressive regimes, especially communist ones.

It was also the usual description for Jews in Nazi Germany.


In today's political discourse, one person and his echo chamber has been using this term to describe their political and ideological opponents.

I consider this not only inappropriate, but anti-democratic in the extreme. In fact, I consider it disqualifying rhetoric in a US president.

Thoughts?
 
Agreed. It's a bit like saying "Lügenpresse".
And everything Trump does is anti-democratic to the extreme, sadly.
 
The steady creep towards authoritarianism continues.

Trump identifies his enemies and his most idiotic, fervent followers attack. Trump's plausible deniability grows thinner and thinner.
 
Agreed. All the over-the-top rhetoric needs to be dialed down.

Its weird that voters don't admire a reasonable politician. They gravitate towards the extremes
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The steady creep towards authoritarianism continues.
Click to expand...

When he first used the term I thought he was being a bit hyperbolic, but more and more Bill Maher's description of the Trump Administration as "A slow moving coup" reads more and more accurate to me.
 
I no longer consider US democracy as an unshakable constant. I now view it as fragile. The will of the people expressed in the election gives me some hope.

That hope rests, to an extent, on an 85 year old woman with a history of cancer holding out for two more years.
 
I don't think, at this moment the functional level of USian democracy has changed.

What we have now, in my opinion, is a system with zero safety nets. It's a Domain Controller running with no backup, no UPS, no redundancy.

It's fine... until literally the first thing goes wrong.
 
JoeMorgue said:
When he first used the term I thought he was being a bit hyperbolic, but more and more Bill Maher's description of the Trump Administration as "A slow moving coup" reads more and more accurate to me.
Click to expand...


"“He’s now president for life. President for life. No, he’s great. And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot some day.”
-Trump, referencing China's Xi Jinping
 
ponderingturtle said:
International watchdogs don't agree. See the Democracy index. We are not considered a full democracy anymore, but a flawed one.
Click to expand...

That's always been the view, due to the electoral collage. Trump certainly hasn't helped, but I'm not sure if we can pin the blame on him for that particular rating.
 
Armitage72 said:
"“He’s now president for life. President for life. No, he’s great. And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot some day.”
-Trump, referencing China's Xi Jinping
Click to expand...

Too bad Jean Petit isn't alive and on Twitter.
 
varwoche said:
I no longer consider US democracy as an unshakable constant. I now view it as fragile. The will of the people expressed in the election gives me some hope.

That hope rests, to an extent, on an 85 year old woman with a history of cancer holding out for two more years.
Click to expand...
Growing up, I kept hearing that democracy was fragile, and that we needed to constantly work to defend it. I always believed it, but never quite understood how something as fundamental as democracy could be fragile, or how it could fall without people interfering.

I do now.
 
The silver lining in that is it is a two way street.

Everything can be fixed as easily and quickly as it was broken if the people care enough.
 
JoeMorgue said:
That's always been the view, due to the electoral collage. Trump certainly hasn't helped, but I'm not sure if we can pin the blame on him for that particular rating.
Click to expand...

And of course the broad disenfranchisement goals of republicans in general. I am not sure that it is the electoral college that causes that rating all by itself.

"Likewise, there are a few questions considered so important that a low score on them yields a penalty on the total score sum for their respective categories, namely:

"Whether national elections are free and fair";
"The security of voters";
"The influence of foreign powers on government";
"The capability of the civil servants to implement policies"."

Electoral college wouldn't seem to play too much into all that many of those questions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
 
JoeMorgue said:
The silver lining in that is it is a two way street.

Everything can be fixed as easily and quickly as it was broken if the people care enough.
Click to expand...

Yes but this also fails to understand that even in dictatorships the government is often popular. Russia is a great example of this, Putin is genuinely very popular. That one of the two parties could choose someone who is so clearly contemptuous of democracy and in love with dictatorships shows just how weak our democracy is.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Yes but this also fails to understand that even in dictatorships the government is often popular. Russia is a great example of this, Putin is genuinely very popular. That one of the two parties could choose someone who is so clearly contemptuous of democracy and in love with dictatorships shows just how weak our democracy is.
Click to expand...

The classic example is Julius Caesar. The people loved getting a dictatorship that transitioned into a full blown monarchy that literally deified the monarchs. Those who objected were the out-of-touch educated elite.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_people


Enemy of the People.

That term has a very specific meaning, historically and legally. It has been extremely popular with Dictators and oppressive regimes, especially communist ones.

It was also the usual description for Jews in Nazi Germany.


In today's political discourse, one person and his echo chamber has been using this term to describe their political and ideological opponents.

I consider this not only inappropriate, but anti-democratic in the extreme. In fact, I consider it disqualifying rhetoric in a US president.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I don’t like the president using that term for the press but I don’t see it as “disqualifying rhetoric “. It is not up there with the Alien and Sedition Act.

I don’t see it as anti-democratic.

An unintended consequence of his rhetoric has probably been an increase in people interested in the democratic process.
 
It is anti-democratic, since he denies the fact that the opposition is part of the Government, too: it has a vital role.
Only Dictators want to remove all opposition - which is what Trump wants to be.
 
TragicMonkey said:
The classic example is Julius Caesar. The people loved getting a dictatorship that transitioned into a full blown monarchy that literally deified the monarchs. Those who objected were the out-of-touch educated elite.
Click to expand...

Hell look at egypt, they threw out one military dictator only to end up electing a more violent military dictator with a huge percentage of the vote.
 
TragicMonkey said:
The classic example is Julius Caesar. The people loved getting a dictatorship that transitioned into a full blown monarchy that literally deified the monarchs. Those who objected were the out-of-touch educated elite.
Click to expand...

Also, how are the Bonapartes nowadays?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom