Are We Seeing the Rise of a Fundamentalist Dictatorship?

[benhur]

What scares me even more than a dictatorial president would be a religious Ayatollah type president who puts a fundamentalist literal interpretation of scripture on matters political or otherwise…I could accept a Catholic president because their views would ( I hope ) be consistent with Catholic teaching and not their own interpretation…which can become radical among some fundamentalists

Hi Peebo,

What about this, say a Catholic governor who leaves His religious convictions right at the state property line ? Definitely no radical problem their.

Blessings

 

[Son_of_Niall]

The question I have is if Trump even really has dictatorial aspirations. I am genuinely uncertain if that is even the case, I lean much more towards “no” but I do wonder if there are any grounds to think that Trump does have autocratic tendencies.

Perhaps the events in St. Louis last night give an answer to your question.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The last thing I want to see is the election of someone who is intentionally “tapping into the anger” of the electorate.

Are we a mob in need of a leader who will encourage us to behave uncivilly?

 

[josephback]

I wish in no way to disparage fundamentalists/evangelicals. I realize they are a diverse group. However….
In the last few months we have seen the rise of a certain Presidential candidate who is extremely popular among the fundamentalist/evangelical right. The reasons are confusing as this person is as far from evangelical values as one can imagine, at least when I was evangelical.
I do not wish to discuss the Presidential candidate here, as it is against forum rules and there are already countless threads about him.
My purpose is to understand WHY conservative fundamentalists/evangelicals are so willing to place their electoral bets on a person who seems to feed off of radicalism and extremism.
Is there something within the fundamentalist/evangelical mindset that is attracted to the rhetoric we have seen? If so, what in your opinion, would that be?
Again, we cannot discuss the candidate here, and I do not wish to bash Protestant Christians.
But I am genuinely curious.

People are more than their religious convictions for one—complicated lot the human species. Having been raised in the conservative “faith,” I would venture that aversion to Hillary and Bernie may be so strong that anyone who seems able to beat them is okay. McCain played nice(honorably) and Romney was out of touch, and look where that got them. Trump is the strongman that others have been waiting for, a symbol of the patriarchy and of true political scrap fighting. What’s not to love?

 

[Son_of_Niall]

The last thing I want to see is the election of someone who is intentionally “tapping into the anger” of the electorate.

Are we a mob in need of a leader who will encourage us to behave uncivilly?

A little guy with a moustache did something similar once.
Dictators rule through their followers. People forget, the German Gestapo were basically bureaucrats.

 

[JonNC]

A little guy with a moustache did something similar once.
Dictators rule through their followers. People forget, the German Gestapo were basically bureaucrats.

Indeed, and he used democracy with a *socialist *promise to gain power.

Now, I don’t think any candidate from either side is anything like Hitler, but as easily as some might try to shoehorn an orange-headed business mogul into that caricature, it is just as easily done to professed socialist or a particular former first lady.

Jon

 

[Path_Finder]

A little guy with a moustache did something similar once.
Dictators rule through their followers. People forget, the German Gestapo were basically bureaucrats.

The comparison is more apt to a party that stands for the slaughter of the unborn, 55 million. The comparison in the initial post should be to the leaders of that party who I guess, when the woman is running, we can’t think about the little mustache.

The Evangelicals are our brothers supportive of the right to life. Peacemakers.

 

[iepuras]

The executive branch of government is very powerful, primarily because Congress abdicated its responsibility to pass laws. It is so much easier for Congress to pass a law that states that the EPA, DOL, HHS, Treasury, etc will enact regulations to achieve a particular goal. This is how the EPA, BLM (Bureau of Land Management), IRS essentially make their own laws that hurt every day people and businesses who find little recourse in administrative hearings or even in the courts (if they can even afford to take a matter to court).

I am a tax professional, and I see the federal, state and local tax administrators make up their own laws (enacting or changing regulations) all the time. Laws are “interpreted” in such a way to deny statutory exemptions from a particular industry because there is tax revenue to be had and the courts do nothing but support the tax authority. Tax authorities can change an “interpretation” and essentially raise taxes on everyone, again, with little recourse being found in the courts. Even if courts do find in favor of the taxpayer, it is years after the fact and only taxpayers with means can even take a matter to court.

We already live in an authoritarian country because of the bureaucracy. It is just that our presidents haven’t acted very authoritarian until recently. In my opinion, it really got going under Pres. Bush after 9/11 and has been on steroids under Pres. Obama. I don’t see any of the current crop of candidates undoing any of this or attempting to reign in the bureaucracy.

 

[petra22]

The executive branch of government is very powerful, primarily because Congress abdicated its responsibility to pass laws. It is so much easier for Congress to pass a law that states that the EPA, DOL, HHS, Treasury, etc will enact regulations to achieve a particular goal. This is how the EPA, BLM (Bureau of Land Management), IRS essentially make their own laws that hurt every day people and businesses who find little recourse in administrative hearings or even in the courts (if they can even afford to take a matter to court).

I am a tax professional, and I see the federal, state and local tax administrators make up their own laws (enacting or changing regulations) all the time. Laws are “interpreted” in such a way to deny statutory exemptions from a particular industry because there is tax revenue to be had and the courts do nothing but support the tax authority. Tax authorities can change an “interpretation” and essentially raise taxes on everyone, again, with little recourse being found in the courts. Even if courts do find in favor of the taxpayer, it is years after the fact and only taxpayers with means can even take a matter to court.

We already live in an authoritarian country because of the bureaucracy. It is just that our presidents haven’t acted very authoritarian until recently. In my opinion, it really got going under Pres. Bush after 9/11 and has been on steroids under Pres. Obama. I don’t see any of the current crop of candidates undoing any of this or attempting to reign in the bureaucracy.

Interesting post. Thanks for that! Makes me think…