Are We Seeing the Rise of a Fundamentalist Dictatorship?

[JonNC]

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.

I’m genuinely curious why you think this particular candidate is perceived as radical or extreme. I honestly believe that some people, including certain Christians, feel it is the last 7 years that have been radical and extreme. They see the alternatives from that leader’s major political party to be even more radical and extreme than He is. They see what they perceive as the indoctrination of young people into relinquishing basic rights for the promise of free stuff, paid for by the confiscation of property from others.
They see their basic rights under attack, and the very principles they believe the country was founded on being ridiculed and dismantled. Perhaps they believe this particular candidate is strong enough to stand up to the current revolution against Christian principles and constitutional rights.

Jon

 

[phil19034]

Then please explain why these people support a candidate whose whole life has been a refutation of all that they believe in? They believe in monogamy; he’s an adulterer. They hold greed to be a sin; it’s his prime motivator. They are called to Christian charity; he is rude, nasty and insulting to anyone who doesn’t agree with him. They decry vulgar speech; he had the pottiest of potty mouths. They are commanded to be honest in their business dealings; he cheats those least able to defend themselves.

These are not people who hold deep religious convictions; they are people who turn to religion for other reasons.

I think it’s simple. They are fed up with career politics. They believe that Trump is the only one with the strength to battle the left, to eliminate political correctness, and get stuff done.

They believe that Trump will surround himself with the best possible people for each job and is not sold out to special interests. Trump is his own special interest, he won’t be controlled by the special interests like other candidates.

Personally, I believe that if Trump is elected he will either be an outstanding president or a huge failure. I don’t think it there will be a middle ground, as Trump does not tip toe.

 

[ChristianDude]

It’s very unlikely, if not almost impossible, for America to become a dictatorship. I get shocked when people think of this stuff, with all due respect. The way our political system is set up does not allow for the executive to have such power; probably the only way for a dictatorship to arise is a self-coup with the support of the military, which I don’t believe will be happening any time soon.

 

[petra22]

Could you please be more specific? What is it specifically that “liberals want and get…?”

The conservatives just voted on a big spending bill without even questioning… which helps up run up the debt which is now 19Trillion. I think it was because they didn’t want to makes waves during an election cycle…
Just one item…

 

[petra22]

I’m genuinely curious why you think this particular candidate is perceived as radical or extreme. I honestly believe that some people, including certain Christians, feel it is the last 7 years that have been radical and extreme. They see the alternatives from that leader’s major political party to be even more radical and extreme than He is. They see what they perceive as the indoctrination of young people into relinquishing basic rights for the promise of free stuff, paid for by the confiscation of property from others.
They see their basic rights under attack, and the very principles they believe the country was founded on being ridiculed and dismantled. Perhaps they believe this particular candidate is strong enough to stand up to the current revolution against Christian principles and constitutional rights.

Jon

I think I fit in here!
“They see their basic rights under attack, and the very principles they believe the country was founded on being ridiculed and dismantled. Perhaps they believe this particular candidate is strong enough to stand up to the current revolution against Christian principles and constitutional rights.”

 

[Son_of_Niall]

It’s very unlikely, if not almost impossible, for America to become a dictatorship. I get shocked when people think of this stuff, with all due respect. The way our political system is set up does not allow for the executive to have such power; probably the only way for a dictatorship to arise is a self-coup with the support of the military, which I don’t believe will be happening any time soon.

You probably need to familiarize yourself with the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act.

 

[ChristianDude]

You probably need to familiarize yourself with the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act.

Both of which I support, tbh.

 

[Peebo]

It’s very unlikely, if not almost impossible, for America to become a dictatorship. I get shocked when people think of this stuff, with all due respect. The way our political system is set up does not allow for the executive to have such power; probably the only way for a dictatorship to arise is a self-coup with the support of the military, which I don’t believe will be happening any time soon.

Well…personally I agree with you…but if you follow the posts here on CAF concerning the 2nd amendment and gun control you’ll find a significant number cite as one of the main reasons they support the 2nd amendment is to ensure that we don’t fall under the control of a tyrannical government.

 

[JonNC]

Well…personally I agree with you…but if you follow the posts here on CAF concerning the 2nd amendment and gun control you’ll find a significant number cite as one of the main reasons they support the 2nd amendment is to ensure that we don’t fall under the control of a tyrannical government.

THE main reason, according to the text and its authors.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

It’s very unlikely, if not almost impossible, for America to become a dictatorship. I get shocked when people think of this stuff, with all due respect. The way our political system is set up does not allow for the executive to have such power; probably the only way for a dictatorship to arise is a self-coup with the support of the military, which I don’t believe will be happening any time soon.

Or, one could create an oppressive level of debt, and dependency on government where people are willing to surrender their rights in order to maintain their reception of “entitlements”. Convince them that only government should have guns, and the parts of a coup de jure are in place.

Jon

 

[petra22]

You probably need to familiarize yourself with the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act.

And the act that allows and encourages government agencies to buy and stockpile ammunition…and as a result the citizen has a difficult time finding it to purchase…

 

[JustaServant]

One of the popular images of the old German Gestapo is the trench-coat figure with a black wide-brimmed hat, popularized in Raiders of the Lost Ark. In actual fact, most people who worked for the Gestapo were desk-bound bureaucrats who collected endless complaints from people (see something, say something?) turning in their neighbors.
It’s actually a myth that ‘one person’ controls a country. What that ‘one person’ is in fact, is a figure-head. He needs willing and eager subjects to create a tyranny.
A bureaucracy of people loyal to the cause.
What scares me about Donald Trump, is not Donald Trump. What scares me are the FOLLOWERS of Donald Trump. Are they dedicated to a kind-of ‘fundamentalist tyranny’ the OP suggests? I sincerely hope not. If they are, they in signing their own demise.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Both of which I support, tbh.

Under the NDAA, the president also may lock up anyone who commits a “belligerent act” against the U.S. or its coalition allies “without trial, until the end of the hostilities.” The law embraces the notion that the U.S. military can be used even domestically to arrest an American citizen or anyone else who falls under such suspicion – and it is “suspicion” because a trial can be avoided indefinitely.
The American Civil Liberties Union also disputed Obama’s claim that the NDAA was essentially business as usual. “The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision,” the ACLU said, without “temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.”
I cannot believe it, but I agree with the ACLU.
James Madison knew what would pose the greatest danger to the Constitution. He recognized the inevitable effects on our liberties of “continual warfare” of the kind we have been waging for more than a decade now:

“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.”

“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.” [Or put in today’s parlance, the 99 percent under the boot of the one percent.]

“The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

 

[ChristianDude]

Under the NDAA, the president also may lock up anyone who commits a “belligerent act” against the U.S. or its coalition allies “without trial, until the end of the hostilities.” The law embraces the notion that the U.S. military can be used even domestically to arrest an American citizen or anyone else who falls under such suspicion – and it is “suspicion” because a trial can be avoided indefinitely.
The American Civil Liberties Union also disputed Obama’s claim that the NDAA was essentially business as usual. “The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision,” the ACLU said, without “temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.”
I cannot believe it, but I agree with the ACLU.
James Madison knew what would pose the greatest danger to the Constitution. He recognized the inevitable effects on our liberties of “continual warfare” of the kind we have been waging for more than a decade now:

I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree, I am of a more authoritarian mindset personally.

 

[ChristianDude]

Or, one could create an oppressive level of debt, and dependency on government where people are willing to surrender their rights in order to maintain their reception of “entitlements”. Convince them that only government should have guns, and the parts of a coup de jure are in place.

Jon

Guns are a pretty significant part of American culture though, so it would be tough for the government to convince people that, especially in the Midwest and the South. Although younger generation people (like people my age) are more sympathetic to the cause of gun control, as far as I know, so maybe such a scenario could be at least partly feasible within the next few decades.

 

[petra22]

Under the NDAA, the president also may lock up anyone who commits a “belligerent act” against the U.S. or its coalition allies “without trial, until the end of the hostilities.” The law embraces the notion that the U.S. military can be used even domestically to arrest an American citizen or anyone else who falls under such suspicion – and it is “suspicion” because a trial can be avoided indefinitely.
The American Civil Liberties Union also disputed Obama’s claim that the NDAA was essentially business as usual. “The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision,” the ACLU said, without “temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.”
I cannot believe it, but I agree with the ACLU.
James Madison knew what would pose the greatest danger to the Constitution. He recognized the inevitable effects on our liberties of “continual warfare” of the kind we have been waging for more than a decade now:

This part of your quote caught my attention…

“The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

Now, I’m thinking…how long has the U.S. been at war??? WOW!

 

[Ridgerunner]

What scares me about Donald Trump, is not Donald Trump. What scares me are the FOLLOWERS of Donald Trump. Are they dedicated to a kind-of ‘fundamentalist tyranny’ the OP suggests? I sincerely hope not. If they are, they in signing their own demise.

There are people at all levels of the political spectrum who would impose tyranny if they could. But I think it’s a mistake to paint all evangelicals with that brush, or even the majority of them. One has to remember that Protestantism, particularly its fundamentalist and evangelical (they’re not the same) manifestations, has individual determination of belief and mores as its core principle. Directing Evangelicals to a single governance would be like herding cats.

I think, when the voting is done, and if it’s even determinable, that as many or more Catholics are going to vote for Trump as Evangelicals. Trump’s appeal is not to “I’m saved” but to “I want a good job”.

 

[JustaServant]

There are people at all levels of the political spectrum who would impose tyranny if they could. But I think it’s a mistake to paint all evangelicals with that brush, or even the majority of them. One has to remember that Protestantism, particularly its fundamentalist and evangelical (they’re not the same) manifestations, has individual determination of belief and mores as its core principle. Directing Evangelicals to a single governance would be like herding cats.

I think, when the voting is done, and if it’s even determinable, that as many or more Catholics are going to vote for Trump as Evangelicals. Trump’s appeal is not to “I’m saved” but to “I want a good job”.

To be specific, I am speaking of Trump’s followers which includes many within a very wide loop. As I stated in that post, for a tyranny to work, it has to create a massive bureaucracy of willing subjects who are dedicated to ‘the cause’. I would contend we have already started this process at the beginning of this century. Evangelicals are only a part of this. Their particular part of this bureaucracy might indeed look very much like what the OP describes. That’s all I am saying.
Trump believes only in Trump.

 

[Ridgerunner]

To be specific, I am speaking of Trump’s followers which includes many within a very wide loop. As I stated in that post, for a tyranny to work, it has to create a massive bureaucracy of willing subjects who are dedicated to ‘the cause’. I would contend we have already started this process at the beginning of this century. Evangelicals are only a part of this. Their particular part of this bureaucracy might indeed look very much like what the OP describes. That’s all I am saying.
Trump believes only in Trump.

I’m sure Trump believes only in Trump; a characteristic one is inclined to think is shared by virtually all of the candidates on both sides as well as the person now occupying the White House.

I have not seen demographics on Trump supporters, but if I had to guess, I would guess Evangelicals are not the majority. My guess is that most are those who have taken the worst beatings during the current administration; working people who are at or below the median income, whether blue collar or white collar. To me, Trump’s success, to the extent he has had it, is due to discontent that has reached the level of real anger.

I have personally been a bit more fortunate, economically and occupationally, than many. Trump is not my favored candidate, but I can certainly see how many would support him. The last few years have demonstrated severe flaws in “the system”. While our system has always been somewhat adversarial in its nature, we have not, until the last 7 years really see it cause breakdown. It appears the tendency of congress, for decades, to cede regulatory power to the executive, combined with the “gentlemens’ club” rules of the Senate have allowed a radical minority to paralyze the majority. Whatever collegiality existed before is now simply gone, so nothing gets done.

And when one adds to that the total power the leader of one party had in his administration’s early years, and the degree to which it was abused, (e.g., Obamacare, trillion dollar slush fund) has formed a foundation for a cynicism that has only gotten worse in the succeeding years.

I maintain that, but for the welfare system and social security, we would have soup lines longer than ever existed in the Depression, so bad is the economy on a fundamental basis. And who ever thought it would take zero interest rates to induce the anemic borrowing for investment we’re now seeing. One is reminded of that child’s ditty “London Bridge is Falling Down”, in which all sorts of measures are utilized to keep the bridge up, but unsuccessfully.

While no one would admit that we are now in a depression, I think people feel it in their bones, and they’re no less angered about it now than they were in the 1930s. We are not only seeing commodity deflation on a massive scale, we’re seeing wage deflation as well.

Trump isn’t as adept a sloganeer as FDR was, but his appeal is of the same sort.

 

[petra22]

There are people at all levels of the political spectrum who would impose tyranny if they could. But I think it’s a mistake to paint all evangelicals with that brush, or even the majority of them. One has to remember that Protestantism, particularly its fundamentalist and evangelical (they’re not the same) manifestations, has individual determination of belief and mores as its core principle. Directing Evangelicals to a single governance would be like herding cats.

I think, when the voting is done, and if it’s even determinable, that as many or more Catholics are going to vote for Trump as Evangelicals. Trump’s appeal is not to “I’m saved” but to “I want a good job”.

Do you mean Trump is saying, “I want to DO a good job?” I think that is what he is saying…?