Too easy to end democracy and politics in the US

[Searry]

I found it pretty funny that by having the evangelicals and southern planters co-operating, democracy could be ended very fast in the USA.
Firstly I levelled up the local police, then instated state religion, instituted a secret police which I levelled up, instituted a monarchy, then charity hospitals, then oligarchy and then reinstated the slave trade.
Political movements have no power at all, the slavery debate really isn't a debate, people are loyal, I have no trouble from the democratic process affecting legitimacy, legitimacy is always at 100% due to my Emperor being the leader of the Southern Planters and he has the biggest amount of battalions. All officers are from southern planters or evangelicals.

The funny thing is that everyone seems to be happy at this huge power grab and monarchy and the oligarchy.

I think legitimacy needs a rework where historical institutions and laws decrease legitimacy if you change them too fast. The US was transformed into a European style deep state autocracy in less than 10 years.

I think any US citizen from that era would see this style of government as completely illegitimate.

Maybe instead have a legitimacy penalty from changing institutions and laws too fast that would tick down slowly so it isn't imperator style gameplay where you just press buttons and stuff happens.

 

[Searry]

I don't pretend to know enough US history to know of any monarchist or fascist plots but my point is that institutional legacy doesn't seem to be a thing in this game. Existing institutions are just replaced without a trace of the past.

 

[kawamuratc]

Wow! That is really interesting!

I know people talk about a lack of unique flavor, but what you describe happening looks very much like the game is modeling the dangerously strong preference for authoritarianism that has historically existed in the US. That’s where I would have placed my bets (until post civil war, then I’d add the industrialists to shore up weak Southern Planters) if I were to bet on how best to do what you did.

Institutions aren’t physical objects and don’t really have an actual mass or inertia; that’s something we see in history and to the current day. They’re like money: they only exist because enough people have agreed to use and enforce them. Get enough to stop, and poof! They go away.

And they go away fast, too. It’s actually really interesting because if you read historical accounts of these kind of massive changes, you will actually see people expressing shock at how quickly stuff goes down.

So here you are, in the game, experiencing that same rapid and seemingly drastic change. That’s super neat, I’ll have to try it.

Then have a stiff drink. And an antacid

EDIT to add: so no, I don’t think it’s too easy. I wonder how they can model the downsides to such a back slide better though. I mean, other than just graphic and detailed discussions of genocide because, you know, not really entertaining (understatement of the year).

 

[Richard Dolder]

I don't pretend to know enough US history to know of any monarchist or fascist plots but my point is that institutional legacy doesn't seem to be a thing in this game.

George Washington was going to be made king of America, we are only a republic because he turned it down.
The two term presidential limit was implemented because the Roosevelt political dynasty was popular enough with the poor to not need party politics to get elected, that the ruling elites seriously feared a Roosevelt monarchy that favored the down trodden over the elite.
Pre-WW2 there was not a coup, but there was a general feeling that democracy was like absolute monarchy becoming outdated and fascism and communism were the new hot things, and the US sure as heck wasn't going communist. Fascism was extremely in fashion up until we entered WW2, at which point the fascists had to be quiet but they weren't remotely purged or anything.

 

[shoebird]

I think legitimacy needs a rework

Oh please no. I’ve enough legitimacy reworks for a while.

I think any US citizen from that era would see this style of government as completely illegitimate.

I don't pretend to know enough US history

I don’t know much about the US history neither. But all this discussion about the US republicanism reminds me of another apparently very Republican nation.

imperator

Yes Rome. Sure it took them a couple of civil wars or so, but they became a monarchy after that. And it seems that the republic never made a come back. Of course they still were officially a republic I think but we’ll.

 

[Searry]

Wow! That is really interesting!

I know people talk about a lack of unique flavor, but what you describe happening looks very much like the game is modeling the dangerously strong preference for authoritarianism that has historically existed in the US. That’s where I would have placed my bets (until post civil war, then I’d add the industrialists to shore up weak Southern Planters) if I were to bet on how best to do what you did.

Institutions aren’t physical objects and don’t really have an actual mass or inertia; that’s something we see in history and to the current day. They’re like money: they only exist because enough people have agreed to use and enforce them. Get enough to stop, and poof! They go away.

And they go away fast, too. It’s actually really interesting because if you read historical accounts of these kind of massive changes, you will actually see people expressing shock at how quickly stuff goes down.

So here you are, in the game, experiencing that same rapid and seemingly drastic change. That’s super neat, I’ll have to try it.

Then have a stiff drink. And an antacid

EDIT to add: so no, I don’t think it’s too easy. I wonder how they can model the downsides to such a back slide better though. I mean, other than just graphic and detailed discussions of genocide because, you know, not really entertaining (understatement of the year).

Things like what I described usually happen with a power grab or a revolution, not from inside the institution.

EDIT: The Porfiriato is an interesting example of an institution of power holding and sharing and how it ended. There were still many institutionalists wishing for it to continue even after it ended. So it isn't as simplistic. If democracy was ended by popular demand or revolution there would still be a lot of people wanting it back.

 

[Richard Dolder]

Things like what I described usually happen with a power grab or a revolution, not from inside the institution.

I keep saying reforming the government should itself be a major political action, not just something radicals or something democracies do for free.
But actually represent new groups coming to power.

But as noted

Oh please no. I’ve enough legitimacy reworks for a while.

 

[Panagean]

Pre-WW2 there was not a coup, but there was a general feeling that democracy was like absolute monarchy becoming outdated and fascism and communism were the new hot things, and the US sure as heck wasn't going communist. Fascism was extremely in fashion up until we entered WW2, at which point the fascists had to be quiet but they weren't remotely purged or anything.

Smedley Butler, a famous marine, was (allegedly, but pretty likely) invited to take part in a fascist coup in the 30s by representatives of (I think?) JP Morgan (source: Gangsters of Capitalism, Johnathan Katz). He declined, and the coup was likely pretty half-baked, but still.

 

[kawamuratc]

Smedley Butler, a famous marine, was (allegedly, but pretty likely) invited to take part in a fascist coup in the 30s by representatives of (I think?) JP Morgan (source: Gangsters of Capitalism, Johnathan Katz). He declined, and the coup was likely pretty half-baked, but still.

Yeah, there’s a lot of really close calls (and, depending on your stance, successful tragedies of history) around authoritarian systems in the US.

Are there any mods that sort of railroad the Civil War into the Reconstruction era? I’d like to see if I can avoid the 1877 compromise or if the game makes it really hard.

 

[aono]

Essentially, what happened in your scenario is this.

1. State governments, including that in the South, gain more resources and authority to police their own population, which empowered landed "aristocracy" (quotes because they didn't have titles, but they were aristocracy for any other meaning), without federal oversight. So, legalization branch of state governements is firmly in control of wealthy and prestigeous families, and therefore the control of Senate is under control of said families. (17th Amendment, which established that senators should be elected, was passed in 1913, to fix this problem exactly). By suppression of voters, Representatives would most likely also under landed aristocracy, so they have full control of Congress. Which also means control over Supreme Court.
2. Then this people, who are in control of Senate and, generally, are religious, established some kind of state religion clause to the Constitution. The first attempt to do so, as far as I know, happened in 1863, but it failed. Still, in your scenario, the control of the Congress is given to people who want it, so yeah, something like that - "We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government, and in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the inalienable rights and the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to ourselves and our posterity, and all the people, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." - can pass Congress. It wouldn't change lifes of people who could vote anyways, so your opposition would be people who oppose this kind of things in a matter of principle; you can't have a revolt by the people like that.
3. Then federals institued FBI and prosecuted hard all political opposition to the said aristocracy block.
4. When Senate offered a title to the President, there was no organized power that could oppose it. Local public that could rise up were suppressed by both local police and FBI, leaders are imprisoned and/or assassinated.
5. Then federal elections, which are meaningless to this point anyways, are abolished.

I'd say 10 years is indeed too fast, but 15-20 years, yeah, that's possible in the environment of 1830s-1850s.

 

[Searry]

I keep saying reforming the government should itself be a major political action, not just something radicals or something democracies do for free.
But actually represent new groups coming to power.

Victoria 2 did this sort of thing a little bit better. For example in some mods it was beneficial to put reactioanries in charge early to roll back all sort of reform so you can save them for later when you need to reduce militancy. In Victoria 3 it would seem that being reactionary is a very long term benefit as you don't have to suffer from the democratic process and very likely will never have to. Having no self regulating governance which democracy is for a very long period should be a very negative thing due to state capture and all other sorts of corruption but this is not modelled at all so reactionary government is all benefit, no negative.

 

[Searry]

I'd say 10 years is indeed too fast, but 15-20 years, yeah, that's possible in the environment of 1830s-1850s.

Yes. This sort of long time investment into reactionary politics should be a thing rather than press button thing happen gameplay.

 

[kawamuratc]

Yes. This sort of long time investment into reactionary politics should be a thing rather than press button thing happen gameplay.

I think the difference is id consider the political power of Southern Planters at the start as that long time investment.

 

[aono]

Yes. This sort of long time investment into reactionary politics should be a thing rather than press button thing happen gameplay.

People tend to forget that in 1835 Congress nearly instituted political censorship in US. It wouldn't be so much a problem.

 

[Searry]

People tend to forget that in 1835 Congress nearly instituted political censorship in US. It wouldn't be so much a problem.

But this is a game. Not real history. I want to have potential opposition into my shenanigans and other problems arising from the whole ordeal.

 

[kawamuratc]

But this is a game. Not real history. I want to have potential opposition into my shenanigans and other problems arising from the whole ordeal.

Wouldn’t it be better to find a different country, without the same level of authoritarian risk?

Or, rather, I think it’s not unreasonable to find it easy to slide into authoritarianism in this time period (at least, among colonizing states, have no clue on others). Like, I think effective colonizing states strongly reward authoritarian impulses, so the struggle is to maintain a less authoritarian system for a large number of people while also building/encouraging authoritarianism systems.

If anything, I think that’s where the game needs more challenge, but I’ve been bouncing my limited game time between learning HoI4, figuring out Vic3 and playing a block game with friends. My Vic 3 gameing experience has mostly been liberalizing Canada and delighting in choo choos.

Spoiler: Aside

(Off topic: I recommend Vintage Story. Never got into Minecraft, too Lego-y. VS is quite pretty and itches the same “good frustration” scratch that learning PDX games do.)

 

[Cry_Havok]

The two term presidential limit was implemented because the Roosevelt political dynasty was popular enough with the poor to not need party politics to get elected, that the ruling elites seriously feared a Roosevelt monarchy that favored the down trodden over the elite.

Two-term limit was certainly anti-poor/pro status quo, but there was no real risk of FDR or any later two term president becoming a monarch without shenanigans that would go beyond term limits.

That said, it would make sense that certain laws had a ratcheting effect and spawn increased radicals just by moving "backwards" instead of just naturally opposed parties. This isn't to say it is impossible to get these passed, but there would be more built in resistance (and for some nations scripted resistance). These would be voting rights (both voting structure and women's suffrage), government type (particularly becoming a theocracy or monarchy, to compensate any revolt lead by land owners or clergy could spawn as a theocracy or monarchy so everything doesn't just gradually drift towards republics), changing slavery type (though there should be a way to reduce the unrest with buyouts in cases of abolition, as happened historically in some cases), and reimplementing state religion.

 

[Vernichtere]

The problem is that the domestic political mechanics are immature. The local level hardly exists. The only characters that matter are military.

The most obvious thing to do would be to at least introduce governors. Either directly appointed or "elected" by the strongest cultures/influencers. If you want it uncomplicated, the governor gives some bonuses or penalties for the provinces. If you want it more complicated:

- own budget

-Special rights: slavery or assimilation to the local cultural group.
- Special legislation: no labor protection.


In general, politics must move away from the constitution. At the moment you can only decide about big things. When everything is unlocked, there is nothing left to do. The parties do not have a small agenda. It's not about cutting taxes, it's about all or nothing.

 

[benice1234]

People tend to forget that in 1835 Congress nearly instituted political censorship in US. It wouldn't be so much a problem.

OTOH the Alien and Sedition Acts were so unpopular that it pretty much led to complete Democratic political dominance up until the civil war a half century later

 

[STABBY5]

OTOH the Alien and Sedition Acts were so unpopular that it pretty much led to complete Democratic political dominance up until the civil war a half century later

America did in fact have political censorship turning the time frame of the game. With the Espionage Act of 1917 and even more so the Sedition Act of 1918 it became illegal to criticize the government. Now it only lasted two years but it did happen.