Too easy to end democracy and politics in the US

[aono]

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

Alien and Sediion Acts were earlier (1798), and it wasn't the only factor that lead to complete Democratic (Democratic-Republican) dominance. 1835 act was reaction onto abolitionist attempt to flood South with pamphlets, but it's not famous.
Essentially, abolitionists brought tons of literature into South, which led to attacks onto postal stations. Jackson asked Congress to give executive power to censor mail, but Calhoun disagreed, claiming that it would be federal overreach, and instead federal employees should be tasked to follow local censorship laws, which were already in effect. The difference of approach stalled bill in Senate, and then was sinked when opposition united claiming it would break the 4th. (Which it would, of course.)

 

[Panagean]

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.

Basically every government form is modelled as its platonic ideal in V3 - hence why there are so many succesful anarchist and communist runs, and none (...two? Maybe?) in real life.

 

[TheLand]

Essentially, what happened in your scenario is this.
...

Yeah, exactly. It's not that unreasonable a counterfactual.

Definitely not SO unreasonable that having a clever player accomplish it in a sandbox-game should be impossible.

 

[Vernichtere]

Basically every government form is modelled as its platonic ideal in V3 - hence why there are so many succesful anarchist and communist runs, and none (...two? Maybe?) in real life.

They all succeed because government cannot fail. The success of the parties depends mainly on the composition of the population + a few events in the election campaign + parameters of characters + voting rights. The government is only trying to change the constitution. There is no general failure.

 

[LAF1994]

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.

There are several problems with this scenario.

First, the nature of the American federal system and the comparatively loose structure of the federal government in this period ought to make this much harder than it is at the moment.

Second, establishment of a state religion would require the establishment of a state church, which would be extremely difficult given the fractured and decentralised nature of American Protestantism; most American Protestant denominations originated from 'dissenters' who rejected the centralised structure of Anglicanism.

Third, having the planters be pro-monarchy/autocracy or anti-republican really doesn't make sense. Given that for example the Confederacy explicitly forbade presidential re-election, it doesn't seem like the southern elite were any different in this regard from their northern counterparts. The only plausible 'authoritarian' shift that seems plausible would be a de facto oligarchy where the electoral democratic elements are solely pro forma, but even in this case outright abolishing the institutional structures of the republican system would almost certainly be well outside the Overton window.

 

[Sergeant Flutter]

I definitely concur with you. America becoming an autocratic Monarchy should be very difficult and almost certainly require a civil war. I am not saying that democratic backsliding has never and could never happen in America or that it could not have had a different trajectory, but I find is especially doubtful.

I think part of the difficulty here is the attempt to apply the same system and IGs to the entire world. The Southern Planters were not identical to the landowners in China and Russia, for example. It’s very doubtful and difficult to see a world where they supported a Monarchy. Limiting voting rights? Yes. Abolishing them? Doubtful, but possible. Abolishing the illusion of them? Almost impossible.

A major part of American identity and culture is based upon liberty and democracyit’s difficult to imagine an America/Americans where that does not exist—at least in name.

In real life, when the Civil War happened—one side was dominated by the Southern Planters and it was most certainly not a monarchy.

This is not to say that a Monarchy/Autocracy is not possible in an alt-history America. It certainly is, but I think 20 years after the game start there being a “King of America” and no voting is completely and totally unrealistic without a civil war.

As for a cure for this, I’m not sure. Giving American Landowners a “Republican” or “Legacy of the Revolution” trait unless they reach a LARGE plurality of clout?

 

[Meneye]

George Washington was going to be made king of America, we are only a republic because he turned it down.

George Washington was never going to be made king, as no one with any real power in America actually offered it to him. He probably could've seized much more power if he desired to stay for more terms, maybe gaining dictatorial powers somewhere down the line, but the idea that a straight up monarchy could've existed then and there is more of a popular myth than reality.

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.

No one feared a monarchy. Yes, the conservatives elements of congress didn't want another Roosevelt to appear, so they decided to implement a term limit. But a monarchy at that point would be absurd.

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.

Fascists in America at the time are comparable to communists in America today. They were there, and there was a significant amount of them, but they weren't popular and they never did anything other than vote for politicians that sorta aligned with their beliefs. Well, they never did anything in government, the violence they committed against minorities was really bad. But politically, they were irrelevant.

If there was going to be a fascist government, it would've gone in a way similar to Italy via a coup by a small group that didn't represent popular opinion, rather than by popular demand.

 

[MatthewP]

While I think it’s true a “king of America” 20 years after game start is really implausible, an autocratic ruler following the path already outlined deciding to anoint his son as his successor and making it stick doesn’t seem outside the realm of possibility. Yes, they would both be called “President” and there would be pro forma “elections”. But are those things really important for the game to represent? Maybe as flavor.

Edit: and re: state religion, it could easily mean “everyone except Protestants is discriminated against” without literally picking a Protestant group. In fact that’s basically how America was during that period, this would just be making it more explicit in the law.

 

[Zhetone]

the weird distortion of history going on in this thread is incredibly confusing and the fact that it's getting likes/agrees is bizarre to me

 

[Fawr]

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.

The end of Weimar Germany happened during this timeframe from inside the institution. Napoleon III's switch from President of France to Emperor of France was also similar.

 

[SufrimientoCC]

The Porfiriato is more to do with positivism. (aka intellectual should eventually ossify into utilitarian bureaucrats, having them always be progressive even by our standards is dumb)

 

[Sergeant Flutter]

I thought up an idea after I posted my initial thread—perhaps there should be some kind of mechanic, similar to infamy, to dissuade the government from rapidly and significantly changing in several departments quickly.

Downside is that such a mechanic would be unable to properly show Weimar, the Meiji Restoration, etc.

Those are the exceptions, not the rule, when it comes to rapid and all encompassing change in a government without a coup/revolution/etc.

Which leads to the question… why was it possible for those states to rapidly and significantly change, while others have only slowly done so?

Two factors, I think:

1. The population. Weimar Germany had horrible inflation, revanchism, and a new democracy. None of these things lend themselves to stability. In game terms, there was a large amount of radicals due to SoL decreases and unemployment. Low government approval should allow the institutions of it to easier be changed.

2. Rule of Law/Judiciary. The game doesn’t really show this very well. In America, most radical/anti-democratic movements in America were stopped in their tracks by the Constitution/Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court, and the public’s respect for its core laws.

There being some kind of “respect for the law” that works against certain laws being rolled back based off of, once again, public approval, could be interesting. I hope this makes sense.

 

[LAF1994]

The end of Weimar Germany happened during this timeframe from inside the institution. Napoleon III's switch from President of France to Emperor of France was also similar.

Both of those countries had previously had a monarchy within living memory at the time though. The same is not true of America.

 

[Gui10]

Then, wouldn't the easiest solution be to give the landowners from countries that were never monarchies a "republican legacy" trait? It would turn their preferred system to presidential republic/oligarchy (strongly endorse) with parliamentary republic and landed voting as secondary preferences (endorse). This would simulate both the difficulty in creating a monarchy in all American countries (not just the US) (because you would need to wait/arrange for a monarchist leader) and the difficulties of agrarian latin american countries experienced while trying to not be oligarchies.

 

[Skales]

Then, wouldn't the easiest solution be to give the landowners from countries that were never monarchies a "republican legacy" trait? It would turn their preferred system to presidential republic/oligarchy (strongly endorse) with parliamentary republic and landed voting as secondary preferences (endorse). This would simulate both the difficulty in creating a monarchy in all American countries (not just the US) (because you would need to wait/arrange for a monarchist leader) and the difficulties of agrarian latin american countries experienced while trying to not be oligarchies.

This basically already exists. Doesn't it?

 

[Gui10]

This basically already exists. Doesn't it?

Aparently the name of the interest groups "traits" is "ideology", while "traits" are the bonuses the groups provide. Hopefully I haven't caused too much confusion.

One of the landowners basic ideologies is "Paternalistic". Aside from other things (some of which should probably also be modified), it makes them strongly endorse "Autocracy", "Landed Voting" and "Monarchy" and endorse (but not strongly) "Oligarchy" and "Theocracy". This makes them a group that can be used at almost any time to support becoming an absolute (autocratic) monarchy.

If it was changed to strongly endorse "Oligarchy" and "Presidential republic", while endorsing "Landed Voting" and "Parliamentary Republic" (but only for countries that were never monarchies), the landowners in those countries could not be used to create monarchies, but would push for laws that kept their power high despite their small numbers. Having them support oligarchy would also make that a common point with the industrialists, which would make it harder to switch out of that - prevent the democracy from becoming an oligarchy. (Although perhaps having them strongly endorse "landed voting" and endorse "oligarchy" [so the only change in that law would be removing support for autocracy] would make more sense since I thing they have more power in that system).

 

[MarkDey]

Multiple posts have been deleted for distracting the conversation with real-world politics and current events. Please stay on topic and adhere to the Community Code of Conduct.

 

[TheLand]

Aparently the name of the interest groups "traits" is "ideology", while "traits" are the bonuses the groups provide. Hopefully I haven't caused too much confusion.

One of the landowners basic ideologies is "Paternalistic". Aside from other things (some of which should probably also be modified), it makes them strongly endorse "Autocracy", "Landed Voting" and "Monarchy" and endorse (but not strongly) "Oligarchy" and "Theocracy". This makes them a group that can be used at almost any time to support becoming an absolute (autocratic) monarchy.

The USA (and probably other nations) have landowners who are republicans.

They have the following in their country history

ig:ig_landowners = {
            set_interest_group_name = ig_southern_planters
            remove_ideology = ideology_paternalistic
            add_ideology = ideology_republican_paternalistic
            add_ruling_interest_group = yes
        }

which means their views are as follows:

ideology_republican_paternalistic = {
    
    lawgroup_governance_principles = {       
        law_presidential_republic = approve
        law_parliamentary_republic = approve
        law_theocracy = approve
        law_monarchy = neutral
        law_council_republic = disapprove
    }
    
    lawgroup_distribution_of_power = {
        law_landed_voting = strongly_approve
        law_oligarchy = strongly_approve
        law_autocracy = approve
        law_wealth_voting = neutral
        law_census_voting = disapprove
        law_universal_suffrage = strongly_disapprove
        law_anarchy = strongly_disapprove
    }

This basically does what is intended; the US landowners want a Republic which either has landed voting, oligarchy or maybe autocracy.

One could make an argument to change this a bit - maybe approve of wealth voting, neutral on census suffrace, and disapprove of autocracy? But they do differ in their view from (say) the Russian aristocracy.

 

[Skales]

If it was changed to strongly endorse "Oligarchy" and "Presidential republic", while endorsing "Landed Voting" and "Parliamentary Republic" (but only for countries that were never monarchies), the landowners in those countries could not be used to create monarchies, but would push for laws that kept their power high despite their small numbers. Having them support oligarchy would also make that a common point with the industrialists, which would make it harder to switch out of that - prevent the democracy from becoming an oligarchy. (Although perhaps having them strongly endorse "landed voting" and endorse "oligarchy" [so the only change in that law would be removing support for autocracy] would make more sense since I thing they have more power in that system).

Yes but . . . I've just told you. That is already a thing in the game. Why did you ignore that?

 

[kawamuratc]

One could make an argument to change this a bit - maybe approve of wealth voting […]

I dunno what the argument would be. Southern Planters represents a group who were very concerned about their political power being lessened by the “larger” states of the more urbanized North. I can’t see them being in support of expanding suffrage to people because of wealth.