What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Berkut]

There is no such thing as a "stable, brutal dictatorship". Surely history has taught us that at least.

To the extent that history teaches us that stability is an illusion in the long term, sure.

No, actually history teaches us that stability is quite possible in the long term, just not with dictatorships.

True political stability it about being able to transfer power smoothly. Democracies, by and large, do this routinely and very regularly.

Dictatorships have almost a 0% success rate doing this, which is why the maximum extent of their stability seems to mostly be linked to how long the particular dictator can stay alive, at best.

Democracies do stability to easily we transition power almost constantly in comparison.

[The Brain]

Berkut sounds like Machiavelli.

[alfred russel]

No, actually history teaches us that stability is quite possible in the long term, just not with dictatorships.

True political stability it about being able to transfer power smoothly. Democracies, by and large, do this routinely and very regularly.

Dictatorships have almost a 0% success rate doing this, which is why the maximum extent of their stability seems to mostly be linked to how long the particular dictator can stay alive, at best.

Democracies do stability to easily we transition power almost constantly in comparison.

What time frame are we using here? The Roman Empire seems to be one of the most stable successful states until the crisis of the third century, and yet it would qualify as a brutal dictatorship by our standards.

[alfred russel]

True political stability it about being able to transfer power smoothly. Democracies, by and large, do this routinely and very regularly.

That is an epic shifting of the goalposts that I don't accept. Political stability goes beyond transfers of power, and defining "true political stability" as being about that is both very limiting and also stacks the deck in favor of democracies.

[Maladict]

No, actually history teaches us that stability is quite possible in the long term, just not with dictatorships.

True political stability it about being able to transfer power smoothly. Democracies, by and large, do this routinely and very regularly.

Dictatorships have almost a 0% success rate doing this, which is why the maximum extent of their stability seems to mostly be linked to how long the particular dictator can stay alive, at best.

Democracies do stability to easily we transition power almost constantly in comparison.

What time frame are we using here? The Roman Empire seems to be one of the most stable successful states until the crisis of the third century, and yet it would qualify as a brutal dictatorship by our standards.

Overlooking a dozen or so civil wars, sure.

[HVC]

North korea seems to transfer pretty smoothly, allowing some blown up uncles and such.

[alfred russel]

Overlooking a dozen or so civil wars, sure.

Going off memory--but if we take the period of Augustus to Commodus, there was the year of the four emperors, but was there another period of civil wars? I can't remember how Nerva came to power, so maybe there was one then.

I realize that the crisis of the third century didn't start with Commodus, but that was still a ~180 year period of significant stability. It compares favorably with the last 180 years of european history, and not too unfavorably to the US.

[Valmy]

Nerva came to power with the coup that ousted Domitian, but his regime was quickly stabilized when he adopted Trajan as his successor. The fact that he was obviously old and unlikely to live long helped.

But notice that Nerva represented the will of the Senate and the upper class plutocrats and his elevation was a helpful reminder to any Emperors that they still had to rule with the fat cats...for now anyway.

[Valmy]

How whimsical!

[viper37]

There is no such thing as a "stable, brutal dictatorship". Surely history has taught us that at least.

To the extent that history teaches us that stability is an illusion in the long term, sure.

No, actually history teaches us that stability is quite possible in the long term, just not with dictatorships.

well, I wasn't thinking of an empire lasting a thousand years.
More like 30-40 years of stability, usually the life of a dictator until his son takes over and sees the empire collapsing under him.

In my example, I would imagine Iraq being a very stable country so long as Saddam is alive and healthy.  After that, it would have been a civil war, just as vicious as the one happenning under US occupation.

[Berkut]

No, actually history teaches us that stability is quite possible in the long term, just not with dictatorships.

True political stability it about being able to transfer power smoothly. Democracies, by and large, do this routinely and very regularly.

Dictatorships have almost a 0% success rate doing this, which is why the maximum extent of their stability seems to mostly be linked to how long the particular dictator can stay alive, at best.

Democracies do stability to easily we transition power almost constantly in comparison.

What time frame are we using here? The Roman Empire seems to be one of the most stable successful states until the crisis of the third century, and yet it would qualify as a brutal dictatorship by our standards.

The last couple hundred years seems a bit more relevant than Ancient History.

[CountDeMoney]

Berkut sounds like Machiavelli.

Apparently there is a Broadway musical in the works for him.

Machiavelli, not Berkut.

[Berkut]

True political stability it about being able to transfer power smoothly. Democracies, by and large, do this routinely and very regularly.

That is an epic shifting of the goalposts that I don't accept. Political stability goes beyond transfers of power, and defining "true political stability" as being about that is both very limiting and also stacks the deck in favor of democracies.

How can any evaluation of stability NOT include the transference of power? Isn't that the very definition of a political sytems stability - its ability to transfer power from one entity to another without the need for some kind of political violence?

And of course it stacks the deck in favor of democracies! There is a reason democracy is generally considered to be better than "brutal dictatorship"!

[Berkut]

North korea seems to transfer pretty smoothly, allowing some blown up uncles and such.

They have managed ONE transfer in 50+ years, and I would not call North Korea overall remotely stable. Rather it is an inherently unstable regime propped up by outside forces interested in keeping it's stability from fucking them up too much.

If China bailed on them, and the US and SK told them to go fuck off, they are on their own, they would be at civil war, or external war in a matter of a couple of years.

North Korea is not even remotely a stable regime.

[Barrister]

North korea seems to transfer pretty smoothly, allowing some blown up uncles and such.

They have managed ONE transfer in 50+ years, and I would not call North Korea overall remotely stable. Rather it is an inherently unstable regime propped up by outside forces interested in keeping it's stability from fucking them up too much.

If China bailed on them, and the US and SK told them to go fuck off, they are on their own, they would be at civil war, or external war in a matter of a couple of years.

North Korea is not even remotely a stable regime.

Well two transfers, but yeah I would overall agree with you.