The war on terror primed America for autocracy
Post‑9/11 policies such as the “war on terror,” the Patriot Act, mass surveillance and the normalization of torture are portrayed as a turning point that expanded U.S. state power and eroded civil liberties, potentially priming the country for more autocratic rule. Commenters link these choices to long‑running trends—imperial overreach, the military‑industrial complex, bipartisan support for security crackdowns, and structural flaws in U.S. democracy—while arguing over how much blame belongs to 9/11 versus earlier forces like the Cold War, neoliberal economics and racial politics. Some contend the United States now resembles a failing or proto‑authoritarian state, whereas others insist it remains far freer than true dictatorships but is increasingly vulnerable to them.
War on Terror as Autocratic Turning Point
- Many see 9/11 and the “Global War on Terror” as the moment expansive wartime powers were normalized: Patriot Act, mass surveillance, torture programs, indefinite detention, Guantánamo, militarized police, and Islamophobia.
- Others argue this was a continuation of a longer trajectory: WWI/WWII, Cold War, Red Scare, war on drugs, and a century of growing security apparatus and foreign entanglements.
- Several note that tools first justified against foreigners/“terrorists” are now used domestically (e.g., terrorism designations against protesters).
Civil Liberties, Fear, and Security Theater
- Commenters highlight a large mismatch between the small statistical risk of terrorism and the scale of liberty surrendered, contrasting it with far deadlier risks (cars, guns, Covid, healthcare failures).
- TSA and airport security are debated: some call it pure theater; others say it’s hard to separate effective from performative measures, especially in the post-attack panic.
- Torture is treated by many as a moral red line and emblematic of a totalitarian turn; a minority argue torture and authoritarianism aren’t tightly coupled historically.
Empire, Decline, and Historical Analogies
- Strong use of Roman Empire analogies: overextended republic-turned-empire, dependence on military power, and eventual decline through external shocks and internal rot.
- Disagreement over whether recent military failures (e.g., in the Middle East, Iran) mark retreat from empire or just another setback.
- Some say bin Laden “won” by luring the US into ruinous forever wars and political breakdown; others counter that his strategic objectives (e.g., expelling US forces) largely failed.
Democracy, Parties, and Structural Drift
- Repeated concern about an empowered executive and a Congress that abdicates responsibility, enabling “royal prerogative”-style rule.
- Debate over whether voting still meaningfully constrains power in a two-party, winner‑take‑all system; proposals include ranked-choice and structural reform.
- Polarization is variously attributed to post‑9/11 politics, mass immigration, social media, and long-term economic inequality.
Surveillance and Power: State vs Corporations
- Some see corporate data harvesting (Google, Meta, Apple) as more worrying than state surveillance.
- Others respond that only the state can imprison or kill, so its access to that same data remains the core threat.
Other Threads
- Long side debates on the partition of India, religious nationalism, and post‑colonial borders.
- Discussion of US–Israel relations, lobbying, and an emerging split in US domestic politics over support for Israel.
- Examples cited of harsh terrorism-related sentences for domestic protesters as evidence of “war on terror” tools being turned inward.