Indeed, subjectivity moves in the shadows, and yet it dominates the real world. And that sort of thing requires a exponentially more whole-lotta words, because it can be expected that there will be lotsa views. But consider this: what is in the Bible, is subjective on many levels, almost like a puzzle. There are objectively speaking, only a few archeological data-points. Yet we seek Truth there.
One of the issues with Modernity is that it tries to eliminate the subjective, e.g. religious views, or moral standpoints, that are labeled as 'bias'. The thought-process contains everything into little boxes, or files, and especially data-points are sought that can be listed and sorted. Indeed, any moral or legal reasoning is often sidelined in favor of a miniscule defnition.
This is the reason that media such as a collective encyclopedia appears to be so dis-jointed IMO.
Nevertheless, I agree with you. If one is to be objective, then one should at least agree on some principles that matter (e.g. regular, transparent, auditable elections which arguably reduce the possibility of self-coups) and not to make it about subjective values, even as the matter parades as objective ( because one can count the number of terms) - i.e. there MUST be a term-limit with an amendment to 'prove it', because um.
Was FDR considered a good president? Arguably yes, because he steered USA from a depression, through WW2, and served the people to the end of his life. Although he had his opponents. So, after his death, in 1951 there was the 22nd Amendment.
For constitutionalists, there may be some curly questions. Was the amendment made to prevent 'Good', well-liked presidents?
Between 1946 and 2022, an estimated 148 self-coup attempts took place, 110 in autocracies and 38 in democracies. So - a common enough occurrence then.
First of al, there is the idea of a coup d'etat. This term we have heard bandied about in the MSM since birth. It means a Military take-over. In such cases, expect decorated Generals to immediately become head-of state. However, such a coup can be via other political elites (Think Poroshenko and his merry Azov men, and Oh, Western spooks). Perhaps, far into the future, we may see Pelosi as one of those, backed by Wall St. But I digress.
So what is a self-coup?
It is when sub-legal or illegal means are employed to prolong a presidency. Thus, it is done by a sitting president.
Of course, we, need to do a critical fact check:
There is a list of 'famous people that have committed self-coups' on that page: Putin is on the list, which is ridiculous. People voted for him: In extremely transparent elections. The claim is that he is an autocrat, prolly on the basis that the current one is his sixth term. But this is a cultural difference - Russians prefer stability, and constitutionally allow repeat business. No term limits. You vote, you get. Also as a point of order: FDR in USA had four terms, so then, technically he should be on that Wiki list. No?
In any case, some interesting points about self-coups
The leader may dissolve or render powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assume extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances.
So, 'elensky banned elections, amongst other things.
Also there is the claim that a genocide is in self-defense and therefore 'war-presidency' and using that as a reason to ban elections. Hmmm, Benzion Mileikowsky (later Netanyahu). [cough].
Wow, there is a whole lot of subjectivity in that list of self coups and attempted self-coups.
Several of them are cases of reactions to stolen elections and foreign coups.
Indeed, subjectivity moves in the shadows, and yet it dominates the real world. And that sort of thing requires a exponentially more whole-lotta words, because it can be expected that there will be lotsa views. But consider this: what is in the Bible, is subjective on many levels, almost like a puzzle. There are objectively speaking, only a few archeological data-points. Yet we seek Truth there.
One of the issues with Modernity is that it tries to eliminate the subjective, e.g. religious views, or moral standpoints, that are labeled as 'bias'. The thought-process contains everything into little boxes, or files, and especially data-points are sought that can be listed and sorted. Indeed, any moral or legal reasoning is often sidelined in favor of a miniscule defnition.
This is the reason that media such as a collective encyclopedia appears to be so dis-jointed IMO.
Nevertheless, I agree with you. If one is to be objective, then one should at least agree on some principles that matter (e.g. regular, transparent, auditable elections which arguably reduce the possibility of self-coups) and not to make it about subjective values, even as the matter parades as objective ( because one can count the number of terms) - i.e. there MUST be a term-limit with an amendment to 'prove it', because um.
Was FDR considered a good president? Arguably yes, because he steered USA from a depression, through WW2, and served the people to the end of his life. Although he had his opponents. So, after his death, in 1951 there was the 22nd Amendment.
For constitutionalists, there may be some curly questions. Was the amendment made to prevent 'Good', well-liked presidents?
Wikipedia facts need to be checked, because anyone, within reason, can edit it. However, let's:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup
First of al, there is the idea of a coup d'etat. This term we have heard bandied about in the MSM since birth. It means a Military take-over. In such cases, expect decorated Generals to immediately become head-of state. However, such a coup can be via other political elites (Think Poroshenko and his merry Azov men, and Oh, Western spooks). Perhaps, far into the future, we may see Pelosi as one of those, backed by Wall St. But I digress.
So what is a self-coup?
It is when sub-legal or illegal means are employed to prolong a presidency. Thus, it is done by a sitting president.
Of course, we, need to do a critical fact check:
There is a list of 'famous people that have committed self-coups' on that page: Putin is on the list, which is ridiculous. People voted for him: In extremely transparent elections. The claim is that he is an autocrat, prolly on the basis that the current one is his sixth term. But this is a cultural difference - Russians prefer stability, and constitutionally allow repeat business. No term limits. You vote, you get. Also as a point of order: FDR in USA had four terms, so then, technically he should be on that Wiki list. No?
In any case, some interesting points about self-coups
So, 'elensky banned elections, amongst other things.
Also there is the claim that a genocide is in self-defense and therefore 'war-presidency' and using that as a reason to ban elections. Hmmm, Benzion Mileikowsky (later Netanyahu). [cough].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzion_Netanyahu#:~:text=Benzion%20Mileikowsky%20(later%20Netanyahu)%20was,and%20Zionist%20activist%20Nathan%20Mileikowsky.