Again, it did produce results economically - after a brief disarray period, the economical situation in Russia improved and the economical situation of average Russians universally became much better than under the USSR. Incomparably better one might say. Unfortunately, along with this improvement, there was ongoing process of consolidating power by the oligarchical clique, led by Putin, which was largely ignored by the society - in part precisely because it did not result (at least not directly) in any harm to an average citizen yet. If you don't make the waves and don't cross the wrong people, you'd be ok - you can have at least decent middle-class living, by Russian standards, and if you're lucky, maybe even a little rich (being really rich is entirely different game, which requires you to be part of the oligarchy). That's one of the reasons most of them didn't care - economical side was still good, and freedom - who needs freedom?
> I was actually talking about the people who want to establish a Christian theocracy in the United States
Ah, the imaginary theocrats. I'm not afraid of them, I must say. I am afraid of those who actively suppress debate important to society right now, right this moment. Imaginary Christian theocrats can't prohibit discussing important topics on 90% of internet platforms, can't suppress publication of vital information they think is politically inconvenient, can't fire me from my job for expressing a wrong opinion, can't force me to sign political statements as a condition of employment or getting education, can't introduce racial and gender quotas in education and employment, can't exclude people from educational opportunities for having wrong ethnic ancestry, can't reintroduce racial segregation and can't institute mandatory indoctrination programs - at least, I haven't seen them doing it anywhere yet. But I have seen other people doing just that, all over the nation. And those people I am afraid of - because they want to do this, and they can do this, and they are doing this - and much more - right now. If it ever comes to Christian theocrats doing these things - then they would be the dangerous group, but right now they're not even close.
> who refuse to accept the results of democratic elections,
Somehow the tradition of refusing to accept electoral loss only counts for the last election, not for all the elections that happened before that. Bush was accused of stealing an election for all his term (still occasionally accused now), but nobody remembers that anymore. Funny how it works.
> who are perfectly happy with minority rule via electoral college
You mean, like the one described in the founding documents of the state? It's a real shame people of the US still cling to stupid things like the US constitution. True democracy would require abandoning it of course. But only in case where it benefits the certain party - if it does not, the Constitution is sacred. Just look it up historically - if the electoral college favors party A, it's a sacred institution, if on the next election it favors party B - it's an outdated relic. But everybody is free to bloviate as they will, it's no problem. The problem starts when one of the parties tries to shut off the debate completely. And I know some very non-imaginary people working on it right now. Google just announced they'd boot any application that allows dissent (sorry, "misinformation") to be published from their platform. That scared me much more than imaginary theocrats - they don't have the thousandths of the power Google has.
> who give dictatorial powers to Governors of their own party
Er, what? Which Governor has dictatorial powers and how did they pull it off? I am not aware of any Governor that has any dictatorial powers, and US laws do not allow one to be "given" such power - of course, with the exception of when there's an "emergency" and you want to shut down the state and put everybody under house arrest. Then it's ok - but as I remember, those were not "theocrats" that did that, so we better not talk about it any more.
Unless by "dictatorial powers" you mean "he's doing something I don't like, despite being duly elected by the majority and widely supported by the population of his own state"? Then it happens all the time of course.
> have a laundry list of subjects they ban from discussion in schools via school boards
I may be ok with banning schools from discussing topics with kids that parents do not want to be discussed with their kids. Because they are kids. They are not adults yet - they may need certain measure of guardianship before they can approach adult subjects. Especially ones that can have permanent consequences. What I am very not ok with is when the same is applied to adults - without any age limit, forever, and when nobody is free to publish and discuss certain things without the approval from the Powers That Be.
I'd love to argue with you more, but this is already getting way off topic from Gorbachev, and I can see it becoming a massively long tangent into US politics. (I probably shouldn't have taken the bait in the first place.)
> I was actually talking about the people who want to establish a Christian theocracy in the United States
Ah, the imaginary theocrats. I'm not afraid of them, I must say. I am afraid of those who actively suppress debate important to society right now, right this moment. Imaginary Christian theocrats can't prohibit discussing important topics on 90% of internet platforms, can't suppress publication of vital information they think is politically inconvenient, can't fire me from my job for expressing a wrong opinion, can't force me to sign political statements as a condition of employment or getting education, can't introduce racial and gender quotas in education and employment, can't exclude people from educational opportunities for having wrong ethnic ancestry, can't reintroduce racial segregation and can't institute mandatory indoctrination programs - at least, I haven't seen them doing it anywhere yet. But I have seen other people doing just that, all over the nation. And those people I am afraid of - because they want to do this, and they can do this, and they are doing this - and much more - right now. If it ever comes to Christian theocrats doing these things - then they would be the dangerous group, but right now they're not even close.
> who refuse to accept the results of democratic elections,
Somehow the tradition of refusing to accept electoral loss only counts for the last election, not for all the elections that happened before that. Bush was accused of stealing an election for all his term (still occasionally accused now), but nobody remembers that anymore. Funny how it works.
> who are perfectly happy with minority rule via electoral college
You mean, like the one described in the founding documents of the state? It's a real shame people of the US still cling to stupid things like the US constitution. True democracy would require abandoning it of course. But only in case where it benefits the certain party - if it does not, the Constitution is sacred. Just look it up historically - if the electoral college favors party A, it's a sacred institution, if on the next election it favors party B - it's an outdated relic. But everybody is free to bloviate as they will, it's no problem. The problem starts when one of the parties tries to shut off the debate completely. And I know some very non-imaginary people working on it right now. Google just announced they'd boot any application that allows dissent (sorry, "misinformation") to be published from their platform. That scared me much more than imaginary theocrats - they don't have the thousandths of the power Google has.
> who give dictatorial powers to Governors of their own party
Er, what? Which Governor has dictatorial powers and how did they pull it off? I am not aware of any Governor that has any dictatorial powers, and US laws do not allow one to be "given" such power - of course, with the exception of when there's an "emergency" and you want to shut down the state and put everybody under house arrest. Then it's ok - but as I remember, those were not "theocrats" that did that, so we better not talk about it any more.
Unless by "dictatorial powers" you mean "he's doing something I don't like, despite being duly elected by the majority and widely supported by the population of his own state"? Then it happens all the time of course.
> have a laundry list of subjects they ban from discussion in schools via school boards
I may be ok with banning schools from discussing topics with kids that parents do not want to be discussed with their kids. Because they are kids. They are not adults yet - they may need certain measure of guardianship before they can approach adult subjects. Especially ones that can have permanent consequences. What I am very not ok with is when the same is applied to adults - without any age limit, forever, and when nobody is free to publish and discuss certain things without the approval from the Powers That Be.