thread policyDiscussion of politics that does not directly relate to the Quest or to Quest votes are banned from hereon out. This thread policy will be enforced by the Moderation team. Do not ignore it.
How insane do you have to be to actually believe things so evil that it makes video game villains seem nice by comparison? Hell, kefka seems more heroic than these guys
I don't care what Madness Victoria wrought!! We won TWO world wars and the COLD War...This is just another long haul for the Republic.
Lets do this.
Edit: I'm choosing the US republic 2.0
Flawed as it may be...it's what made the USA. Of course it needs some tweeking for the situation we find ourselves in, But the Founder's couldn't have predicted THIS madness.
I don't think people in general are really opposed to the idea of workplace democracy. There's just a portion of us(or maybe just me?) who believe it's wrong and authoritarian for the state to enforce such a business model and would instead prefer it if it simply encouraged it through subsidies and loans while still allowing traditional business models to exist, though in a much more regulated fashion than current US to protect the rights of the workers.
I don't think people in general are really opposed to the idea of workplace democracy. There's just a portion of us(or maybe just me?) who believe it's wrong and authoritarian for the state to enforce such a business model and would instead prefer it if it simply encouraged it through subsidies and loans while still allowing traditional business models to exist, though in a much more regulated fashion than current US to protect the rights of the workers.
Authoritarian to who? The majority of people in a traditional business have no way in what their business does, despite it having more influence on their day-to-day life than the government, which certainly strikes me as being an authoritarian situation; more authoritarian than workplace democracy, certainly.
I'm not saying the state should mandate it. Owners and managers get the same one vote everyone else does, so I hardly see that as authoritarian. If they can convince enough fo their workers to leave them in charge, then great.
Authoritarian to who? The majority of people in a traditional business have no way in what their business does, despite it having more influence on their day-to-day life than the government, which certainly strikes me as being an authoritarian situation; more authoritarian than workplace democracy, certainly.
Authoritarian to anyone who currently owns and operates a business or who might want to do so in the future. I feel like I've gone over this ad-nauseum with new people every time who didn't read my previous posts but having privately owned companies isn't inherently exploitative or oppressive if the workers have real alternatives.
If employees don't like the way that the business they're currently employed in operates, they should have the opportunity and ability to find work elsewhere or perhaps even start their own cooperative with like-minded workers with government support. If neither of those options are available, possible or desirable, they should be able to get support through the government, either in the form of education to learn marketable skills free of charge or perhaps through a small loan or perhaps simply employment in a government project where their current skills might be of use.
EDIT:
I'm not saying the state should mandate it. Owners and managers get the same one vote everyone else does, so I hardly see that as authoritarian. If they can convince enough fo their workers to leave them in charge, then great.
What you're describing absolutely would be "the state mandating" worker democracy because if forcibly introduces the model into privately owned companies.
What you're describing absolutely would be "the state mandating" worker democracy because if forcibly introduces the model into privately owned companies.
Perhaps since Americans have always disagreed on the basic principles of whether a free market is one where the workers own everything or the employers do, due to deep disagreements about early human economic history and of human nature, America 2.0 should allow for vastly different economic models in different geographic units. Like a municipal confederalist type thing, an aggressively federalized system.
Perhaps since Americans have always disagreed on the basic principles of whether a free market is one where the workers own everything or the employers do, due to deep disagreements about early human economic history and of human nature, America 2.0 should allow for vastly different economic models in different geographic units. Like a municipal confederalist type thing, an aggressively federalized system.
The Moderator gazes out at the crowd of delegates milling about the small chamber. Already, arguments are springing out. The Moderator pays particularly close attention to the delegates who identify themselves as New Capitalist or Communist; as expected, they're only barely maintaining civility. The Moderator sighs.
Those two, they reflect. Those two are going to be trouble.
They pan their gaze around the hall, taking in more delegates and doing a quick headcount. Already, groups are beginning to emerge. Unsurprisingly, many of the clumps are along economic ideological lines.
The Moderator sits back in their seat, sighing in exasperation. I suppose we can generally find common ground on most other things, after all. At least everybody's here. They lean forward in their seat. "Order! Order! I call this meeting to order!" The chatter gets louder for a moment as people flinch at the sound of the Moderator's amplified voice. They continue, "Delegates, please take your seats! Everybody we've been waiting for has arrived, and the room is sealed. I'll thank you to sit down so that we can get to this."
Bit by bit, the chatter dies away and people sit down, like-minded delegates finding each other for solidarity. The Moderator waits them out with an unchanging expression of patience. Eventually, silence falls.
The Moderator speaks. "Two hundred and eighty-six years ago, the Constitutional Congress came together to draft the document which would serve as the foundation for the United States of America for centuries. The resulting polity became the longest-lived constitutional republic in history until it fell." They look around the room. "Whatever the flaws of that republic, whatever its failures, that is a legacy worth honoring. Two and a half unbroken centuries of civil, democratic governance. Today, we are here to honor that legacy and draft another founding document, one which should hopefully serve as honorably." The Moderator then leans back. "That is not the only legacy we are here to honor, however. Eleven years prior to that Constitution was a Declaration...one of independence. A people came together and resolved to build a nation of equals, built on ideological grounds. As we all know, a lot went wrong, but that foundation created something special. It created a republic that changed the world. That legacy, too, we are here today to honor. Today is our Declaration of Independence. From fear, from tyranny, and from the divisions that have so long plagued our people. Today, we declare independence from Victoria!"
At that, a riotous cheer rings out. Delegates come to their feet, clapping, stamping their feet, screaming in approval. The Moderator smiles and lets it go for a few moments before raising their hands for quiet. It takes a little longer, and then the delegates, at last, find their seats again.
The Moderator gives them an impish smile. "Now, I'll stop abusing my platform by giving speeches about history and move on to my actual job." There's a polite round of laughter, and the Moderator continues, "First order of business today is confirming what we already know, but really need to confirm." They produce a sheet of paper and lay it on the desk in front of them. "The chair calls for a vote on the topic of forming a singular state from the polities represented here today. May the, "ayes," stand and be counted." People come to their feet all around the chamber in unanimity; the Moderator's eyes flicker around for a moment before ducking back to their paper and making a noted, saying in a dry voice, "There being no individuals left seated, we shall skip the, 'nays.' Motion passes. Our next item-"
The assembled delegates break out into applause. The Moderator's poker face breaks and they snicker to themself as they record the results.
The applause dies down swifter this time, and the Moderator pulls out another sheet, this one blank. "All right. The formalities dispensed with...it's time to actually write something substantive. To begin with, folks...what do we see as critical?" They look around the chamber as hands rise. "The Chair recognizes the delegate from Rockford."
An ancient man rises from his seat, back ramrod-straight, despite his age. He steps forward with a sure stride and walks to the podium in front of the Moderator's desk. He turns to face the audience and clears his throat. "Fellow delegates, our Country faces a crisis. A crisis that has endured beyond enduring. For years, we have been stripped of our rights. Years, deprived of basic human dignity! I am old...old enough to remember this world before the Collapse. I remember a time when we walked free to determine our own fates. A time when the arteries of trade remained open, bringing wealth and prosperity to all. Yet now they are closed, and the skies have darkened. We stand bereft." His eyes twinkle. "I refer, of course, to the City of Chicago's dreadful dereliction of duty in the matter of pizza production-"
bap
A pencil bounces off of the back of his head. The Moderator lowers their hand, howling in laughter as the assembly descends once more into hilarity. "Out of line! Marcus, you ancient fart, out of line!" they gasp around their laughter. "Get your withered ass back on topic!"
Delegate Marcus's shoulders shake. "Very well, dear Moderator, I shall table my pressing concerns, for now."
One of the younger delegates shakes her head. "Millenials."
"Order, you little shit," says the Moderator with a grin, pointing at the woman. "Respect your elders, we've earned a joke or two just living this long." The room dies down and the moderator turns back to Marcus. "Delegate Markham, back to your point, if you please."
Markham nods, sobering. He then turns back to the crowd. "We've split. We haven't even formed yet, but already we're divided. We all want different things. I myself, of course, lay my sympathies with the New Capitalists. I believe in the world that was. I think it can be made again, and better, but I do believe in what came before. I also recognize that convincing a significant portion of any of you of that will be quite the debate all on its own. I would request that we table that debate, for the moment. Let us begin with a topic on which we can all agree. Civil rights."
There's a noise almost like a sigh as the various delegates nod in agreement. Markham continues, "Victoria weighs on us all like a pall. They define themselves by their intolerance, their hatred. It has become political suicide to express similar beliefs to them. And so I don't think that it will be controversial of me to propose this as a foundational law in the new Constitution we are here to build." He draws forth a slip of paper and begins to read. "The laws of this nation, and any components it may have, will apply equally to all citizens of this nation." He looks up. "Of course, the language will need refining, to reflect the ultimate realities of our government, if nothing else. But I think that on this, at least, we can agree. I know that I'm not the only person to have a proposal like this; I'm merely the first to be called." He cracks a smile. "I'm sure that some of my honorable colleagues among the Communists are quite annoyed with me for stealing the chance!"
There's a ripple of laughter. A younger woman, sitting at the front of the Communist delegation, rolls her eyes.
Markham shakes his head. "If even people as opposed as we are can agree to this, I think that this project might have some hope yet. I move to put this motion to a vote. Delegate O'Shay?" He peers at that same woman at the Communist's head.
O'Shay stares back at him with a level expression. "I second this motion." She gives Markham a stiff nod. "On this, we can agree."
It is not a perfect beginning, and there are many arguments yet to come. But it is a start, and a promising one.
Any constitution adopted by this congress will include guarantees of universal human rights and non-discrimination as foundational law.
Before I present my options, I feel the need to clarify a few things about the popular sentiment behind the delegates present. I should clarify that these do not constitute my thoughts on the matter, merely the characterization of the political situation in your region. I have derived this characterization from both my own worldbuilding and from the thread's overwhelmingly economically-ideological discourse since the Chicago update. Thus, ideology in new America is starkly broken along economic ideological lines, and they find it far easier to find a compromise on other issues. In particular, the democratized workplaces (businesses owned jointly by all employees) issue came up again and again, so I've elected to make it a fairly central issue of modern Revivalist political thought.
In general, while far-left ideologies have risen to relevance for the first time in American history under the pressures of time, the American Collapse, and the rise of the Victorian regime, for various reasons they are not the absolute and unquestioned power in your government.
If you aren't really interested in how I derived the mechanical effects outlined below, feel free to skip this spoiler tab.
Many posters here hold socialist or communist sympathies, which is fine and dandy as far as I care. They have largely been arguing that their ideology would be popular -- even dominant -- in the setting of Victoria Falls, citing reactions against Victorian ideology and the general trend, as the United States slips away from the Cold War period, for such ideologies to become more acceptable. These are both good arguments, and they've been covered already by the posters in enough depth that I don't feel the need to re-hash them. Suffice it to say that, indeed, socialist and communist thought does have a firm foothold in Revivalist discourse for pretty much exactly those reasons.
However, I want to clarify that and why those ideologies are not absolutely dominant. The Revivalist movement is one intrinsically concerned with the past -- more specifically, with reviving the glory of the nation the older generation remembers. It's centered around an acknowledgment that the America which died at Victoria's hands was intrinsically flawed, but one of the primary splits within the Revivalist movement centers around the question of whether that means the aim should be to move on from what was and make something new or try to recapture and sustain the prosperity of the old. Few would deny that for all of its flaws, America's system did lead to times of great prosperity all throughout society; many wish to recapture that.
That said, the opposition to socialist and communist modes of thought is more born out of caution than of starry-eyed remembrance for the glory days of capitalism. Again, the Revivalists are very concerned with America, and its past glories. We've seen some of that with the sheer hatred that was so ready to spring up against the neo-Nazis; the Revivalists remember the Second World War as one of America's greatest moments. However, they also remember that afterward, America spent forty-six years in fervent opposition to the Soviet Union, the first self-identified communist nation in history. And I don't want to hear complaints about that! Nobody is going to complain about Americans being proud of stomping Hitler; if I do that, I'm not going to have them be absolutely free of any kind of pride that they opposed the Soviets.
Children raised in Revivalism remember the Soviet Union as an enemy, and those enemy's failures are consequently emphasized. They are taught of purges, famines, totalitarianism, of a revolution which failed along a tragic array of axes before ultimately collapsing entirely when -- ouch -- they made the mistake of making participation in their regime voluntary. They then hear of so many other communist revolutions, so swiftly falling under totalitarian control and making an eerily similar series of mistakes. They then hear of China, which, after an again eerily similar set of early mistakes, stopped even pretending to be Communist during the general global crisis thanks to another round of collapsing and reforming (plus side, Taiwan and China are on speaking terms again and have reconciled, although that does not help communism's image either given the timing). People today are taught of Communism in a very negative historical context and then get swept up in a political movement which is all about history. And then, just to make it personal, it gets ground into their minds that the Soviets were controlled by Russia.
Ouch. That is a bad association for these people. Other bad associations: something easily characterized as a trend of famines which kill tens of millions of people, being presented to a populace which recently lost tons of people to, you guessed it, famine! Russians maintaining, "autonomous," states that just so happened to agree with an awful lot of the things Moscow had to say doesn't look especially good to Victoria's victims, either. Again, none of this is my opinion, it's me taking ten minutes to see if anything comes to mind regarding why any Americans of this era wouldn't like left-wing economics, but I took ten minutes, and they've had decades! At a certain point, I have to look at all of that and admit that if I'm writing a movement concerned with restoring the glory of the past, then they're going to remember that past, and you can't control what conclusions they draw.
Now, for some, that means, "Okay, we've had our lessons, now let's do it better! The point of history is to learn!" But for others, the lesson is, "They have had chance after chance! Enough is enough! How many more tens of millions need to die before we learn this lesson?" I am aware of the, "no true Scotsman!" argument in play regarding the Soviet Union's brand of communism, and believe me, the American Communists are even more keenly aware. They use it constantly. That said, given the cavalcade of bad associations, many Americans just aren't interested.
Once more, this isn't my opinion. My opinion is far more complicated, made more so by the fact that the research and discourse surrounding these subjects is ideologically-motivated, compromised on every level, and in general just utter dreck. It is so difficult to get good information on these ideologies, and that's why the opinions I do have are staying out of this work as much as I can manage.
As such, I've decided not to make any given ideology mechanically superior to any other. I'm not interested in wading into that debate. This is the same world that supports a functioning Victoria; the narrative will assume that whatever you set up, it'll work all right. The upsides and downsides will instead relate to how people react to whichever ideology wins. Of course, the ethical dimension of the question also remains, and you all are free to argue it -- civilly, if you please. We've made enough trouble for 4WheelSword already. But I'm not going to make enemies by making capitalism/social democracy/socialism/communism mechanically superior to any other ideology.
With all that being said, thank you for your time, and I hope that you enjoy the vote.
Also, while it will likely disappoint some of you, your final government will have a head of state/government. This is for plot reasons. I want there to be an actual PC that I can characterize.
In the following vote, Legitimacy tracks how credible your claim to being a successor of the original United States looks, given your policies.
Now, the votes!
What is the dominant economic ideology of your first government? Bear in mind that these are the ideologies as they exist in Victoria Falls, not a true-to-life representation of their aims in modern reality. Decouple your assumptions. The non-dominant ideologies will remain significant and powerful forces in government, but the winner will have a majority government at game start.
[ ][IDEALS] New Capitalist: Aims to restore the old system with badly-needed revisions to address some of the obvious flaws. Among other things, it mandates a living minimum wage tied to government-collected measures, writes into foundational law the de-personhood of anybody who is not, in fact, an actual person, and institutes broad protections for employees against their employers (protected right to unionize, protections for whistleblowers, pension laws for companies, etc.). The New Capitalists do not give a single shit about democratized workplaces, positively or negatively, as long as they pay their taxes.
Legitimacy++
Pisses off Socialists and Communists.
Familiarity will be reassuring to old American allies. Foreign corporations will like the relatively free hand compared to trends elsewhere in the world and will be eager to do business if you can gain access to foreign markets. The flip side is that your markets are extremely vulnerable to foreign dominance at game start. You will need to approach foreign markets with extreme caution, and likely after time to prepare.
Democratized workplaces are legal but gain no special advantages.
[ ][IDEALS] Social Democrat: Centered around the idea that it is the state's responsibility to ensure a bare-minimum standard of living, the Social Democrats add to the New Capitalist agenda with a push for a government guarantee of adequate housing, food, and water to all citizens -- itself a fairly titanic task. It remains rooted in the fundamental ideal of private enterprise. The Social Democrats have some interest in the potential of democratized workplaces and are willing to support them in an experimental measure.
Legitimacy+
Pisses off Communists.
Appealing to a wide international audience, although the shift may prompt some minor caution. Foreign investment is going to like the market, given its similarity to most of the markets from which they'll be coming; if you have something worth their time, they will come. You are less of an obvious soft economic target to begin with, here.
Select democratized businesses from a selection of industries gain government subsidies in order to give them a head start and see how they play.
[ ][IDEALS] Socialist: Having come to refer to a specific political movement rather than an entire branch of ideology, modern socialism is focused on giving the state the power to care for all citizens, and claims that the modern Social Democrat platform does not go far enough in pursuit of this. It also calls for a massive investment into healthcare in order to revitalize the field and make sure that there are enough medical professionals to go around (long-term, they want free healthcare, but there needs to be enough of it first). They also grant unions extensive privileges over private employers. They are fervently in favor of democratized workplaces, and openly campaign in favor of granting them special concessions.
Legitimacy-
Pisses off New Capitalists.
This is a radical shift for a nation claiming descent from the old United States and will concern many. Furthermore, the state of your market will make you deeply unattractive to foreign investment. This has the advantage of serving as a kind of protectionism during your economy's weak phase.
Democratized businesses are explicitly favored in law over private businesses.
[ ][IDEALS] Communist: The old revolutionary ideology has elected to push for their aims in the democratic process. Their modern platform, in this setting, is centered around the absolute implementation of workplace democracy in addition to the same welfare and legal measures proposed by other movements. The aims of the American Communists in the present day are to break the concept of private ownership of businesses, which places them in stark opposition to Capitalist and Social Democrat thought of this era. This is a part of a larger drive towards a transition to a fully Communist society, but the Communists have quite enough to be focused on at the moment and are leaving that aside.
Legitimacy--
Pisses off New Capitalists and Social Democrats.
Extremely alarming on the foreign stage; in particular, a requirement to workplace democracy means that no foreign corporations that are not themselves workplace democracies will be at all willing to come to work in your territory. Foreign investment will be a trickle at best. The good news is that your markets are all-but-immune to outside companies gaining lots of influence.
Privately-owned businesses are made illegal, and possession of them is forcibly redistributed to those businesses' employees.
No write-ins allowed, these are the movements you have available.
How much legal authority does the central government have to suppress dissenting viewpoints?
[ ][CRUSH] None. This is a democracy. If your ideology cannot make its case to the people in practice, it deserves to fail.
Legitimacy++
Democratic
Relationship with minority parties not necessarily hostile
You lose, you lose
Demonstrates and encourages faith in the democratic process
[ ][CRUSH] Some of the central tenets of the founding government's ideology are written into foundational law, making it difficult for even violently opposed successor governments to fully roll them back without immense popular support.
Legitimacy+
Slightly hypocritical, but can be creatively interpreted as demanding the people's united voice on these critical issues
Minority parties realize how you view them and aren't neutered
Even losing doesn't roll back all of your gains unless you've fucked up in spectacular fashion
People may find...creative...ways of effecting change
[ ][CRUSH] The founding government's ideology is explicitly privileged in terms of the representation it receives in government and has several of its aims enshrined in foundational law, rendering it extremely difficult for a challenger to mount more than cosmetic resistance.
Legitimacy-
Powers you used to criticize find this situation delightfully ironic
Minority parties are virtually helpless to do more than yell at you, but by the same token yell very loudly
Difficult to lose, but if you do it means you've probably lost enough support to be in for some ouchies
DANGER FOR ARMED REVOLTS STARTS HERE
[ ][CRUSH] The founding ideology forms a political party, and membership is mandatory for government service. Foundational law is a manifesto of the party's aims.
Legitimacy--
You are a totalitarian regime with democratic window dressing
You got a one-for-one trade-in deal on minority factions for armed resistance movements!
You cannot lose...democratically
TOUCH UP ON YOUR GESTAPO AND GULAGS, BUCKO
Write-ins allowed, I'll stat them if you make them.
How centralized is this thing?
[ ][POWER] You are a centralized unitary state with no subordinate governments.
Easier to manage resources on the macro scale, but local administration suffers
Chicago will love this, but other signatories to the Accords will resent their subordinate role
[ ][POWER] You are a devolved unitary state with subordinate governments formed or dissolved by central governmental decrees according to need
Maintains centralization while improving your ability to manage local affairs
Gives concessions to subordinate polities while maintaining power in Chicago
[ ][POWER] You are a centralized federal state along the lines of the later United States.
Guarantees permanent local governance while maintaining a primary central government, but that government will have less ability to direct resources
Very traditional and also quite the attractive deal to subordinates
[ ][POWER] You are a decentralized federal state somewhat akin to the early United States.
Local governments have a lot of ability to handle their affairs, but the central government has significantly fewer resources to address problems
Chicago will be miffed about this, but your other signatories will love it
[-][POWER] You are a loose confederation along the lines of the all-but-forgotten Articles of Confederation.
Local governments are virtually autonomous and the federal government is all but toothless
Chicago is going to be furious, but the other signatories aren't going to believe their luck
The last time we tried this we had a revolt in less than a decade, it's only an option so that I can explicitly disallow it
Write-ins allowed. Bear in mind the level of abstraction at play on this one; "centralized," "decentralized," "unitary," and, "federal," are very broad categories.
How closely does this congress cleave to the text of the original Constitution?
[ ][TEXT] The old Constitution had its flaws, but it was a document of many strengths as well. It lasted two and a half centuries. We shall honor that and preserve the original. Our changes will be amendments, as intended, with our population approving them as specified in the text.
Legitimacy++
Misses chances for greater reform
Radical reformists are angered by missed opportunities, but this is a potent call back to the old days
[ ][TEXT] The Constitution serves as a broad guide for the structure of this document, and many legal concepts integral to it carry through, but it is rewritten from the ground up to serve its new situation rather than simply amending it until it fits.
No Legitimacy gain or loss
Grants greater chances for reform
You don't infuriate anybody, but you don't really make a bolder statement than any other successor state does
[ ][TEXT] The Constitution was utterly bereft of any kind of legal, political, or ethical merit and shall be cast into the trash heap of history where it belongs. We shall start anew from a blank slate.
Legitimacy--
Absolute freedom to draft new foundational legislation
Traditionalists are insulted by the attitude towards the nation's history, but this strongly invokes the Revivalist movement's spirit of reforming the old ways
Write-ins allowed, but again, level of abstraction. As I said, we're designing style of government, not writing legislation.
APPROVAL VOTING IS IN EFFECT; YOU MAY VOTE FOR HOWEVER MANY OPTIONS YOU WISH. DIFFERENT TASKS ARE COUNTED SEPARATELY; THE VOTE IN EACH TASK WITH THE MOST VOTES WINS THAT TASK. YOU NEED NOT VOTE FOR ALL TASKS IF YOU DON'T WANT TO. THERE WILL BE A MORATORIUM IN EFFECT UNTIL I MAKE A THREADMARKED POST ANNOUNCING OTHERWISE. I WILL BE MODERATING WRITE-INS; YOU HAVE UP UNTIL THE VOTE IS UNLOCKED TO SUBMIT YOURS. TAG ME IF YOU WANT THEM CONSIDERED. OTHERWISE, I WILL ASSUME THAT YOU'RE JUST BRAINSTORMING.
And now that that's out of the way, we're off! Hope you enjoyed the update, folks, and I hope you have fun with the debate. Be cool to each other!
EDIT: Since everyone is doing it anyway...
[][IDEALS] New Capitalist: Aims to restore the old system with badly-needed revisions to address some of the obvious flaws. Among other things, it mandates a living minimum wage tied to government-collected measures, writes into foundational law the de-personhood of anybody who is not, in fact, an actual person, and institutes broad protections for employees against their employers (protected right to unionize, protections for whistleblowers, pension laws for companies, etc.). The New Capitalists do not give a single shit about democratized workplaces, positively or negatively, as long as they pay their taxes.
Legitimacy++
Pisses off Socialists and Communists.
Familiarity will be reassuring to old American allies. Foreign corporations will like the relatively free hand compared to trends elsewhere in the world and will be eager to do business if you can gain access to foreign markets. The flip side is that your markets are extremely vulnerable to foreign dominance at game start. You will need to approach foreign markets with extreme caution, and likely after time to prepare.
Democratized workplaces are legal but gain no special advantages.
[][CRUSH] None. This is a democracy. If your ideology cannot make its case to the people in practice, it deserves to fail.
Legitimacy++
Democratic
Relationship with minority parties not necessarily hostile
You lose, you lose
Demonstrates and encourages faith in the democratic process
[][POWER] You are a centralized federal state along the lines of the later United States.
Guarantees permanent local governance while maintaining a primary central government, but that government will have less ability to direct resources
Very traditional and also quite the attractive deal to subordinates
[][TEXT] The old Constitution had its flaws, but it was a document of many strengths as well. It lasted two and a half centuries. We shall honor that and preserve the original. Our changes will be amendments, as intended, with our population approving them as specified in the text.
Legitimacy++
Misses chances for greater reform
Radical reformists are angered by missed opportunities, but this is a potent call back to the old days
[X][IDEALS] New Capitalist: Aims to restore the old system with badly-needed revisions to address some of the obvious flaws. Among other things, it mandates a living minimum wage tied to government-collected measures, writes into foundational law the de-personhood of anybody who is not, in fact, an actual person, and institutes broad protections for employees against their employers (protected right to unionize, protections for whistleblowers, pension laws for companies, etc.). The New Capitalists do not give a single shit about democratized workplaces, positively or negatively, as long as they pay their taxes.
Legitimacy++
Pisses off Socialists and Communists.
Familiarity will be reassuring to old American allies. Foreign corporations will like the relatively free hand compared to trends elsewhere in the world and will be eager to do business if you can gain access to foreign markets. The flip side is that your markets are extremely vulnerable to foreign dominance at game start. You will need to approach foreign markets with extreme caution, and likely after time to prepare.
Democratized workplaces are legal but gain no special advantages.
[X][CRUSH] None. This is a democracy. If your ideology cannot make its case to the people in practice, it deserves to fail.
Legitimacy++
Democratic
Relationship with minority parties not necessarily hostile
You lose, you lose
Demonstrates and encourages faith in the democratic process
[X][POWER] You are a centralized federal state along the lines of the later United States.
Guarantees permanent local governance while maintaining a primary central government, but that government will have less ability to direct resources
Very traditional and also quite the attractive deal to subordinates
[X][TEXT] The old Constitution had its flaws, but it was a document of many strengths as well. It lasted two and a half centuries. We shall honor that and preserve the original. Our changes will be amendments, as intended, with our population approving them as specified in the text.
Legitimacy++
Misses chances for greater reform
Radical reformists are angered by missed opportunities, but this is a potent call back to the old days
This actually makes sense because the constitution is basically meaningless.
It's so vague and can be interpreted in so many different ways that you definitely could have a communist dictatorship with it using the power of selective interpretation.
