GVPT

humor is useful: mock the powerful, remove their power. Creates a new narrative outside the myth making. earnest but unserious = plausible deniability, meaning everyone can protest at low stakes
humor is detrimental: humor does not remove the soapbox and must be backed by action to have an effect. jokes can be toothless, and will go unpunished so people have an outlet instead of doing something constructive with rage

indoctrination theory: the goal is to get people to believe the propaganda, instilling in them its values, fears, etc.
dominance: people do not have the believe the narrative, only understand that the previlance of the propaganda is a signal about the regime’s dominance, which is why they need to know that it is propaganda. they cannot rebel even if they wanted

students taking government classes were more likely to express an interest in politics (people expressed lack of interest without reprimand). also more likely to view the government as strong. not good, just strong

local officials are useless but the federal government is benevolent, if only it would listen

‘60s Yale experiment, Milgram orders participants to act as a teacher to someone in another room through a speaker (word association tasks). they must deliver increasing shocks to the student for incorrect responses. no shocks, but the participant was to be heard screaming in pain by the teacher. about 2/3 of people went to the highest shock, most while expressing verbal resistance. participants were paid beforehand with no risk of the reward being taken.
- ethical issues (pain, perceived fatality risk, improper briefing and debriefing, diversions from the scrip, small/non diverse study group)
- confirms that people will ‘go along’ but not WHY
my take: people conform because we are interested in our survival, and diverting from the group threatens that. we blame authority, credibly or not, to smooth out that particular bit of cognitive dissonance

increase internal cooperation and external endorsement: e.g. Saudi Arabia expanding women’s right

Under Trump and the abolition of standards, fear of retaliation has shifted the political field. people won’t stand up because Trump does what he likes and legally countering him is difficult when he holds all the cards. people will fight right up until it will threaten their livelihood, then they stop to think.

different in each country. what caused it to backslide in the first place? what supports are needed? how do you provide that? e.g. a military takeover will require depoliticization of the military

pioneered by Barbara Geddes of Harvard in ‘99, ‘14
military > least stable, military takeover of politics. they are uninterested in politics and can back off when they like
single party > functionally single party. electoral, but likely not meaningfully so. appeal to the winning coalition within the selectorste, and keep both groups happy and the wider population generally at bay.
personalist > personality cult!
monarchies > Authoritarian heredity life-tenure. more insecure individual and more secure dynastic monarchies. dynasties allow easy replacement of heads. often small, but generally stable because of personality cults, connections, dynastic political control, tradition.
hybrid
+ indirect military, hybrid of first three

media, elections, courts, legislature

over 70% favor usually indicates non competition. they may host elections they know they will loose to avoid public uprising. elections can tell us which areas are in favor, which against, etc.

characteristics are traits, typologies are collections of traits

theory holds that mondernization (Econ dev, public ed, industrialization, urbanization, and sometimes s ecularization) facilitates democracy. not always the case.

autocracies rely on apathetic belief, best of the worst, etc., on personal benefit compliance, and on fear

anesthetized - fully apathetic, concerned with other things
accepting - it’s better, why complain
ameliorator - work in progress, work in the system
alienated - opposed, but unwilling or unable to rebel

bringing potential threats under regime control with favors, gifts, protection rackets (threats under democracy) etc.

democracy, usually > Large selectorate/winning coalition > Emphasize public goods and mediation.
Single-party > Large selectorate/small winning coalition > Some public goods, but larger private benefits to the selectorate. e.g. Russia with the oligarchs
likely personalist or very tight dynastic control > Small selectorate/winning coalition > Mostly private benefits to the selectorate: cash, positions in gov't, etc.

a society that is funded off of profits brought in and not taxes from labor produced

a way of bringing into belief by isolating and controlling reality perception, fear may or may not be part of this

controlling the symbolic world.
Repetition and saturation > one message, simple, repeated constantly
Nationalist/ideological narrative > Repetition of who we are, our enemies, etc.
Social enforcement of behavior and self-policing > Skewing social customs and values to the extent that people police each other and themselves
Spectacles and domination > rallies, parades, monuments, portraits, etc.

"Now out of never" > if not now, when, born out of desperation

when private opinions differ from public ones. when the dissonance between private and public preference is too great, people rebel

Protest exists on a continuum of quiescence to open rebellion: “everyday acts of resistance,” to low-level activism, to proper resistance and making critical voices heard
Everyday resistance > this activism is slow, but it gums up the works > foot dragging, sabotage, jokes, feigned ignorance, etc.
Protests may also be “apolitical.” Concerns and demands are local, and they "aren’t citing political concerns"

Protests may exist fully within the law > it is beneficial for regimes to shape how people protest, to channel it through specific means. Architecture and space also constrains protest and the visibility of protesters will be managed heavily
- E.g. the design of Paris or DC, channeling people and making them easier to track. Denser pedestrian areas that people frequently walk in are easier to interrupt, but large streets and highways are accessible by police and harder to disrupt without massive crowds
- Legal roadblocks > regime verification, permits, gathering limits, etc.