Riots (even imposed by the people there to "control them") will always be difficult, confusing, awful situations. However the hyperbole of this problem being akin to Nazi Germany bothers me. Our military would simply tell a President to go get fucked before they would round up US citizens.
The officers of US Armed forces take an oath for the constitution, and not the President. Now for this special case right now, military refusing orders will be a "good" thing. But in long run, it only means that civilian institution have eroded so far that having military deciding what is constitutional might appear to be a "good thing". So the idea isn't that military personal will use force against citizens, but rather they will not, and that will erode the system regardless.
That never has been the case yet. While the President after as President has tried to stretch his authority (while Congress receded), we haven't reached a point of resistance from extra-governmental organizations. But that's the logical direction where this is headed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7lCgKfxmuQ
He appears to be discussing certain points in his book, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic. Here are a few:
- The rise of a dual-election system for president increases the likelihood of an extremist president. Imagine a political spectrum ranging from 1 to 100. In a single election, the winning candidate appeals to the fat 50 range. In a dual-election primary system the winning candidate appeals to the fat extremes of 25 and 75.
- The decline of the press leaves an information vacuum which political media manipulators fill to the president's advantage
- The constant rat-tat-tat of the War on X (where X is drugs and terror) gives a sense of urgency that only unilateral presidential action can address.
- The rise of the military as a check (or aid) to presidential power (think Turkey).
- Cabinet-level departments are increasingly influenced or controlled by non-confirmed staffers (e.g., Elizabeth Warren), removing an important check on presidential power.
- The lack of a "Leader of the Opposition" position in the American system leaves the job of braking presidential power to a diffuse Congress.
- The rise of polls as de facto privatized elections that legitimize the administration's agenda ("polls show the majority of Americans favor the President's actions").
Ackerman also notes the key role the Obama administration played in advancing these trends. This is not a question of parties, but of institutions.