Dear 100 Hour Board,
How would you react if America had a lifelong dictator put into power...
He supports all the policies you do? Would you still oppose them, or assent to their rule?
I would only assent with the following assumptions:
- If I change my policy preferences, so will the dictator
- The dictator has to be immortal (because once his/her regime falls it will get messy)
If these assumptions are not accurate, then I would oppose the dictator.
-Sunday Night Banter
That's an impossible paradox since one of the things I believe in is a term limit to prevent tyranny. So... they can't be a dictator and support my policies. Therefore, I would oppose them. Luckily, if they did support my policies, they wouldn't believe in using violence to squash their dissenters, so I'd be pretty safe.
So I guess we're assuming that for some reason I'm okay with the idea of dictators in the first place. They'd have to be a benevolent dictator in order to agree with my policies, but I'd still oppose them, because people change over time. My policies might change, or theirs might, but if someone became a dictator right now, when I'm 24, whose policies I agreed with, I probably wouldn't still agree with them 20 years down the road. And my guess would be that the longer they stayed in power the more insulated from the real world they would become, and they would become increasingly authoritarian and corrupt, because that's what long-term dictators do.
Plus, assuming that my opinions are always right and best for everyone is pretty self-important--I don't know if they are, and that's why it's important that people have a chance to speak their mind and debate. With one person in charge forever, it would shut down that debate, and ideas and policies that maybe should change wouldn't ever have that chance. Plus it would breed apathy in the populace if politics were left entirely in the hands of one person--nothing you do will change anything anyway, so why try? And I wouldn't want to live in a country where nobody cares anymore.
So yeah, I would oppose their rule. Which I guess means I wouldn't agree with them on everything, because we would have diametrically opposed ideas about the limits of power politicians should have.
I feel like the main issue here is branding, particularly the word, "dictator". After all, I suppose that when looked at in a certain way, God could be labeled a dictator.
In the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, we believe that Christ will come down and reign on Earth (including America) during a period of time called the Millennium. This seems to fit your hypothetical scenario rather well, though I'm inclined to not use the word 'dictator' to describe Christ. And I have no plans of opposing such a rule. So I guess that's your answer.
However, if you disallow using divinity as my example, I still don't think I would oppose the rule. I would almost certainly disagree with it, but probably wouldn't actively oppose it. It's kind of like how right now, despite disagreeing and disliking President Trump, there isn't anything I do that actively opposes him. In order for me to truly oppose anything, I think it would have to dramatically affect either my day to day life in a strongly negative way, or the lives of people close to me, or a significantly large portion of the population. And with a dictator who agrees with me 100% of the time, none of those are likely to happen.