Reply #71: Depends on what we mean by "dictator."

[Occam Bandage]

I argued strongly against the claim that Bush was a dictator in the classical sense here, in that he generally obeyed the law, that he engaged in peaceful and lawful transfers of power, and that he accepted legislative failures and moved on. At the same time, I do think that he illegally expanded executive powers to an extent that would be somewhat dangerous were he to have been succeeded by a like-minded President, that much of that was done purely to expand power for its own sake, and that he acted very much as a dictator (especially in 2002-2004) both in his neglect of law and his public attempts to shut down political debate by calling on vague yet terrifying internal/external enemies.

And I agree that, much like Chavez, claiming that he was fairly and legally elected is and was not a good defense against claims of dictatorial tendencies.