You’d think a hegemony with a 100-years tradition of upkeeping democracy against major non-democratic players, would have some mechanism that would prevent itself from throwing down it’s key ideology.
Is it really that the president is all that decides about the future of democracy itself? Is 53 out of 100 senate seats really enough to make country fall into authoritarian regime? Is the army really not constitutionally obliged to step in and save the day?
I’d never think that, of all places, American democracy would be the most volatile.
It’s not illegal to be a nazi in the USA BUT it’s worth noting that Trump is more garden variety fascist than Nazi. He’s not looking to create the ubwrmensch.
Yet
Trump is the dancing monkey who will sign whatever they put in front of him. Plenty of people in his sphere are itching to kill.
None of which makes them nazis.
Smells like bitch in here
Nah Im just educated enough to know what the Nazis believed vs Italian or Spanish fascists. That’s high school level stuff. Why don’t you know it?
You need the other half of the electorate to agree
Apparently that’s what America wants. You mean for a possible future where it’s a bad thing?
Impeachment. That’s it.
But you’re also forgetting that in the US states have a significant amount of power. For example the President cannot cancel elections. If a state cancels elections they just don’t get counted.
There’s a lot in that particular area that shields people from federal government stupidity.
They can ignore election results though, or fraudulently certify them.
If they ignore election results then they’re illegitimate and the country is free to descend into chaos.
You can impeach a president for any reason. You don’t need a crime or such committed, all you need is congress to do it.
Be careful what you wish for though since the other party could do “tit for tat” with the president you support.
not like it changed, he was impeached twice, didn’t mean shit. he’s a felonious racist rapist, doesn’t mean shit.
USA made this bed, now we fucking lie in it.
The house voted on impeachment, but the senate has to remove him, or decide on a punishment.
If it was bad enough (by that, I mean if he starts taking away the ability for the senate to have power) then he would be removed.
And then he instead advocates that senators should be moved into the House of Representatives. The House thinks it’s great. So they never start an impeachment.
would be
more like: might be removed
Be careful what you wish for though
No, I’m calling BS. They’ll impeach anyone they think they can get away with it on. They investigated the shit out of Biden. They’re not being held back by some for of fear of tit for tat decorum. That’s wildly inaccurate.
For it to succeed, it would require congress to agree which they won’t because they’re conspiriting. And if it did get him out, then we get Vance who is also a Nazi. Protest, Resist, put up an fight, and wait in hopes that he’s bad enough that the right and left people can field some half decent candidates and stop being nazi’s
Alternatively, we’re now making/selling a lot of armbands.
That gets to the root of the problem. We have “checks and balances” designed around the idea that separate institutions would check the excesses of each other. Even if you don’t accept the “Republicans and Democrats work for the same people” theory, well, now all three branches of government are majority Republican, and not even in a way where there’s significant internal division or strife, so it’s just a bulldozer. The stupidity of not including popular recall votes in the Constitution - or really, just not having a mechanism for popular referendums, vetoes, etc. - is I think its biggest fault. The “representative democracy” model is inherently flawed because you can corrupt representatives, while corrupting an entire population, while not impossible, is a hell of a lot harder.
Check and Balance was intened to stop bad individuals, not an entire political party working in unison to destroy the system.
Honestly, no amount of careful planning and constitutional design will restrain a society where enough people have gone completely insane. Look at “Israel”. Even 100% direct democracy there would still be a genocidal nightmare. Gets to the problem of how culture is the real driver behind the shape of society. And in that case, how religion incinerates real morality.
this is why giving too much power to a single position within gov is not a great idea
When a population give a party control of the senate, congress and the presidency that’s the public disabling a lot of checks and balances…
He’s just a symptom of the real problem, which is that he exposed himself as a nazi a long time ago and still got reelected.
I’d never think that, of all places, American democracy would be the most volatile
Ignore the political system and look at the economic system. The US is capitalist and as it turns out- capitalism is not mutually exclusive with fascism.
If a human being lives long enough, he will eventually develop cancer. It’s simply a natural physical consequence of repeated cell division. Eventually there’s some mutation that leads to a chain reaction. The cancer spreads enough and there’s no going back. Capitalism, similarly, will always inevitably embrace fascism.
Marx got it wrong. He believed that the workers, realizing their position as class consciousness increases, would inevitably revolt against the power structure. The reality is more depressing.
Capitalism has cycles of crisis. Sometimes the economy is doing good which leaves the workers content. Sometimes the economy is doing bad. The problem is when the economy is doing bad coincides with some other set of crisis, the combination of events radicalizes the workers. This part Marx predicted. However he was mistaken about human nature.
Really, our problem started back in 2008. The global economy never fully recovered. Interest rates were kept low in a desperate attempt to increase spending to keep the boat from tipping. Then COVID pumped up inflation to historic levels- supply chain shortages wrecked chaos. After that, the Russian invasion of Ukraine pushed up inflation even higher. Prices go up but wages lag behind.
Workers, naturally, become more radicalized- as Marx predicted. The issue is Marx was too optimistic about human nature. Humans as a whole are fearful herd animals. They need a shepherd to point somewhere. And eventually, inevitably, some megalomaniac with a vision will take advantage of a vulnerable system and point somewhere. In the 1930s it was to the Jews and the communists. Today, it’s the illegals and “wokeism”.
All this to say that this shouldn’t be surprising. Left wing voices have been warning about this for a long time.
Just to be clear, your solution to saving democracy would be for the military to usurp a president who received the majority of the vote less than six months ago?
USA hasn’t been a democracy for decades. It’s hard to pin it down to a certain tipping point but I’d hazard it was when you decided that corporations are people and buying politicians is free speech.
Hold your ponies. The US is very much still a democracy, if a flawed one in many ways. The US has always been a country run by the wealthy elites, as are most countries in the world.
Buying politicians works, especially in the US, regardless of party. Democrats and Republicans are both the parties of big business and capital interests.
Besides laws around spending money for political purposes, the media landscape has revolutionized over the last 20 years. The role social media has played in Trump‘s ascendancy can’t be overstated. Trump spent less than Kamala Harris in this election and still won, because of his exceptional way to use media to his advantage.
The military has rules limiting what they can do, especially against acting within the US, and every service member is supposed to disobey illegal orders.
Sometimes a voting population needs to be protected from the consequences of their vote, right? A good chunk of the German voting population in the 1930 voted the NSDAP and Hitler into power, and we can agree that it would have been for the best if that party and its leadership had been deposed ASAP. Now, the US isn’t quite that far down the slide yet, but they’re certainly slipping, and the worst part is that the checks and balances that are supposed to keep a president in line are also failing. Not to be alarmist, but we’re in for a wild ride.
Your first question is pretty philosophical. All I can say, is that most representative governments place a huge emphasis on giving the people the power to write their own collective destiny.
A military takeover based on the desires of a minority of citizens would violate that principal. I don’t think any reasonable person can call it saving democracy.
a huge emphasis on giving the people the power to write their own collective destiny.
A functional democracy is not a dictatorship of the majority, and people from the US love making this mistake. It is true that the president gets elected by a majority vote… but this person now represents everyone, including the minority that opposes them. They do not have the right to sink the ship and kill everyone because the majority thinks that’s a good idea.
It is natural that their government will make decisions aligned with their voters (in theory) but they shouldn’t be allowed to actively undermine the rights of everyone else.
No matter how inflated your perception of your “flawless” constitution and democracy is, this is something many countries understand pretty well and yours struggles with.
Yes, but it is a question that is pertinent to the situation. What do you do if a population elects someone that starts undermining their democracy? I understand that forcibly taking that person’s power away is in itself anti-democratic, but if their actions are even worse, then it would be justified right? A smaller anti-democratic act to stop the larger anti-democratic effort where they’re dismantling the democratic system that put them in power.
Sometimes a voting population needs to be protected from the consequences of their vote
Who should have the power to make that decision?
Do you want a benevolent king at the top that can dissolve parliament, dismiss government, call for new elections, make parties illegal, and censor the press?
Or maybe have something like an electoral college?
Or the army coups, if things get too far?
The ultimate check on power is the people. A general strike, large scale protests, and occupation of public buildings can topple a government. Institutions from military, police, local government, government agencies, and so on value their positions and won’t go down with a sinking ship.
In a functioning democracy, there are legal systems already in place that prevent extreme negative consequences for the population and the democracy itself. The US just isn’t a functioning democracy, and the checks and balances that are supposed to protect the system have been eroded. Impeachment is one such mechanism that’s become dysfunctional - a democratic process to protect the democracy from autocrats. I do hope you’re right and the American people manage to pull through this somehow. But failing that, an intervention from either domestic or foreign forces can be justified depending on how severe the threat to the population is.
Yes they do, but why bring this up now? No President has claimed to be a Nazi. Trump is a big supporter of the Jewish state.
They mean ‘fascist’. Fascists are not automatically anti-semitic.
Yeah, he’s not even likely to annex Austria in a foreseeable future. And he doesn’t seem to have claims on Sudetenland either.
So no, not a nazi, nuh uh, nazism is only when perfectly replaying the Third Reich mission.
There are a few tools in the constitution.
- with a 100-year* tradition
- throwing down its* key ideology
- Are* 53 out of 100 senate seats
- make the* country fall
Second amendment
He knew it from the beginning. People didn’t listen.
I mean, did he propose a solution?
Yeah, don’t have political parties.
To some extent, political parties are naturally occuring . The group dynamics of a legislative body will naturally result in groups forming around specific issues and even philosophies. But there is definitely a strong argument to be made that we’ve made them far too official, and far too entrenched.
Who would have thought a government created in model of a constitutional monarchy would do this?
Oh right, all the people who opposed the US constitution. People forget the Anti Federalists every time.
Except most of the Anti Federalists weren’t arguing against the specifics of the model, they were arguing against a centralized government at all. Which had literally just failed.
Next you’re gonna tell me a constitutional monarchy isn’t a centralized government.
It is though?
Correct.
I think they’re implying you’re making a distinction without difference. OP states the Anti-Federalists opposed the adoption of the Constitution, which was largely modelled after the constitutional monarcy of England. You clarified that they didn’t object based on the system’s model, but rather on the basis of all centralized government being bad. Their response is basically saying, yeah man, the Anti-Federalists were against centralized government , that’s what I said.
I am inferring that OP believes that they had the right of it in the first go, no centralized government is preferable to any centralized government, specifically because of how centralized governance encourages the consolidation of political power into parties.
I’m not nearly well versed in this time period to dissect that argument in detail, but I believe your rebuttal that their plan had been tried under the Articles of Confederation and found wanting, hence the whole debate about the Constitution to begin with, is a fairly succinct counterargument to the position I am sketching out on their behalf (read as: the strawman I have set up).
All of which is to say, I’ve expended entirely too much mental bandwidth on this interaction and need to go touch some grass for a bit.
That’s where I am too. That’s why I’m confused. The Articles of Confederation failed horribly.
He also didn’t want to be president or have his face on money. They really just ignored the dude.
I guess ignoring Washington’s wishes foreshadowed what the US would eventually become.
