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.
Depends how you define “instruments”. For example, there was a recent survey that we have something like 500 million, uh, instruments.
Couldn’t keep a:
34 count felon
Child rapist
Fraudster
Tax dodger
Draft dodger
Grifter
Deadbeat
Wife beater
Philanderer
Classified documents thief
Obstructionist
Out of office… so why would they be able to keep a Nazi out?
Tax dodger
and draft dodger lol
Forgot that. Added.
We enter parliament in order to supply ourselves, in the arsenal of democracy, with its own weapons. If democracy is so stupid as to give us free tickets and salaries for this bear’s work, that is its affair. We do not come as friends, nor even as neutrals. We come as enemies. As the wolf bursts into the flock, so we come.
Joseph Goebbels
2A
This x1000.
Few things frustrate more than a fellow leftist who still refuses to arm themselves in today’s climate. I truly believe that the world needs fewer guns, but read the room for fuck’s sake. There are far too many people in the US that want our kind dead, simply because we exist. All they need is for their God Emperor to say the word.
This is the result of ever-expanding executive power.
Assuming America is a democracy is the first mistake. killing the native population, viewing non land owners, poc and many more as lessors. Let’s not forget who wrote the constitution.
The Constitution assumes the people through the ballot box or through protest would clean up any issues like that
It has impeachment. The list of reasons for impeachment are (quite possibly intentionally) vague. But it has to be done through Congress.
And when the nazi controls Congress you know how far that’ll go.
Yeah, it’s rather obviously flawed in light of the current situation, but that is the mechanism that exists in the constitution.
That is true. I can’t argue that.
You mean for the guy who was already impeached twice… And still voted for to be president?
Well the mechanism for preventing criminals who shit all over the constitution from getting reelected is supposed to be people not voting for him. There’s not really much a constitutional democracy can do about voters being fucking morons. Kind of an inherent flaw in the system.
How do you build a system that doesn’t depend on voters not being morons? Everything I can think of, up to and including full-on authoritarianism, has human shittiness as a glaring weak point. The founding fathers assumed that people would, for the most part, act in good faith, and it kept us going for a couple hundred years, but all that is starting to fall apart.
I am not arguing in favor of authoritarianism or against democracy, to be clear. Just saying there is an inherent risk that if you give the common people power, the common people might do something dumb with it. I’m not aware of a system that removes that risk without other considerable downsides. There are other democratic governments that have fewer structural issues than the US, but none of them prevent the whole “sometimes, voters are very dumb” thing.
Well the only vast ocean we have left is space… Time to build some ships and make a new country free from all the bullshit… We can do it better this time!!!
Normally, it would be the electoral system that would act as the check. But otherwise, it doesn’t put any other limits based on political belief and affiliation (other than having allegiances to other political powers). If the majority wanted to elect someone who wishes to abolish the democratic election system, then that is what they will get.
That’s possibly for the better. Being able to bar given political alignments or affiliation from office would either need to be so specific so as to be useless (a modern nazi typically has little directly to do with the original), or be broad enough that it’d be a dangerous thing, since it could be used in either direction.
The problem is he won the election.
The vote is the final check and balance.
49% of Voters are either sympatico or stupid.
And that’s the problem with the US election system. In basically any other developed democracy, there are ways to call a new special election. The four years are often the max between elections, not the minimum.
If a new leader proves unpopular, you toss them out and install a new one.
But Trump hasn’t proven unpopular; that’s why he won reelection. If the ruling party has a majority and the PM has their party’s support, nothing would happen in most other systems either.
The popularity of both of the imperial genocidal candidates is the result of centuries of conditioning and the collapse of the education system and free press. It’s a cyclical problem. We vote them in, they keep us stupid, we vote them in again.
The popularity of both of the imperial genocidal candidates is the result of centuries of conditioning and the collapse of the education system and free press. It’s a cyclical problem. We vote them in, they keep us stupid, we vote them in again.
Didn’t say he was. Just saying if he did such crazy things that even the crazies drop out, he could be removed. That’s extremely hard in the US. You’re basically stuck with the moron for four years.
In theory, if he went so far over the line that he became very unpopular, then Congress members would fear for their reelection chances if they didn’t publicly break with him. But with him attacking democracy itself, Congress may be more afraid of him than they are of voters. It’s a deeply troubling time.
The problem is also that the Republican party is a fascist party, so the other check, impeachment, is thoroughly useless.
If you have only one party on the ballot and it’s a fascist party, you don’t really have a democratic choice do you? You can either vote for fascism or not vote for it.
If you have a fascist party on the ballet In an ONLY TWO partys political system, you don’t really have a democratic choice do you? You can either vote for fascism or not vote for it.
Fifth columnists love FPTP. It minimises their workload.
Ironically, these are the times the electoral college was supposed to avoid. Also denounced political parties as corrupting. Still likely to have been coopted by now, but the design was to combat lack of education, lack of information, and/or propaganda.
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.
Hitler didn’t take power democratically. Neither did Mussolini or Franco. They each found cracks in how liberal democracy worked in their respective countries. Those cracks were usually the places where the system was decidedly undemocratic, which in those three cases, was generally something where the old nobles still had some power and they lined up behind fascists to save them from leftists.
America never had nobles, but it does have plenty of cracks in its liberal democracy to be exploited by fascists.
So to answer your question simply, no, there are no instruments to fix this. Congress can potentially either reign Trump in with legislation, or even impeach him, but I don’t expect either one to happen. If the GOP can be swept out of Congress in 2026, then we can maybe start to fix some things without resorting to extralegal methods. Even that is only a starting point.
I do know for sure that we can’t go back to the old trajectory as if Trump was just an outlier.
Second amendment
America’s vaunted “checks and balances” are, in the end, just smoke and mirrors to lie to the population and hide the fact that American institutions give way too much power to the president and there are no institutional controls to make the president behave.
not true. congress could definitely remove the president… they just won’t do it because they’re too fascist themselves….
It’s funny that Germany has safeguards against nazis in power in it’s constitution which was designed
byin cooperation with the USA, France and GB, yet afaik all three don’t have similar mechanics in their own constitutions because they never belived to have to deal with the next hitler themselfs.Lets take out the politics for a moment, and just look at railroads
This is what I call the “Old Railroad Theory”:
The US build the railroad/subways so long ago, that most of it is now in decay and as far as I know, none of the US has any Platform Safety Barriers, and people could just fall on the tracks (see NYC)
In constrast, in China (PRC), because most subways are only recently built, they are much more modern, air-conditioned, and have Platform Safety Barriers, preventing any “fall on tracks” incidents. (I’ve seen first hand the subway in GuangZhou, they look much nicer than NYC, when I first got to NYC, the tracks were terrifying for me, I always have intrusive thoughts about falling in)
Its because once you build a system, its unlikely to get replaced even when better technology comes along. Too much cost to replace, politicians don’t care.
Same thing with Constitutions.
It was written so long ago, now its too late to add new ideas like Defensive Democracy. 3/4 of US legislature means its almost impossible to add it as an amendment.
(Btw, Germany has a AfD problem, that they still haven’t banned yet… 👀)
Edit: typos
Those same safeguards that banned AfD years ago, thank god they exist!
Germany has a modern constitution created in response to nazis.
USA has extremely outdated constitution created by proto-nazis.
How were they proto nazi? That’s a first.
PS.: With the current trend we will find out in about the next decade if the safeguards work …
Decade? More like 3 months. He’s already doing wildly unconstitutional things. If the Supreme Court refuses to take on challenges to it or outright approves it, well, they didn’t work.
Ich sage: nieder mit diesen Gesetzen!
Macht Deutschland wieder Groß
You mean that way, approximately?
