As an American who grew from nothing, served in the military, and expanded in my career -
I find the concerns for Democracy comical.
Most of you do not understand the type of people that built and fought for democracy. There is no real fear amongst these same type of people in modern America.
As someone who spent most of his life in a dictatorship, I don’t think you appreciate how easily a society can slide into a totalitarian state and how apathetic most of the population can become.
It’s also interesting that you served in the U.S. military and didn’t recognize how self-serving and institutionally corrupt it is. I come from a country with an oversized military relative to its government, and the parallels I can draw between its behavior and that of the U.S. Army are uncanny.
However, comparing American society with one of the Middle East does not resonate with me. That goes hand in hand with comparing a military of a dictatorship with one of a democracy.
There is nothing inherently special about Americans that makes them more democratic. I agree we shouldn't compare the U.S. with Middle Eastern countries; they were never democratic in the first place. A more appropriate comparison would be with the German Weimar Republic, where a charismatic leader managed to overthrow democracy.
Many people raised in democratic societies don't fully understand the intricacies of the relationship between the military and dictatorships; they see the military as a tool in the dictator's hand to wield at will. This couldn't be further from the truth. A (strong) military in a dictatorship is its own institution, largely isolated from the rest of society and granted its own perks and benefits. The dictator can wield the military only to the extent that it aligns with the institution's goals. Competent ones try to align the military's goals with their own; incompetent ones get overthrown.
Because of this isolation from broader society, the officers and soldiers believe that what is good for the institution is good for the country. They're not suppressing their citizens; they believe they are protecting the republic.
The U.S. Army is already operating as an isolated entity from broader U.S. society. Monetary corruption is quite substantial—consider the medium- to high-ranking officers and their relationships and revolving doors with defense contractors.
I'm not saying the U.S. is going to become -insert non-democratic country here-, but if we ignore the usual Western caricature of Stalinist-style dictatorships and realize that there are multiple forms of eroding democracy, you'll start to understand why it's not such a far-fetched idea.
Comparisons to Weimar Germany are ridiculous because the state of the two countries are vastly, VASTLY different. Nevermind the fact that we're also in a different, much more interconnected and mixed world than back then.
On the one hand you have a once-proud and powerful state recovering from the most devastating war humanity has ever waged (by that point) that it lost in, which subsequently forced them into paying back massive reparations, sanctions and economic and military limits imposed on it by the victors of said war. Of course a charismatic, populist leader who gives the resentful nation a boogeyman to fight against is going to win.
On the other you have the de facto #1 world power with the most cartoonishly powerful military on the planet that has their fingers involved in every single pie on the planet, which was founded on the principle of democracy some 200 years ago, with strong safeguards put in place to prevent the exact thing that happened with the Weimar republic.
Even pretending like the Weimer Republic's military was anything even resembling what the US military is is ridiculous.
> On the other you have the de facto #1 world power
Wasn't always the case, and honestly it's hard to tell where China stands right now, and it seems like it's not slowing down... if you look at e.g. robotics or drones...
> which was founded on the principle of democracy some 200 years ago
Didn't it need a civil war to actually become a democracy? My understanding was that it was not exactly founded as a democracy. But maybe I'm being pedantic there.
> with strong safeguards put in place to prevent the exact thing that happened with the Weimar republic.
Genuinely interested! What are those safeguards and what do they prevent that happened with the Weimar republic?
> Didn't it need a civil war to actually become a democracy? My understanding was that it was not exactly founded as a democracy. But maybe I'm being pedantic there.
Definitely think you are being pedantic. By that standard, we're not a "real" democracy right now with felons not being able to vote in many states. That's a valid position to have, but imo not really useful for this discussion.
I'm saying that because I recently read somewhere that it needed a civil war to modify the Constitution and make it a democracy. The article was making the point that it was purposely not designed as a democracy at first.
Which I found interesting, but admittedly not necessarily useful here.
With the Weimar Republic, it was specifically section 48 of their constitution which granted emergency powers to pass laws and the normalization of its invocation, paired with a dysfuctional legistlative body that was the only check on that power, that allowed the measures to be taken that culminated in probably unconstitutional passage of the Enalbing Act that killed the republic.
Sure, but it has been for the better part of a few decades. The whole reason US hegemony has spread so far and wide is due to this.
> Genuinely interested! What are those safeguards and what do they prevent that happened with the Weimar republic?
I'm not American so I'm probably getting the tiny details wrong here so please correct me if I'm wrong on any points. A lot of this is going off my memory, so I'm probably getting some dates and such details wrong as well. I'm definitely not including a very comprehensive answer here, as it's a complex topic with a lot of history attached that I don't know too much myself. I'm mostly just a nerd who finds this kinda stuff fascinating, not any kind of expert :)
The big sticking points for the Weimar were that the president wielded much more legislative and executive power than US presidents do. Article 48 let the Reichspresident call a state of emergency without ever involving the Reichstag (Parliament) which basically enabled them to become dictators whenever they wanted. Article 48 was one of the early keys Hitler used to seize power, as a fire in the Reichstag parliament house gave him an excuse to call a state of emergency because of a supposed Communist uprising. He used Article 48 to arrest Communists en-masse on the basis of the Reichstag Fire Decree which was signed shortly after the fire, which also included many provisions that restricted free speech, movement and other similar civil liberties. I'd recommend further reading up on the Fire Decree yourself, as it's quite interesting as a key turning point in the Weimar turning into Nazi Germany.
In contrast, US presidents cannot supersede congress and decrees are subject to congressional oversight (there probably exist exceptions, so take my words here with a grain of salt). Even emergency powers (such as the ones Hitler used) are much weaker for US presidents and have to go through congressional approval. Even if every single member of congress is a republican, republicans are not a completely united party. A lot of them dislike Trump and have their own agendas they'd prefer to be pushed, and ultimately they have no real reason to bow to the president since they are elected in completely different timeframes, wield different but almost equal power and are also competing with every other member of congress. For example the fear mongering about leaving NATO, there's basically a 0% chance of that happening because it requires a supermajority from congress, despite whatever the President might want. It's a pretty common reason why things like the recently proposed student loan debt forgiveness never end up happening, the president can't just will it to happen.
Another big one is that the militaries work under different philosophies and circumstances between the two, and you can't have a takeover without military backing. The Weimar military was still pretty loyal to the old monarchists and viewed Weimar as a forced state that they were put into under pressure after losing WW1. You have to understand that the whole "democracy" idea was a pretty fresh one at that time for Germany, they only switched from monarchism to republicanism in 1918 after the November revolution.
By contrast, US military as far as I understand it isn't really all that loyal to whoever the current president is, but rather to the constitution. The president might be commander-in-chief, but that doesn't mean he can tell the military to do whatever they want. They still wield power over the military of course, but it's a lot less pronounced than it was in Germany, because the military were loyal to Hitler. If the military leaders who are ultimately the ones commanding the troops don't like the president, there isn't much they can do. Even the national guard is interesting, since it's a split responsibility between states and the federal government. And, again, congress also has a say in many military things, though my knowledge there is for sure lacking so I'd recommend you do your own reading up there.
An example there of the limited power of the president was when Nixon was getting the boot, the secretary of defence James Schlesinger at the time instructed military leaders to run Nixon's order by either him or the secretary of state, because he was worried about Nixon's reaction.
And again, the economic and social situation in Germany at the time cannot be overstated. People were miserable, the country was massively poor and were in a major demographic problem due to the war. Their industry was quickly stagnating due to the aftermath of WW1 and there was a lot of resentment building up in Germany for what they considered to be unfair and harsh treatment from the Allies. They were, to put it charitably, extremely unstable times and it was a matter of time before all of it exploded like it did. If it wasn't Hitler, it would've been the next charismatic leader promising to take revenge on the people who ruined the country (which is massively oversimplifying things of course, but you get the gist)
There are real, significant between Weimar, Italy 10 years before and the USA today.
However the explanation for the rise of Hitler you allude to is woefully incomplete. Hitler and his party didn't get into power by winning the majory popular vote. Instead the Hitler and the Nazis formed a coalition with the monarchists and convinced Hindenburg that they would help restore the Monarchy if Hindenburg helped them take power and granted them new powers.
I'm not going to claim we are necessarily in the same situation today, but I do think it is worth being aware of how this kind of thing can happen.
We should be extremely wary about giving a charismatic leader extraordinary powers, even if that leader promises that power will only be used to accomplish your goals.
You're 100% right, my comment was definitely not meant to imply that the Nazi party's takeover was a simple affair that was as cut and dry as Hitler winning the vote and turning the country into Nazi Germany.
However the way I see it, people (not you, I just mean in general people who seem to believe Trump will bring about the 5th Reich) are probably out of ignorance of the history there also massively oversimplifying and overestimating how much power the president ultimately wields, especially when compared to Weimer-era Germany. People aren't aware that there are safety mechanisms in the US that didn't exist in the Weimar Republic, and as such simply bringing up that "This is exactly what happened with Nazi Germany!" is massively oversimplifying things as well from the other side.
The comment my comment was replying to did this exact thing, in fact, where they equated the election of a charismatic leader to what happened with the Nazis.
I do agree with you though, I personally tend to align with Frank Herbert when it comes to people who want to wield power and rule over others, in that they should be studied and watched closely and carefully and disposed of swiftly if they pull any Hitler-tier shenanigans
> A more appropriate comparison would be with the German Weimar Republic, where a charismatic leader managed to overthrow democracy
This doesn't resonate to me. The conditions in the US are so different than the German Weimar Republic. I mean sure it's possible but without a compelling reason I kind of discard those arguments. The US has had lots of charismatic leaders screwing stuff up and yet still survived.
More importantly, American Exceptionalism is deeply ingrained in our philosophy. I think we're wrong, but it exists. So the general populace doesn't believe this stuff and just makes people sound out of touch. I think when someone is thinking about inflation and rent and mortgages, the idea that they should care about an existential threat to democracy doesn't seem to matter much. That's a rich person's worry.
This is the weirdest thing I have read in a while. I can name multiple more democratic countries, for example starting with the Nordic countries. Just having a multi party system goes far in this comparison.
If you were going to give an example, Switzerland would have been a good one. But they have elements of exactly what I'm talking about, considering there are French, Italian, German quarters of the country.
Nordics have only recently become democracies, <100 years ago.
To clarify, the context of the discussion was the resiliency of democracy, not some dick measuring contest of which country is presently more democratic.
Ok, sure, I can bite the argument charisma matter. I just don't see how Trump is charismatic in any way. He's a spoiled rich kid that throws tantrums when things don't go his way.
First of all, that's how you see it. That's how I see it. But what about someone else?
This comment is going to be a bit rough as I'm going to play act a lot to really drive my point home.
I remember talking to my carpenter friend. He told me he voted for someone like Trump in my country. I asked him why.
My issue with the local politician where I'm from is that he puts all Islamic people into one bucket: the stupid one. I think that's crazy and unfair. He does it with more things. I think his policies are stupid whenever I hear them.
My carpenter friend and I go way back. We met each other when I was 7 and he was 9. He was part of a dizygotic twin. We haven't spoken to each other in 4 years and just vaguely kept in touch.
When he told me that he voted on that bullshit person of a politician, I asked why and he's like: "he's charismatic!"
The thing is. I know this carpenter friend. He might be a lot older but I know him emotionally. He hasn't changed a bit, he just got more mature. But underneath, whenever I see someone from my elementary school, I still see the same child. I also think they still see me that way, that's the impression I get.
The charisma doesn't come as much from that our crazy local politician is actually charismatic. It comes more from the fact that - if I had to guess - from his perspective: politics is boring as hell. It's crazy boring! Why bother! Yea, yea, right to vote. Fine. Fine. He'll vote. Fine.
But if he'll vote. Why not have some fun? Why not vote for someone that wants to throw a bit of a ruckus eh? Why not vote for someone that talks in a way that he talks, that thinks in a way he thinks, that cares about his issues. What are these Islamic people doing here anyway? It's uncomfortable (note: I think this is dumb as hell, I'm just paining a picture - Islamic people should feel comfortable where I live because in my view they are the same nationality as I am).
So in my carpenter's friend mind, this local politician has some charisma. Does he have the best charisma? Don't know but definitely some.
What do other politicians sound like? Nuance 1, nuance 2, policy x, policy y, blah, blah, blah, BORING!
I wish it wasn't as childish as this but I know my friend. It is. He just wants to go to his carpenting job, make something beautiful, be with his wife and kids and call it a day. Thinking for him, like thinking deeply. That's painful. He can do it, but he sure as hell doesn't like it. He likes to do things with his hands.
When I emotionally understood I was shocked. I live in a village close to a big city. I know this village, I grew up here. I'm the odd one out, the intellectual. But I know how "these people from the village think". And my carpenter friend is a very average person in it. So suddenly I realized, this is how many people in my village think.
My suspicion is that something similar happens with Trump. However, with some differences such as: he's a business man! He tells it like it is! We don't take no shit from some ippity uppity democrats! Why should we?! Don't tell me what to do! I will do what I want to do! And all these immigrants are taking our jobs! That's not okay! Trump tells the truth.
Again, I think, that such type of thinking is the dumbest thing ever. Nor do I think that every Trump supporter thinks like this. But there are Americans that think like my carpenter friend. And my suspicion is that they think like this. From that perspective, it's clear to see why Trump has charisma. Because (1) he talks at their level, (2) he talks about their issues and (3) he's a successful business man.
I know we can both make arguments that (1), (2) and (3) aren't true. But dude, remember, for them, thinking is fucking painful.
I'm sure there are more archetypes/personalities that have backgrounds and contexts as to why they find Trump charismatic.
There was that whole civil war thing that happened. And it didn't even matter who won this election, it's clear we are very driven by us/them thinking just considering alone how much purchase you have as a politician when you promise to deport people.
If you are looking at the breadth of history, you would be much more justified in saying that "struggle" and even "violence" is what makes things happen or not. There are political formations, disruptions, rifts, responding to endogenous and external factors. There is now also the extra-political force of capital which is a big player.
What you see, or what you desire, is the so-called "End of History". Where all things are just variations parliamentary-democratic struggle, where in fact globalism is the very thing that assures you of the USA's (very broad) stability. You can allow for a superficial rollercoaster of politics, just insofar as you truly believe (and I bet you do) there is a trajectory and it is good. Good ole' USA.
Its very much like believing either that the world is just 200 years old (again, that whole civil war thing was a big deal), or that we are in a kind Groundhogs Day decade (of the 90s).
I could say a lot, but ultimately I envy you and the world you live in. I understand how it can really sustain you. I hope at least you don't live long enough to see your worldview shattered. You don't, truly, deserve that. Noone does.
- Removing the broadcast licenses of news network that questions him. He's been calling them fake news for years.
- More power to the rich buddies. Not just more money, now they get more control over government affairs. Musk and Thiel are frothing over this.
- Control over women and minorities.
- More power to the theists.
Looks like "comparing American society with one of the Middle East does not resonate with me." will soon become apparent as the parallels start to be clearer.
nobody needs media to tell them this. it comes directly from his mouth. it's hilarious that you think people get their opinions from media. no, just listen to what the politicians say. he said he's gonna do mass deportations? believe him
Im not even a trump supporter but last night he said he was leaving the white house after this term on live TV, so i think the whole trump-wanna-be-dictator thing goes out the window - no ?
"Don't worry, man who famously lies every single time he opens his mouth about even basic objective facts before everyone's eyes, says he won't abuse his powers, so there's nothing to fear!"
Also even going by his own words, what about his "dictator on day one" comments?
I think the concerns about him trying to stay on a third term are way overblown, but outside of that: you can't trust what he says versus to what he will do later.
How did Ashli Babbitt die? She was shot in the head, on January 6th, at point blank range, by the secret service, because she was trying to break through a barrier that was protecting the vice president of the United States, the man whose job it was to certify the election. Why was she there? Because from the top of the Republican party down, they spread a lie that the election was stolen because they devoid of morals and they knew their followers would believe them. The concerns about democracy are very real.
There is video of this. There is a mob of people behind her trying to get the vice president to stop him from certifying the election. It wasn't just her, she was just the person in front. This is what people talk about how Trump supporters are detached from reality. There is video. Watch the video.
Read They Thought They Were Free. People who vote for dictators _rarely_ view themselves as enablers of the bad things that come afterwards, even though they are an essential part of the process. Supporters choose to ignore the bad stuff. Let's hope the worst of it is just hot air, but I'm not giving people a pass this time around personally because it's way too dark.
As a non-American, my personal concern for Democracy in regards to the USA is the questionable system of the electoral college which, in my opinion, is one of the worst forms of representative democracy on the planet and certainly not apt for a country so proud of its democratic values.
This also goes hand-in-hand with the black-white thinking of a two-party-system.
If my village forms a union with your village and both our villages have 1000 inhabitants at the time I don't want your village to be able to dictate our common policy just because you have more children or more people died in my village 20 years from now. Thus when we are forming a union we stipulate that we have equal voting rights.
It's going to happen in EU in some form as well (assuming EU goes into closer integration direction) because there is no way small countries accept closer union without a mechanism similar to electoral college.
I think you’re misunderstanding the problem (or I am), the problem is the winner-takes-all per state, not that voting ratios between states are fixed (they aren’t BTW).
> If my village forms a union with your village and both our villages have 1000 inhabitants at the time I don't want your village to be able to dictate our common policy just because you have more children or more people died in my village 20 years from now. Thus when we are forming a union we stipulate that we have equal voting rights.
That's not how the electoral college works. The electoral college equivalent would be one village with 1000 people, the second with 2000, and the third with 4000, and each village getting "electoral votes" proportional to their population that gets awarded entirely to the candidate with the majority vote in that village. The entirety of the first two villages vote for candidate A, which awards 1 electoral vote for the first village and 2 electoral votes for the second. In the third village, which has 4 electoral votes, candidate A only gets 1999 votes, whereas candidate B gets 2001 votes, so they win the electoral vote 4-3 and become the leader despite only winning 2001 votes overall out of 7000.
The reason that the analogy needs to be this complicated is because the electoral college isn't some sort of common-sense system that happens to occasionally produce quirky results; it's an extremely contrived system that produces equally contrived results, which shouldn't be remotely surprising.
The US voting system doesn't even solve that one "problem" you are presenting. The number of districts and votes are constantly adjusted to population.
The margin is so large that it doesn't matter (I did check before commenting). Something truly spectacular and unprecedented needs to happen for Harris to win the popular vote.
This is completely untrue. While Trump is favored, there are around 7 million votes left to count in California alone. Predominantly from major cities. Harris is expected to gain a net of almost 3 million from that
No it's not. Harris has less than a 1% chance of winning the popular vote at this stage. You can put $100 on her right now and make $20K when she wins.
That's not how I read it when I looked earilier, but we'll see how it turns out. I can't be bothered to check again, and I don't think it's an important point to argue right now. For what it's worth, I hope you're right and I'll gladly be wrong here.
Counting votes for days/weeks. No ID laws. States not allowing pre-counting votes. States not allowing early voting. Having to wait 7 hours to vote at some polling locations vs 10 minutes at others. Allowing some forms of state agency issued ID to vote but not others.
I'm sure everyone from every side can come up with their own list. How about we solve it all once and for all.
Counting for days is not OK. To ensure fair counting you need to have poll watchers from all interested parties present during voting and counting, and it is difficult to be present over 96 hours period - people need to sleep, and they can't observe the ballots repository or counting while they sleep.
There is no reason why all ballots can't be counted it a few hours. If more people are needed to do it, then so be it.
Second time in the current millennium is probably the talking point you saw; Reagan was the the last Rep president to win two terms with a popular vote majority.
I would argue the Democratic Party is hardly "left-wing". The old joke is that the US has two parties: the right wing party and the very right wing party. They have moved a bit to the left though, but many "left wing" policies they support have broad universal support among the left and right in Europe. Today it's more the centre/centre-right party and the monster raving looney party.
But yes, the system is not great. This matters even more in the senate elections by the way, where every state gets two senators regardless of population size. I get the argument that you don't want densely populated cities dominating large swaths of rural areas, but 1) elections are about people and not trees, and 2) now it's the reverse where sparsely populated rural areas dominate. So...
All true, and I feel there's hope that this is the wake-up call the American left needs; that if they keep playing the role of the centrist establishment what they end up crafting is a super boring campaign that no one feels the passion to get out and vote for. Total voter turnout this election is shaping up to be significantly lower on the left (-15M currently) versus the right (-3M) as compared to 2020.
I think the takes that this is the right taking over America etc are super doomerist. The more accurate story is: The left put up a really boring, bad candidate. The only campaign the left has figured out how to run for literally the past three elections is "stop Trump", and its not even resonating with their own voters anymore. What are they going to run on in 2028 when there isn't a Trump to stop anymore?
The left needs to wake up and have a Trump moment of their own.
Trump is incredibly boring. All he does is throw insults and is obsessed with personal loyalty. He has barely any meaningful ideas at all, and has very little interesting to say. It's almost all just politics of grievances and whipped up anger, at times based on abject malicious lies.
That really is the problem: one side runs a nihilistic campaign completely unencumbered by any truth, morality, or any sense of decency, and the side, well, doesn't. There are two sets of rules and two games being played here. That much has been obvious for almost a decade now. So how do you counter that? Well, no one really knows.
The little he has to say still got him the most powerful position in the world, which is a problem. I am thoroughly afraid of his capability to destroy and deceive.
Progressive policies are broadly popular; inevitably, some totalitarian and intolerant wokeists always end up hijacking the progressive wing, driving the center rightward.
States elect Presidents, not the People. If you knew anything about why states exist at all, and their history in Constitutional law, and that they have far greater sovereignty than any other country's sub-national political division, you'd understand why the electoral college system exists.
There is a President of the European Council (Charles Michel, elected by member countries' heads of state), there is a President of the European Commission (Ursula von der Leyen, elected by the European Parliament), and there is a President of the European Parliament (Roberta Metsola, elected by the members of the parliament).
Seats in the European Parliament are not proportionally allocated (small countries have more seats per capita), and member countries have different systems for allocating their seats among representatives, but nobody uses first-past-the-post, maybe except Hungary (debatably - their system is weird).
So, no, none of the "EU presidents" are elected by popular vote strictly speaking, and none of them have a role that is even remotely similar to the US presidency.
+1. America has immense sociopolitical inertia. It is absolutely incomparable to societies like 1930s Germany, 1910s Russia, or post-war China that gave rise to the brutal dictatorships of the 20th century. This a blessing if you are worried about totalitarianism, and a curse if you are hoping for deep structural reform.
A reasonable worry is not that America is going to become just like China, Russia, or Nazi Germany, but that it will become a bit more like them in some ways. Which I think would be bad.
"Average Joe" thinks he knows more political science than people who went to school. Inadvertently demonstrates why it's so easy to manipulate the public into voting against their own self interests while convincing them they're somehow smarter than the "elites", who are really just educated people trying to save them.
As I get older, I grow increasingly weary of this kind of condescending rhetoric. As an example, where were these educated saviors when there were calls to "defund the police"? Most low-income neighbourhoods want more police presence[1], not less because crime hurts them personally and not just in an abstract way on some spreadsheet.
You can't "save" someone without understanding what their day to day problems are.
In Florida 10% of adults are not allowed to vote. In Mississippi, 15% of all black people are not allowed to vote
Florida is particularly bitter because Floridians voted to give back felon voting rights and DeSantis and the judicial branch he controls just declared it unconstitutional
Other high ranking military officers that have worked closely with Trump disagree. I might be inclined to believe them over you, unless you've also worked with Trump? Or are you just someone that he would call a 'sucker'?
Trump has explicitly and clearly stated he plans to fill the supreme court with cronies, and then dissolve massive parts of the bureaucracy to instead divert that power to the president. Keep in mind, on top of this, he is also now completely immune from all crimes.
This new-found concentration of power in the president has never before been seen in American politics. It is genuinely worrying, even if you believe Trump will use his new powers in benevolent ways.
This is working under the assumption a succession will be like the one's we're typically used to. With this newfound power, that might not be the case. At the expense of sounding like a doomer, I think there is a possibility the next president won't be democratically elected.
> Most of you do not understand the type of people that built and fought for democracy.
I AM the type of people that built and fought for democracy. My people donate to the ACLU and drive people to the polls. We marched for civil rights and women's rights. We fight voter disenfranchisement and poll intimidators and insurrections.
One thing that's struck me since Trump was announced the winner is how many Replublican voters are determined to invalidate the opinions of people who voted for the Democrats.
I'm left leaning, but I think jobs in rural areas, inflation, cost of living are all valid concerns that should be addressed regardless of who is in power. I disagree to varying extents with Trump's stance on abortion, immigration and gun control. But I also understand why people have a different opinion to me.
What I see online is a continuing anger towards the left and a determination to not only discredit their opinions, but also punish them for their dissenting views. There is this gleeful perception that it's time for payback.
Nice anecdotes you have there, but history suggests that you might have a bit of myopia.
1. Abraham Lincoln said "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Whether you agree or not, some people think we may be at that inflection point right now. If you think American citizens haven’t lost substantial freedoms in the recent past, then you haven’t been paying attention. Is it at the level of “destroying ourselves”? To be determined, but the potential is there, and some folks really aren’t shy about trying to implement that a policy of reduced freedoms.
2. There are many cases in the last 100 years or so of authoritarian regimes rising because people want order during a time of distress — Saddam, Hitler, Mao, Lenin, and others rose to authoritarian power by offering stability during unstable times. They were welcomed with open arms, and often times people (including and especially the military) were willing to give up their freedoms for this potential for stability. Some folks think that the US is one big destabilizing event from welcoming an authoritarian. You may think this way of thinking is hubris, but none of us will know that it happened until after it has occurred.
I’m glad things have worked out for you, but I hope you have open eyes about how things can go south, as they have in the past.
It’s comical because you’re comparing literal communists and human rights offenders (some pure evil) to a
_republican_ president in a democracy over 200 years old with decentralized power between the states as well as private sector independence.
I’d question which party would bring us closer to something such as the cultural revolution or government-ran industries.
Still, what most fail to understand is the core values instilled in places like our military as the ultimate check/balance.
People assume that there's going to be some grand take-over event, a third-world coup d'état if you will.
In reality, modern democracies die slowly. Russia was once a democracy, now it's democracy on paper only. What will Americans do, when their courts are infringing their freedom?
Again, it happens slowly. Bit by bit, in the boring court rooms.
I agree with your general point, but the comparisons to Russia don't work.
Russia was barely a functioning democracy in the 1990s and had no democratic tradition before that, just different flavors of authoritarianism for centuries.
The problem is the US only really has traditions. We were hardly a democracy at our founding in the modern sense of the word and as such the guard rails are fairly weak. The electoral college wasn't established in some brilliant attempt to moderate the votes of states, it was so rich land owners could control who ran the country.
Since last time, he survived two impeachments for which he was dead to rights and had the SC declare he has near total immunity for official acts. With a senate majority he knows that he can now operate with total impunity. He can cancel Congressional appropriations, cancel investigations, direct prosecutions and it doesn't matter if he does that illegally and he knows it.
As somebody not living in US, that's surprising. My opinion is that Democrats did a really shit job - focusing on wrong problems, promoting stuff nobody cares about etc. Trump / Musk did appeal to a lot of people for different reasons, some of which I can understand.
But both are grifters and very dangerous in my view.
Recover? It’s better than ever on every actual metric.
But I do look forward to February 2025, when journalists will once again travel to rural Pennsylvania to interview Trump voters in diners who will say that the economy is amazing now that the Great Man has been in power for a whole week. The magic of recovery!
I disagree. He will start taking credit for anything good that happens in the economy now, and blame anything bad that happens in the economy on Biden.
Yes, the economy is incredible but wealth disparity is too. The average person isn’t winning. Trump’s proposed economic changes appear to make that much worse, as well.
So much of this election has been utterly perplexing, but probably the most confusing part is how many people have legitimate gripes about how the economy is serving them, yet are voting for someone who has plans to make their situation worse.
"He said he'll decrease inflation!"
"But his plans for tariffs will make inflation much much worse!"
I find the concerns for Democracy comical.
Most of you do not understand the type of people that built and fought for democracy. There is no real fear amongst these same type of people in modern America.