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.

  • masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 hours ago

    a hegemony with a 100-years tradition of upkeeping democracy against major non-democratic players

    Your proof of this is… what?

  • Matombo@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 hours ago

    It’s funny that Germany has safeguards against nazis in power in it’s constitution which was designed by in 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.

    • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Lets take out the politica 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 alwats 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 do 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… 👀)

    • Matombo@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 hours ago

      PS.: With the current trend we will find out in about the next decade if the safeguards work …

      • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 hours ago

        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.

      • Hupf@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        Ich sage: nieder mit diesen Gesetzen!

        Macht Deutschland wieder Groß

        You mean that way, approximately?

  • Daerun@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 hours ago

    If you really believe that the USA has “100-years tradition of upkeeping democracy against major non-democratic players” you are in delusion.

      • Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        … in case England attacks again.

        I have been thinking about coming over there with a cricket bat.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    Ah fuck you really going to make me infodump I hate you sm fr


    Part 1: The Two Parties

    In the 1960s Civil Rights movement a deep political polarization began which results in wealthy interests backing the Republican party more and more, President Ronald Reagan in return shifted the party away from unions and towards deregulated and low tax markets and industries, and when Democrats introduced a campaign finance reform to curb the issue in 1995 it failed but was reintroduced and passed in 2002 it furthered that divide yet again, that bill was then sued by Citizens United wealthy interests and the SCOTUS sided with Citizens United as a Partisan 5-4 decision. So now we live in a world where political divide has all of the wealthy interests backing one side whose policies are actually extremely unpopular but people are easily misled into not knowing the stances of people they are voting for, or misled on the repercussions of those actions.

    Figure 1: Partisanship of Congressmen

    Figure 2: Partisanship of citizens


    Part 2: Legislative Requirements of the USA

    The USA has steps to pass laws:

    • It gets called to vote by majority leader and passes the House of Representatives, which is capped at 435 congressmen allotted very very roughly proportional to the state populations.

    • It gets called to vote by majority leader and passes the Senate with a simple majority of 51 votes, unless a handful of senators decide to filibuster it to delay the vote indefinitely, in which case the bill gets amended with concessions and sent back to the House for yet another round of voting. Filibuster can be bypassed with 60 votes which is basically impossible due to aforementioned partisanship.

    • The president signs it into law.

    Now the problem here is that to remove a congressman, the president, or a supreme court judge: you need 60 votes following a successful impeachment inquiry. So it never happens.


    Part 3: Foreign Interests

    Influential media from the Murdochs, the Kochs, and the CCP are constantly pushing the USA further into the grave they’ve been digging for 50 years. China has always been a source of cheap labor and the relationship soured greatly following the Chinese influences on Korean and Japanese elections during the time those two nations were rebuilding following the World War era and were under the watchful eye of the US Military who were a central figure in the aforementioned conflict. This divide deepened with the 1984 Tienanmen Square Massacre where cities all over China were quelled by military forces being deployed on their own people. But far from being the end of it, the Pacific was still a prime trade route where the USA sought profits, and so Chinese influence continued to spread more as the days went by.


    Part 4: Where We Are Now

    President Obama was denied a lifelong SCOTUS nomination in an election year, giving the nomination to Donald Trump.

    Donald Trump was granted yet another lifelong SCOTUS nomination in an election year. The SCOTUS was thusly deeply conservative.

    His court nominations allowed him to run for office despite not qualifying under the insurrection clause, because if the courts choose not to reverse a lower court decision that he wasn’t barred from office then nobody is enforcing the law.

    Billionaires bought or operated their own home made social medias in the USA, the CCP deployed TikTok campaigns to elect a fascist.

    This isn’t just a thing that happened which we were unprepared for. It’s a thing that has been happening for decades which so many of us have been desperately attempting to stop.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 hours ago

    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.

  • itsnotits@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 hours ago
    • with a 100-year* tradition
    • throwing down its* key ideology
    • Are* 53 out of 100 senate seats
    • make the* country fall
    • yarr@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I am learning that in modern America, Nazi is just anyone they don’t like.

      • febra@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Actively spreading hate towards the LGBTQ community and making some of the most marginalised people isn’t nazi enough for you? What a sick world we live in.

        • VerifiedSource@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 hour ago

          This very liberal use of Nazi and fascist as a epithet has devalued its meaning.

          Hate is not enough. The Nazis did far more than spread hate. National-Socialism was much more coherent and thought through ideology than Trumpism/MAGA is today.

          Nazi might be useful as an expression of anger and resentment, but it’s not conducive to serious analysis or discourse regarding the situation.

  • hesusingthespiritbomb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 hours ago

    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?

    • miridius@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 hours 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.

      • VerifiedSource@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 hour ago

        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.

    • door_in_the_face@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 hours ago

      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.

      • hesusingthespiritbomb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 hours ago

        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.

        • kadup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          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.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      12 hours ago

      HAHAHAHHAHAAH

      you were making a joke, right? Because Trump right now is using the constitution and the bill of rights and everything like it in his personal bathroom as toilet paper.

      We’re 2 days in and it’s already a giant shit show world wide and we have 4 more years to go.

      You better brace yourself for what’s coming

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 hours ago

      To be fair, that’s a piece of paper. If the President violates that and isn’t impeached then there’s nothing physical to stop him.

      • meliaesc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 hours ago

        This guy has been impeached twice and convicted of 34 felony charges. So we actually need something physical to stop him.

  • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 hours ago

    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.

  • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    Yes, the President can be impeached and removed by Congress. On the opposite side of the coin a President can veto laws passed by Congress, which Congress can override but it’s harder than passing a law. The problem is when Congress also goes nazi at the same time. In that case we’re fucked. In fact I think Article 97 sub-paragraph E13/W even says, “Such conditions and circumstances shall by Law constitute Fuckage.”

    • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      Cool, but half the country supports this shit. And no, people who don’t vote don’t matter in this context.

      • Soggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Then maybe they should have their own shithole country and stop taking our tax dollars.

      • Freefall@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 hours ago

        That is by design. If the “majority” of the country wants the US to be Nazis, that is the direction it will go. That is how a representative democracy works. The flaw was the founders assuming retarded puppets would not be elected by even an uneducated public. But, they also didn’t plan for automatic weapons either. Well, they sort of did, they said we should be rewriting the constitution every so many years so it can evolve with the times, but we chose to enshrine and misinterpret it like a civic bible. Oops.

      • Lemminary@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 hours ago

        The nuke is a bad example of the sheer power of the modern American military. It’s also a bit outdated. That legal mechanism was drafted when many other modern weapons and tactics were not even dreamed of. Just a couple days ago the US military announced its strongest armor yet.

        But I agree: your assault rifle may save you from others with an assault rifle, but it won’t do shit if the military comes for you.

      • nomy@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 hours ago

        That’s a non sequitur though, unless you’re suggesting a tyrant would nuke the population he wanted to rule.