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.

  • T156@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 hour ago

    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.

  • tiny@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    4 hours ago

    The Constitution assumes the people through the ballot box or through protest would clean up any issues like that

  • Cid Vicious@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    5 hours ago

    It has impeachment. The list of reasons for impeachment are (quite possibly intentionally) vague. But it has to be done through Congress.

  • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    The problem is he won the election.

    The vote is the final check and balance.

    49% of Voters are either sympatico or stupid.

    • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 hours ago

      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.

      • Cid Vicious@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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.

        • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          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.

          • Cid Vicious@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            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.

      • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        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.

  • kava@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 hours ago

    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.

  • frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    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.

  • clutchtwopointzero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    10 hours ago

    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.

    • xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 hours ago

      not true. congress could definitely remove the president… they just won’t do it because they’re too fascist themselves….

  • masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 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
    44
    ·
    17 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.

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      Germany has a modern constitution created in response to nazis.

      USA has extremely outdated constitution created by proto-nazis.

    • Miaou@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Those same safeguards that banned AfD years ago, thank god they exist!

    • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      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

    • Matombo@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      17 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
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 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
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        16 hours ago

        Ich sage: nieder mit diesen Gesetzen!

        Macht Deutschland wieder Groß

        You mean that way, approximately?

  • Daerun@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    17 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.

    • Klear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      2A is supposed to facilitate millitias in case England attacks again.

      • Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        15 hours ago

        … in case England attacks again.

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

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Guns can have multiple uses.

        The American Revolutionary War literally started over the attempted seizure of guns by a government that feared its subjects could use them in an uprising.