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.

  • itsnotits@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago
    • with a 100-year* tradition
    • throwing down its* key ideology
    • Are* 53 out of 100 senate seats
    • make the* country fall
  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months 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.

    • danciestlobster@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      This is good information, a few follow up questions:

      1. what does China gain by influencing the US to elect a fascist? It’s clear what us billionaires gain, less so for China

      2. where are the breaks on choo choo train to Nazi America, based on this trend?

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

        USA military interventions in Asia have been a constant concern for a long time, and the USA allied Korea and Japan directly oppose Chinese expansion and Chinese allied North Korea. The USA military control of the pacific ocean is seen as a wall to be overcome. The Chinese deeply despise the existence of NATO; the world’s largest mutual defence pact, and the US Government as barriers between them and their expansionist goals.

        For examples, the takeover of Hong Kong and Taiwan almost failed due to US support, and their econimic use of Philippine and Australian seas have faced setbacks.

        China is openly allied with other USA adversaries such as Iran and Russia.

        It also helps that President Trump has repeatedly praised and admired Xi Jinping openly in public. The USA Tariffs will have no effect on Chinese trade profits at all as USA citizens will instead pay the fees. The less average faith a US Citizen has in their country and the more easily radicalized they are to harm their country, the better it is for China. They constantly predict the downfall of America and the rise of China in a single breath.

        If you want evidence of all of this then look no further than the quotes of Chinese officials and the ideals of “communist parties” of the USA.

        1. The brakes would be electing 60 democrats to senate to pass campaign finance reform, public healthcare with no concessions, and tax reform. As they have repeatedly tried to do for many years but always come up short of votes. Bonus points if they expand the court, house, and senate but I dont know if its an achievable goal until after the campaign finance reform.
  • John Richard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • ddplf@szmer.infoOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      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.

    • ddplf@szmer.infoOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      So you actually need majority to PREVENT the collapse of democracy, and if you don’t have it, you’re fucked? How the fuck did this country even manage not to succumb into dictatorship for such a long time?

        • Forbo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          People democratically sat on their asses and didn’t bother to fucking vote. More people abstained from voting than actually voted for either candidate. The real winner of the election was apathy. We deserve whatever fucked up outcome we get.

      • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Well the country didn’t previously have a legion of mouth breathing retards screaming at the top of their lungs about micro-aggressions and declaring that the nation was illegitimate. I’d also question your metrics for deciding now that he’s an openly Nazi dictator, other than parroting what you hear from other people social media accounts.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Worse… The House makes the impeachment charge, that’s a 50% majority vote.

        THEN it goes to the Senate for conviction where you need a 2/3rds majority to remove them. 67/100.

        That’s the body which can’t do anything because they’re blocked by a 60 vote super majority to over-ride A filibuster.

        So you get 218 in the House, goes to the Senate, needs 60 votes to end debate and proceed with charges, then 67 votes to convict and remove.

        Trump’s first impeachment got 48 and 47 votes.
        His second was 57 votes.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump

        If he had been convicted, he would have been inelligible to run in '24.

        • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          The founders probably imagined no self respecting person, oligarch or otherwise, would want to live under authoritarian rule.

          Turns out the 21st century bourgeois is full of pussy ass bitches.

          • rhombus@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            They never could have imagined our modern society at all. The amount of power and influence held by just a handful of private citizens couldn’t have been accounted for in the 18th century.

            • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              I’m just speaking from a matter of principle. They don’t have to know the conditions to conclude living under a kings rule in any condition is unappealing.

      • drthunder@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        The ruling class was able to get along well enough up until the US Civil War, at which point the slavers decided they were willing to tear the country apart to keep on slaving. I include this because the Nazis were inspired by Jim Crow and how we did things over here. Fascism started bubbling up in the early 20th century because industrialization and capitalism polluted everything and made people work awful hours and all that, and liberalism and conservatism hadn’t fixed it. There was a serious coup attempt forming in the early 30s called the Business Plot, but they went to a war hero Marine general who told them to fuck off and told the federal government about it.

        At least in the US, we’re in this situation now because authoritarians have been working toward it since the 60s (the Powell Memo was written in 1971 I think) and they’ve taken advantage of how terribly the Constitution is written, along with consolidation of wealth and stoking backlash to all the civil rights movements to get people to back them. The worst part is that it’s a feedback loop: since Reagan took power, Republicans campaign on “look how bad the government is!” and make the government worse once they’re in office, which feeds their cause.

        tl;dr capitalism makes living conditions terrible, people abandon liberalism and conservatism for socialism/communism/etc and fascism, liberals don’t want much to change, fascism lives or dies based on how much conservatives sell out to/ally with them. The fact that we’re doing this all again shows to me that liberalism is a dead ideology and capitalism is going to kill us if we don’t kill it first.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        I mean imagine if you could impeach the president without a majority. That would be the death of democracy. Just to put things in perspective: The GOP democratically won both houses of Congress and the presidency and because of DNC incompetence also has the Supreme Court. Them being able to do whatever the fuck they want is, in a way, democracy working as intended. It’d be weirder (and much more undemocratic) if there was a way to remove a sitting president without the Supreme Court or Congress.

        • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          It’d be weirder (and much more undemocratic) if there was a way to remove a sitting president without the Supreme Court or Congress.

          Turns out there is, in fact. It just doesn’t involve governmental process at all. You’re quite correct that it’s undemocratic. (See: Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy)

        • ddplf@szmer.infoOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          This only proves that two-party system is just an authoritarianism with rotation. There’s always a ruling majority and the winner takes all.

          Things would be different with at least the third party. 2 out of 3 parties would agree that the party no.3 is a fucking malice and rule him out.

          • evidences@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Third party would most likely make things better but there’s no guarantee it would help in the situation you’ve set up. If two of the parties are fine with an actual Nazi in the White House and between them they control over half the votes then we’re still in the same situation.

            • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Very much on the electoral college, it made some measure of sense when the electors would have to ride a horse from California to DC maybe but that died a century or so ago.

              From a smart ass perspective though, I just want to point that the TLDR portion actually has more words than the block above it. 🙃

              • deo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                If they hadn’t capped the number of representatives at 435 over a hundred years ago, we wouldn’t be in the situation where a vote from Wyoming carries 3.7 times more weight than a vote from California. By my math, if the 435 cap was abolished, we would have 143 more electors generally sprinkled among the more populous states. I still agree that the EC is outdated, but it’s not even operating the way it was designed.

      • alleycat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        If enough people in a democracy decide that they want a dictatorship instead, then there is no stopping it, because rules don’t matter at this point. The trick is to don’t let it get this far. Tough shit for the US, though.

        • stinky@redlemmy.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          ^ this.

          The president isn’t in charge. He’s existing within boundaries created by the wealthy.

  • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    The USA has had a literal Nazi party since the 50’s. If they let George Lincoln Rockwell run for president while calling himself a nazi why would they do anything?

    • SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Maybe there’s an assumption that it’s not 1950, it’s 75 years later now. But if people don’t really know their history, they are doomed to repeat it. As an American, I feel that the average ordinary citizen is not very educated in history. And no wonder, how we treat the education system in this country.

  • Deestan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    But who will wield these instruments? It’d be more relevant if he made an effort to hide his nature before the election.

    Right now the majority voted fascism with open eyes.

    • ddplf@szmer.infoOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      The army or the police should immediately jump in and arrest Elon after the second salute, when it became obvious the guy knew what he was doing. And yet he saluted 3 times and half the country is extremely enthusiastic about that.

      • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        I thought it was twice? I mean, that doesn’t detract from your point, and I don’t even disagree. I just want to make sure the details are set straight.

        • ddplf@szmer.infoOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          I saw a full clip on reddit. First time was just as bad, because he did it spontaneously, with no “throwing hearts”. He just heiled out of nowhere.

        • gressen@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          The right to free speech is faulty if there are no repercussions from breaking the law.

          • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Again, the first amendment protects the right to free speech and association; as far as American law is concerned, Elon didn’t break any laws.

            • gressen@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Sure, but that’s not what I’m saying. You said that forbidding a Nazi salute would be against the first amendment. I’m only saying that IF Nazi symbols were to be outlawed then the freedom of speech should not equal to freedom from breaking the law.

              • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                IF Nazi symbols were to be outlawed then the freedom of speech should not equal to freedom from breaking the law.

                It does, though, because such a law would be struck down as unconstitutional. The First Amendment doesn’t just protect lawful speech; it protects all speech and the American government just barely carved out an exception for inciting violence. These amendments are part of the constitution, which stands above and restricts the rest of American law. If you made a law saying that Nazi symbols were illegal, your law would (at least theoretically) be illegal and struck down in court and people would retain the freedom to use Nazi symbols. You might take issue with that, but if only legal speech was allowed then… the government could just make any speech it doesn’t like illegal.

      • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        You’re calling for military generals to have the power to remove the government? Effectively a military dictatorship?

        That seems unwise.

        • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Elon isn’t a government official, there would be nothing unwise about arresting him for things most people would get arrested or at least questioned by the police for.

      • notabot@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        … and half the country is extremely enthusiastic about that.

        There’s the reason nothing is done about it. It’s probably not actually half, but enough people didn’t speak up early enough, and so this has become the loudest voice in the room. Unless, and until that changes, the whole world is in for a rough ride.

  • Tagger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Really because the rest of us have been watching you be wildly volatile for years now.

  • Valthorn@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I believe this is where the second amendment comes into play. Luigi was on to something.

  • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Is 53 out of 100 senate seats really enough to make country fall into authoritarian regime?

    Well you’d need 60; 53 is enough to do a lot but you can’t amend the constitution or override filibusters.

    Is the army really not constitutionally obliged to step in and save the day?

    Usually when the army “saves the day” by removing a democratically elected president undemocratically we call that a military coup and it’s considered, to put it lightly, a bad thing.

    America isn’t at all volatile as a democracy; as you surmised, it’s on the robust side (sans nonsense like citizens united). However, there’s not much that can be done when the anti-democracy guys won democratically not just the presidency, but also all government posts that would be able to stop them.

  • Makeshift@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    We’re ignoring the constitution already.

    14th Amendment. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    The man is an adjudicated insurrectionist. Congress just ignored their duty.

    So yes, there “are” protections. Said protections are simply being ignored.

      • Goodmorningsunshine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        I mean “No man shall hold office who committed insurrection” seems like a mechanism in and of itself. Dude just can’t run/be on a ballot. We just have two branches of government bought and paid for by the insurrectionist and America’s richest and most fanatical scum who refuse to follow the law.

        • Thunderbird4@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Dude just can’t run/be on a ballot.

          We tried that. The states, ostensibly, run federal elections independently of the federal government and decide who goes on the ballots. Colorado, Illinois, and Maine removed trump from their 2024 ballots on the grounds that he was ineligible under the 14th amendment. SCOTUS struck it down saying that the states (who, again, are supposed to have authority to run and administer federal elections within their territory) do not have the authority to enforce the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment.

      • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Only if there’s anyone left in government who will enforce the law. We couldn’t get that done with a democrat pres and a democrat DOJ, we’re not getting it done now that the maganazis control everything.

        Unless those Democrats still in washington have levers they can pull that none of us know about, or some Republicans grow a conscience (insert laughing hispanic guy meme here) I have legitimate fear about what the next four years will bring.

        For the first time in my life I’m typing something critical of our government and elected officials and wondering if someone is going to bash my door down for it a year from now.

    • urandom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      Afrikaans
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Can’t be a very good protection if it can just be ignored. I was under the impression that in the US, the constitution is strictly executed, though it looks like even that is a lie

      • JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s like the ICC and UN. They just make suggestions. Whether they are followed or effectively enforced depends on who’s in the dock.

      • Goodmorningsunshine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        People who say they follow the Bible are usually lying too. And anything that’s allowed to be left up to interpretation and still be called “law” is bound to be corrupted when convenient and ignored when convenient.