The American democratic republic has died. It was 236 years old.
a year ago by crossdl to c/politics
"But over time, the executive branch grew exceedingly powerful. Two world wars emphasized the president’s commander in chief role and removed constraints on its power. By the second half of the 20th century, the republic was routinely fighting wars without its legislative branch, Congress, declaring war, as the Constitution required. With Congress often paralyzed by political conflict, presidents increasingly governed by edicts."
Even if they had the time frame that Republicans had with drafting and promoting Project 2025, they could have had their own. They knew it existed, only Trump pretended it never existed and was a hoax.
If the DNC had its own Project 2025, something like "Project End Fascism" it could have worked. Instead we got "Maybe 100K for new home owners. Not gonna go after the corporations buying every home."
Yup, they have no positive vision for the future anymore since they're so far up the oligarchs' asses they can't see past the end of their nose. And people still choose the 'lesser evil' and then act like they're somehow surprised that what they got was still evil.
If we strip-mine all the social programs before Republicans get the chance we can do it in a way that keeps the most important part of the system in place. Checkmate fascists!
If we strip-mine all the social programs before Republicans get the chance we can do it in a way that keeps the most important part of the system in place.
The cut taken by parasitic middlemen?
What we really need is MORE Middlemen to keep a closer eye on all those brokies and make sure they're not getting too much. That'll stop the waste, surely.
Bullshit. If Gore won, there'd be compost powered cars and shit. Hilary was pushing for Obamacare since her husband was in office. Biden was all about stimulus to working families. We've been living if the New Deal over half a century.
It was a red flag that Hillary didn’t have what it takes to lead any complex effort (such as the Presidency)
LOL. It's a good thing there was such a competent alternative to vote for then.
What I don't get from the American people, who have always portrait themselves as champions of everything with this attitude now of "there was no way to avoid it because we are legless turtles and all we can do is vote blue or red and hope our daddies do right by us"
True, the last election would not had saved you but anyone with a firing neuron saw this coming 40 years ago and you all did fuck all to avoid it while still making ignorant jokes about the French being cowards
Take North Korean propaganda, paint it red white and blue and give it a specific set of "freedoms" and you'll have any answer of "how". We're literally made to be this way. Even those of us with a "firing neuron" are a result of this propaganda, granted just not in the intended way. Drowning and understanding why we're drowning ends the same way.
Indeed, although anyone who says they knew what shape this would take 40 years ago was either a liar or a time traveler, I've been watching it go to shit for my entire life. I too tried voting blue for 30 years only to watch them unwind and fall apart when the chips were down. Now I favor rather more extreme measures, but most Americans are like 'waah, I keep choosing the lesser evil, why do we keep getting evil?!'
Indeed, although anyone who says they knew what shape this would take 40 years ago was either a liar or a time traveler
Hmmm maybe for common folks like you and I. But there have been plenty of literature warning about this, it is our own fault (talking in general, not just about America as I am not American) not to heed the advise of those who actually looked into this. For most of us, it is not that it was impossible to predict, it was more like it was much more convenient to believe the comfortable lie than to face the harsh reality
The world is absolutely flooded with people warning about literally everything all the time. Sometimes a few of them happen to be right; that doesn't make them prescient, just lucky. Broken clocks, and all that. Whose advice do you follow? The guy who says fascism is on the rise, or the guy who says the economy is going to unrecoverably tank? Does it matter that both of them have pretty good evidence to suggest that they might be right? Or that there are 400 more books released in any given year that claim that fascism is on the decline and the economy is booming like there's no tomorrow, and that they also have pretty good evidence to suggest that they might be right? This is the nature of prediction: it's all down to how you interpret the signs and signals.
For most of us, it is not that it was impossible to predict, it was more like it was much more convenient to believe the comfortable lie than to face the harsh reality
The more recent you look the more that becomes the case, but 40 years ago anyone who said 'in 40 years we're going to have a fascist dictator of a president who wants to ransack the courts he packed' or whatever would just be one more whisper in the hurricane.
Yeah, I've been expecting this shit since childhood. Weird now how the people who raised me to see it coming consistently voted to make it happen.
there's a reason The Grapes of Wrath has that turtle section in it...
I'm so sick of these high tower pseudo-big brain "told ya so" comments. "I saw the end of the US before it's inception. I saw the end of the US when humans migrated from Siberia 16,000 years ago!" Well, you are so smart and I'm so proud of you, but you aren't adding a damn thing to the conversation.
Kinda shitty to assume all Americans are responsible. There's a lot of people here who tried to keep this stuff from happening and fought against it, and still are. If it's not cool to paint the French with a broad brush it isn't cool to do that to everyone in the US.
Brother, I didn't do shit. I've been vehemently against Trump since 2015. Do you blame Vladimir the grocery store clerk for Putin?
Aside from this being a little fucking melodramatic and defeatist, the thing that really bothers me is the implicit assumption that if only we’d all just vote blue no matter who we wouldn’t have this problem, like the Democratic Party hasn’t been kowtowing to and enabling those same oligarchs to undermine our democracy. I
Reminder that Clinton pushed for Trump to be the nominee as she thought she would win easier with him. Trump is a non-zero amount of Clinton's fault.
Don’t get me wrong, boom tomorrow is definitely better than boom today, but it’s important to not forget that there was never not going to be a boom.
Playing hot potato with a bomb, passing it along between various administrations and congressional members, and none of them were going to get hurt. It was always going to explode with the victims being the 99%.
enabling those same oligarchs to undermine our democracy.
Oh you didn't hear? You can't say oligarchs because American simpletons need to hear "king" instead because we have a long history of fighting kings and definitely not because the term oligarch applies to more than just Trump but instead better describes the cozy relationship between money and power in this country and illustrates that the rich have captured the government.
I've been hoping to hear some sort of glimmer of a thought from someone that when America does wrestle control back from the fascists, and history says you will, one way or another, that you don't just rebuild the same system that produced Trump and his techno-fascist mates in the first place.
This interview was the first time I've actually heard it.
Yep, we now basically have a one party system. Both sides are controlled by the 1%. We need a party that will get rid of the 1%, but that will never happen. They learned their lesson with FDR and watch for someone like him just to make sure he doesn't get in to office.
I'm not gonna disagree with any of that, as I'm not super familiar with him. I'm just saying it's the first time during this entire Trump fiasco I've heard anyone even suggest that maybe we shouldn't just revert to the pre-Trump status quo should anything ever actually be done about stopping him. I'm hoping others are saying it, I just haven't heard it.
What section does he mention it (if just one or two)? Don't have the free time for listening to the full hour, unfortunately, but I am curious (if you don't mind, of course).
I.. I'm conflicted. Buttigieg talks a great game, I like much of what he has to say, but at the same time when he was in the 2020 primary I read an article that talked about how he had the most corporate/PAC support of any candidate and I wonder.. does he actually believe what he's saying, or is he just charismatic enough to pull off seeming like he does and he's just like every other career politician? And also even if he's 100% sincere and he wins the white house in 2028, he doesn't have a free hand because the money required to win a national election comes with rather sturdy strings attached, so I don't think he can accomplish what he claims to want.
But it is, I will admit, rather refreshing to find a Democrat who does in fact have some good-sounding ideas about how to make things better instead of just 'vote for me or the world will literally blow up!11'
Yeah, I just watched the ~hour long interview he did with Jon Stewart that someone posted, and like it was all good-sounding ideas that may do some good but don't meaningfully challenge the status quo. Which is a pretty good summary of Democratic policy for the last 40 years. I'll give it to him though, he's definitely charismatic (I can't help but like him even though I think he's not very far left of, say, Hillary Clinton who is a full-on neoliberal) and he could probably win and be a damned sight better than the current administration. But also that's maybe not the best long-term because we need the system to fail messily as it is right now to wake people up to the alternatives. I hate advocating for accelerationism because even if the harm caused in the short term is outweighed by the harm prevented long-term, I still have a hard time advocating for things that I know will definitely cause harm.
IDK why people are so hopeful of fascism falling within their lifetime?
The fascists in power now have technology in everybody's pockets, even your light bulbs for crying out loud
They can track you within feet across the country. And a lot of this stuff, you can't really avoid. You can't really go off the grid if you want to have a normal job now
Not only that, look at China. China is still here and has been for quite some time...
I mean, nobody who paid attention actually thought the democrats did enough. The whole point was to buy enough time to hopefully shame them into doing something progressive instead of token concessions, but it's a moot point now.
Then the equation is still fascism now vs fascism later. Fascism later was still worth a shot.
Every time I see people trashing the vote blue no matter who people, I just see "democrats suck so we might as well have the fascism now." Which if you're an accelerationist then sure.
No doubt, I'm not saying fascism now is better by any stretch (which is why I said 'boom tomorrow is definitely better than boom today' in the comment that started this thread), I'm saying we should be pissed about the fact that our only choices are both fascism and do something about it.
A bit, sure. But while I'm happy people can marry whoever they want, it's not meaningful change for like 90% of Americans. It's not economic change. What little they've done there in the past 30-40 years has been weak, stop-gap, pared-down versions of good progressive ideas. How's that universal healthcare going again? Oh right, we got the ACA instead which did some good things and helped some people, no question, but it didn't change much for most Americans.
The only way to have time to stop the bomb from going off is to choose the longer fuse. We didn't even give ourselves a chance to replace neoliberalism with socialism, people let fascism win in 2024.
The longer fuse was still a fuse and was picked over and over for so many years without anything else done. At this point other then being able to say "don't blame me I voted for kodos" there is little value in the "long fuse" party. The us needed real options outside of fascism vs fascism lite.
Neoliberalism isn't fascist lite, but it does lead to fascism. I doubt I'm alone, at the time anyway, in thinking Obama was at least a progressive candidate. Hindsight is 20/20. Obama was yet another neoliberal. But considering American history, electing a Black president whose slogan was hope seemed like we were bucking trends, when in fact we were doing more of the same.
It has become more obvious now with two Bernie runs and three full Trump runs that neoliberalism is a sales pitch for the scam that is late-stage capitalism. But it's not for a lack of trying people have been picking the long fuse party. This country rejected Hillary Clinton twice, probably not for the right reasons in all cases, but at least some people were looking for alternatives to what they saw as Bill Clinton's version of the Democrats.
We need socialism. And I can't guarantee we would have gotten there in one or even two more general elections. But if Trump showed us anything, it is possible to co-opt a modern political party with a populist narrative. What Trump did to the Republicans is what Bernie tried to do to the Democrats. Someone else younger, I don't know who, needed to be given a chance to do that and we did not create an opportunity for them to even try.
I effectively answered this in the comment to M0oP0o, but I'll go into more detail here. We needed one or two more election cycles for a candidate with a populist narrative about progressive and socialist change to co-opt the Democratic party. By co-opt I mean totally control it, the way Trump has taken over the Republican party. This would be hard, since the owner class has a class interest in stopping progressives and socialists and supporting neoliberals and fascists, but it wasn't impossible. As far as policy, the short answer is a serious of constitutional amendments to ensure majority rule in all branches of government and mandate worker own corporations while also completely redistributing wealth.
Considering the death toll and the long term destruction to the Earth's environment a four year Trump term would cause, it seems like it would be worth it to go for a political Hail Mary. Especially when a christo-fascist regime starting with Trump will undoubtedly last much longer than four years. The damage will not be constrained to America, but will be global.
Not mention people seem to forget that before Nazi Germany was defeated it conquered most of continental Europe. Even if it doesn't happen in the next four years, this fascist Trump administration is laying the ground work for conquering North America. People on lemmy tend to use the word imperialism a lot when describing America. So they jump ahead to assuming that American empire is dying when it is American democracy that has died. American empire is getting started now. In the sense that America, as a fascist nation, is going to exert itself on everyone it deems to be in its regional sphere of influence. I don't know how long it will last, but it's going to take a lot to stop North America from becoming a one to one match with America.
It is theoretically possible to get out of this in the next elections, but it was highly unlikely before Trump's inauguration. Now that he's trying to tip the scales in his favor in future elections this becomes even more increasingly unlikely. The nature of fascist regimes is that the dictator prioritizes loyalty over everything. Which means competent individuals are completely overlooked for consideration in hiring and appointments. Hence fascist incompetence. We cannot rule fascist incompetence out, but we cannot predict where it will strike. Incompetence could cause the fascists to lose at the ballot box, but it could also strike when they try to invade a neighbor. Since we don't know when or how an opportunity will arise we have to keep an open mind so we can exploit it when it does.
The 2024 election was our last scheduled opportunity to defeat fascists. So we really should have given it everything we had while we had a chance even if it was a long shot. We don't know when we will get another now. It might be in 2026 and 2028 with elections. Or it might be in 2029, in a completely hypothetical scenario, where after winning a third term Trump dies of old age and infighting creates an opportunity for rebellion. We've gone from having a regularly scheduled opportunity to try to make things better to who knows when we get another. And we still have to do all the same work we had to do before, but it will be harder because now we have to defeat a fascist regime first.
It's not wishful thinking. It was possible, but hard, to make a course correction, but we failed to even give ourselves the time to do it.
The bomb, for the record, is capitalism, and it's going off all the time but the blast radius has started growing sharply of late. The only even theoretical way to stop it from encompassing everyone is to dismantle it and replace it with something else, but that requires a level of political will that we'll not see until even the oligarchs are feeling it. So we're absolutely going to get an earth-shattering kaboom, no getting around that, it's just a question of what we build in the smoking crater.
Here's a radical idea: let's not have one. Let's instead have a society that is committed to ensuring that the needs of all of its citizens are met instead of just those of the capitalist class. Voting (blue or not) will never get you there though, because both parties are on the same corporate dark money IV drip. This shithole is the way it is because the people with all the money and power want it this way, and if you think voting will dig you out of it you haven't been paying attention.
Or, you know, you could just primary existing candidates. That's always been an option. Take over the infrastructure from within is not as hard as you make it out to be with how it's set up.
You cannot change the government without the will of the people on some level.
Listen, I voted blue for 30 years and watched them steadily run to the right so hard the party leadership is sitting in Reagan's lap now, primarying candidates does not change the system because all of the candidates are just puppets hanging from the same set of strings (otherwise they don't have the funding to get (re)elected.)
Also you definitely can change the government without the will of the people, Trump's doing a pretty fair job of that while his supporters go 'I was in favor of deporting the bad people not my mom!' or 'I was in favor of firing the lazy government employees not me!'.
time to flee to the old world from prosecution and religious pressure lol
Electric Boogaloo
It differs by state but America only became a democracy by modern standards in the 1960’s. There was arguably a brief period after the Civil War before Reconstruction ended but women couldn’t vote so I give it a C- on my Democracy-O-Meter (patent pending).
Also, a Gentleman’s C is a term for a reason. That’d be an F at a commuter school. Only private schools put up with polite rich kids who are dumbasses but come from a “good” family.
The United States in the mid 1800’s is famously known as a place and time of peace and harmony where gentlemen-scholars voted in free and fair elections.
Imagine counting the first four score and seven years as democratic.
By contrast to literally every other country. Yes very much in that time period. Believe it or not, most monarchies were also completely fine with slavery and plantations. And their citizens had even less political power.
By contrast to literally every other country.
One of the proximate causes of the American Revolution was British abolitionism leaking into colonial politics.
You had ex-military ultra-wealth planation owners defecting to the revolution in drovers following Dunmore's Proclamation.
most monarchies were also completely fine with slavery and plantations
They were completely fine with collecting rents off their subjects - slave or free. But quite a few of them had strong reservations against chattel slavery (the Spanish Catholics, most notably). And more simply could not stomach the expense of policing transatlantic trade from piracy.
That is what ultimately lead to the outlawing of the practice across Europe.
Democracy isn't defined relative to other countries. Only property-owners could vote, and only white men could own property, so that means the vast majority of the population couldn't vote. That doesn't sound like a democracy to me, that sounds like an aristocracy. I will grant you it was more democratic than monarchies and such, but even some of them (like the UK) had a parliamentary system so the king's power wasn't universal. They were deeply unequal, of course, but that's just the pot calling the kettle black, because so was (and is) the US.
Yes because if it isn't perfect may as well not even try.
I'm sure glad that United States never decided to split away from England and was unable to influence the entirety of Western democracy to form.
Without USA, you never get the French revolution as Thomas Paine never publish common sense without French revolution. You don't get free France without free France. You don't have European democracy.
Yes because if it isn’t perfect may as well not even try.
Do you have to try to be that disingenuous or does it come natural?
What a thing is trying to be is pretty irrelevant to what it is. A wife-beater can talk all he wants about how hard he's trying to stop beating his wife, but meanwhile she's got a fresh supply of new bruises every day. Whether or not he's trying to stop, what he's doing is beating his wife, so is he a wife-beater or is he a changed man? Here's a hint in case it's not as obvious to you as it is to everyone else: he's still a wife-beater, but that doesn't mean he should stop trying to change.
The fact that the US talked a big game about democracy does not make it a democracy, but that also doesn't mean it should've stop trying to become one.
we count ancient Greece as a democracy, don’t we?
In the same way we count the Wright Flyer as the first airplane, sure.
democracy didn’t mean “fair”
I have heard more than a few people discount the existence of democracies in US adversary states - such as Cuba and Venezuela and Russia - precisely on the grounds that their democracies aren't "fair".
Broadly speaking, "democracy but its a rigged election" is just dictatorship with extra steps.
This depend very much on how you define "fair," and how it is used in context.
So, I would say a system that only let's white male landowners vote is not "fair" because only an elite group gets to vote. But if their votes are counted properly, and their decision upheld, the election is "fair," and it's a democracy.
On the other hand, a system that lets everyone over 18 vote is arguably "fair." But if the votes are not counted correctly, and the results are false, then the election is not "fair," and you don't have a democracy.
To further the thought, I suppose that if the voting populating is a small enough percentage of the general populating, then it is not a democracy, rather than just a bad democracy. Not sure where that line is, though.
This depend very much on how you define “fair,” and how it is used in context.
One-Person, One-Vote is the generally recognized answer. There are all sorts of ways to fudge that figure via how districts are drawn and delegates are awarded. But straight up disenfranchising whole ethnic and gender groups is as explicitly "unfair" from any but the most revanchist perspective.
So, I would say a system that only let’s white male landowners vote is not “fair” because only an elite group gets to vote. But if their votes are counted properly, and their decision upheld, the election is “fair,” and it’s a democracy.
What you're describing is Republicanism, in so far as decision making power is devolved to a base constituency and managed via a legal doctrine rather than the whims of a dictator. But the fundamental problem with describing democracy in this manner is that you can make the voting pool arbitrarily small without violating the constraints. Why stop at "White Male Landowners", after all? You can shrink it to Firstborn Sons or military officers or immediate family of the preceding executive. Taken to its absurdist conclusion, it's a single person issuing a single vote on all issues. But hey, it's "fair" by the letter of the law, so ignore the rest of the disenfranchised population.
Not sure where that line is, though.
Not unfair to say "Democracies exist on a spectrum". But at some point, you're so far off the ideal that the term becomes farcical.
By this standard, the US is still a democracy. Leaders are still voted into power and that isn't going to change.
Will they let everyone vote? Obviously not, but you seem to think it's democracy when only white men can vote so...
It's not a good democracy, no. The fact that Trump is not following the rules suggests that it isn't a democracy at all, since we are voting for stick figures, not leaders. But he was elected fair and square, at least until we find evidence otherwise.
And again, "democracy" doesn't mean "good," or "fair" or "virtuous." We are none of those things right now, weather we are a democracy or not.
He didn't even get a majority. He got a plurality. 49.9%
we count ancient Greece as a democracy, don’t we?
We? No. But they gotta keep the bar as low as possible to justify this fantasy.
Only recently has everyone above the 18 had the ability to vote, excluding those who are slaves as per the 13th amendment. For most of American history, women couldn't vote. Black people weren't considered people. We kicked out anyone Chinese. We locked away Japanese Americans because they were ethnically Japanese.
America was maybe a democracy for 56 years, since the Voting Rights Act of 1968. That's a stretch at best, as the country never healed for being an Apartheid for 200 years.
This article must be written by naive children. The moment "American Democracy" died would be with the Patriot Act after 911.
Snowden, Assange and all that.
You sure it wasn’t when we had the balls to write that all men are created equal while simultaneously denying the rights of anyone who wasn’t a rich man?
Like I know it was a different time but the plot was lost long ago.
Most "democracies" started off with slavery so I think the counting needs to start somewhere in the middle.
We're supposed to evolve, intellectually and physically. It looks like we tried for a bit, then got way too comfortable/complacent, blissfully ignorant that our (relatively) high standards of living came at the expense of people far away that we didn't see, routinely. The banana republics never really went away, we just became distracted with more entertainment culture, and when something broke through, grabbed our attention and outrage briefly, we just collectively shrugged, declared there's nothing we can do and went back to American Idol, Fear Factor, The Apprentice, Ice Road Truckers and whatever else fake reality garbage. Then it came to our doorstep and we continued doing the same, and still are. It's almost like we need a certain level of conflict to avoid complacency.
And it was still seen as radically progressive
Citizens United has entered the chat
Citizens United was about bribing the campaigns but there was still a "rule of law".
The Patriot act basically threw the entire legal sysrem in the dumpster in a very blatant way.
Of course there were violations before that but the cut off needs to be made somewhere.
there was still a “rule of law”.
Who was actually punished for violating this rule of law?
I seem to remember a congo-line of Congressmen who flagrantly violated campaign finance laws, anti-bribery laws, and a host of other ostensibly liberal democratic strictures. But virtually all of them either had the charges dropped, were given fines far less than the sum of the corrupt money they received, or were pardoned or the decisions reversed shortly after conviction.
the cut off needs to be made somewhere
You can't cut off what never began.
No, that was when we got Super Pacs which is how billionaires have a control over a majority of US Senators needed to break a filibuster.
"We the People" is how you got plantation-owning slaveholders to write the constitution (and be senators) so they could control U.S. policy despite being way fewer in number than their northern buddies. Kind of the same thing, all told.
Oligarchy masquerading as democracy.
The moment “American Democracy” died would be with the Patriot Act after 911.
American Democracy flourished from 1864 to 1877, only to be killed by The Corrupt Bargain of Rutherford B. Hayes. It enjoyed a brief resuscitation following the 19th Amendment in 1919 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, before once again becoming moribund and unresponsive under the Nixon Administration of 1972. By the election of 2000 the institution barely demonstrated a pulse, enjoying one of the lowest turnouts in the nation's history. Still, it was the Brooks Brother's Riot that officially pulled the plug, with the democracy formally being pronounced dead on December 12th, twenty days later.
The Patriot Act was effectively just putting bullet holes into a corpse.
Subsequent gerrymandering in 2005, the ACORN controversy of 2009, and the 2016, 2020, and 2024 primaries were effectively just ritualized defacement of the grave.
Was it even alive then?
In a couple thousand years historians will call us the Merkin Empire
I sure hope not
She*
Bruh put a NSFW warning on this.
If you're not good at US history: 1789 was when the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation.
Inch by inch, in play at little games.
And once Trump, the GOP and the oligarchs are deposed, we should declare the American Second Republic and write a new constitution.
It's not over yet
TBH I think peak democracy was between 2003 and 2010 before the Citizens United decision.
It gave us Obama and Medicaid expansion.
Nah, The US hasn't been good since before Reagan. I'd say maybe the 1950s. Maybe 60s, space race years.
Maybe for you it might have been, or maybe not, but back then we didn't have equal rights. After that Nixon actually helped save the Whales so that was cool, but he also perpetuated the war in Vietnam for seemingly no reason at all.
We like to fantasize about the past but quality of life has only gone up and crime has only gone down long term.
I personally am riding out the storm before I make any call on this type of stuff. As much as the current president is mucking things up, I'm holding hope.
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Don't just hope, Act!
Find and join your local democratic organization. The initial cost in time is almost nothing. Just meet up and introduce yourself.
Once part of the conversation, you can help influence your local party and select candidates for local office that share your values. You can select delegates who vote in larger offices, and through them promote your goals.
It's not perfect, and we currently don't have a flawless democratic system, but participating only every 2-4 years during the major elections is not how you get the results you want. A lot of complaints exist online around weak candidates, or 'opposition party' that exists only to be a foil for the Right. Those things can only exist if we are not engaged.
The time to be engaged is NOW. Help find or support new House and Senate candidates for your state legislature as well as federal. Contest every office. Even if your precinct/district seems 100% red, not having candidates on the ballot is a huge disservice to anyone who would want to vote for them and hides our strength.
Now is the time to be loud.
I have voted every single time I could since I got registered to vote.
If I didn't absolutely jumble my words and such due to some form of anxiety when speaking with people over the phone, I probably would call elected officials in my area.
Best I can do outside of voting is going to some of the protests in my area and not posting anything about what happens online for safety reasons.
reviewing my replies much later.
What you are doing is perfect. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is normally a quote around material goods, but still applies to things like time and involvement. If you are uncomfortable calling your elected officials, that's fine. Adding a person to a protest is still an addition that shows engagement.
Your points indicate you are not only voting in presidential elections. You have choices to make things better: 'Vote blue no matter who', ceding your choice of "who" to others more involved; or to become involved even though it's uncomfortable.
I'm not talking to you alone, but also to all those who read your comment, identified with it, and then could use a prod to get involved. I'm also poking at those who vote once every 4 years and are unhappy at their options.
No, it wasn't, but it's been dying since Reagan.
Since Johnson.
But it was Hoover that laid the framework for the rampant executive abuses of Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes, and Trumpolini.
It was the Mont Pelerin Society who came up with the neoliberal ideas that Reagan implemented.
Americans have a distorted sense of what democracy is, should be. Seriously, if you think that able to choose from two almost similar political parties that never shown any interest in making life better for their electorate is the pinnacle of democracy… you are very, very wrong.
I do not consider the vicious cycle of a neoliberal democracy to be the pinnacle of democracy. Only I acknowledge that American democracy was a democracy. It was never perfect, but it didn't have to turn out this way. We didn't have to embrace neoliberalism in 1980 and American democracy didn't have to die in 2024 with fascism.
This is important to state because there are misconceptions about what might happen next. We aren't any closer to the pinnacle of democracy now. In fact, we are even further from it. This fascist dictatorship will be even harder to change than the last neoliberal democracy was.
Building inclusive institutions is hard. The further you get from them the harder it becomes. Even revolutions that seem on the surface to be a complete overthrow of the previous regime can in fact turn out to be a changing of the guard. If the institutions of a society, both political and economic, are not fundamentally and radically changed to include as many people as possible the vicious cycle is more than likely to continue. There is no such thing as a clean slate or rock bottom when it comes to how bad things can get. Things can always get worse and they will unless people learn from our mistakes and apply what we've learned to make things better. edit: typos
all men are created equal
IS SLAVE STATE
Never has been.
Is a two party system really a democracy?
If you think so, let me pick the two options you get to choose from for the rest of your life. Does that sound appealing to you? Would just fully represent the country?
No you don't ever get a chance to change your two options, I picked them for you. You will fall in love with one of them, the other you will hate. This is democracy, you being forced to pico from the two options I gave you.
Name one year that the US was a democracy.
You're being downvoted but you're not far off. Women and minorities couldn't vote for a very long time. We had slaves and still do through incarceration. It's only been in the last few decades that we were closest to be what we claimed to be, and yet still quite a ways off. And that progress was greeted with the system coming down on us attempting to "fix" what we had broken by moving towards true freedom for all.
If over half of the population is unhappy with the election results after an election takes place, I think its clear you're not living in a democracy.
I think a Parliament and rank choice voting are prerequisites to democracy. The only reason the US doesn't have these things is to ensure that the power remains in the hands of the plutocrats
2024 when fascists won a fair and free election. Our democracy was never perfect, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a democracy.
Insisting America wasn't a democracy isn't clever analysis. It's factually wrong and it's not even an effective narrative to fight fascists.
It wasn't fair or free. What part of that can't you see?
If we fix the democracy, they never would have taken power. We had like 8 parties running, and only 2 very similar parties got the majority of the votes. That's not because people wanted to vote for them, but because progressives are legally denied access and violence was used against them when they tried to attend the debates.
That's neither fair nor free. Its an illusion of choice where the only options support the status quo of oligarchy
It wasn’t fair or free. What part of that can’t you see?
This is a baseless assertion. Our elections have been self-evidently fair and free so far, including the recent Wisconsin and Florida special elections. Musk tried to buy the Wisconsin election and failed to get the candidates he wanted. We'll see what happens with the North Carolina 2024 Supreme Court election, but even that is an attempt to overturn the election results publicly not a secret rigging of the election. If they succeed that makes future fair and free elections even less likely than they are now.
If we fix the democracy,
We also need to people to reject neoliberalism and fascism and accept socialism. Or else we will eventually have to deal with a fascist movement that is so large it is a majority of the population.
We had like 8 parties running, and only 2 very similar parties got the majority of the votes.
We live in a two-party system which is what our first-past-the-post systems trend towards, so that it isn't surprising.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
but because progressives are legally denied access
Bernie wasn't legally denied access. He was allowed to run when he wanted to run. The courts regrettably ruled that political parties are private organizations and can run their elections however they want despite the inherent public interest in there being a formal standardized process that political parties should be legally mandated to honor. Especially since the Republicans and Democrats are the only serious vehicles for political platforms in the US.
and violence was used against them when they tried to attend the debates.
This is conspiracism.
That’s neither fair nor free. Its an illusion of choice where the only options support the status quo of oligarchy
The choice between neoliberalism and fascism was a real choice. With neoliberalism we prolong our democracy with the hopes of co-opting the Democratic party with socialist and progressive candidates. With fascism we get progressively efficient death camps until society collapses or everyone is dead. It's worth going into a bit more detail with the fascism choice since that's what we have gone with. In addition to showing the consequences that further establish this was a meaningful choice, it's important to drive home how terrible this choice was.
Now that we are a christo-fascist techno-feudalist dictatorship our ability to change society depends on the failure of that fascist dictatorship. This is not accelerationism, but anti-fascism. The first step to making things better is getting rid of the fascist dictatorship. The fascist dictatorship is both actively making things worse while also blocking attempts to making things better. So if we want to make things better then the fascist dictatorship needs to go.
When it comes to getting rid of the fascist dictatorship, societal collapse, or at least political collapse, is more likely but who knows how long that will take. It's also not clear if it will be caused by internal or external factors. External factors being a foreign military or economic policies aimed at the US. It will probably be more likely be internal factors given the size and capabilities of our military and our leading and foundational role in the modern world economy we created after WWII.
Internal factors could include a whole host of causes. Like disease or famine. Fascist incompetence will probably be what drives whatever the ultimate cause is. We might get infighting when Trump dies of old age or is too debilitated to do anything more than be a figure head. It could also be a revolution that is either peaceful or violent. The peaceful revolution being the statistically more likely to succeed of the two.
It seems like any political violence will result in a civil war at this point. Most of the users on lemmy never spare any thought for the backlash political violence would cause if the MAGA movement had a martyr to justify atrocities. Considering that, it seems unlikely that those advocating for political violence are prepared or even care to fight a protracted and bloody civil war.
None of these possibilities would even be on the table for discussion let alone likely in the immediate term if we had gone with neoliberaism for four more years. We are at the point where we need some kind of a revolution to stop death camps here at home. Our failure to stop a fascist movement that wants to kill the most vulnerable groups of people was a choice. And a clear choice at that.
Jesus, if you think Bernie is the progressive candadite that I'm referring to, you just proved my point.
Maybe you should start by researching the progressive parties in the US.
Imagine believing USA was ever a "democracy".
I think it's more important to realize the harm that's happening now than the 200+ year old technicalities, though being important themselves, aren't what's most vital at this current moment.
I'd argue the exact opposite, because I see a whole lot of people who seem to think all we need to do is remove Trump and the American government will be A-okay. Until we recognize and start to deal with the rot at the core of the U.S. we're just going to keep doing this same ol song and dance again and again. Until people recognize that fascism is not a bug but a feature, we have no hope of moving beyond it to a better system of governance.
Many people think fascism came out of no where recently. It is a direct result of 45 years of neoliberalism. We need socialism.
Neckbeard comment
The US was a democracy. Having a civil religion has no bearing on whether or not a country is a democracy.
America was designed to be a confederacy ala the EU. Post civil war Federalism was the beginning of the end for the small 'd' democracy that the framers intended. Everything since has been duct taped together. Prior to the civil war the Federal Government had very little power. Liberal progressives spent the last 150 years centralizing power in the Fed and are now being hoisted by their own petard. It's funny actually.
Heritage Foundation tier nonsense
What exactly do you want them to refute? You offered opinion they rebutted with essentially "your argument is shitty and stupid" simple as.
I've come around myself. Centralized government allows those mutants a shot at an expanded Executive seat of power. Federation allows them to fester in their own state.
We can't forcibly save dumb white trash. We can just make Illinois, California, and New York capable of taking the refugees in.
Yeah but having desperately poor states bordering wealthy ones would require lots of security. There will be lots of desperate, unhappy people with lots of guns and potentially no reciprocity. I worry it would just lead to modern day bleeding Kansas or an Amercan wide version of the Troubles.
Like they're already trying to take over the federal government, what's stopping them from trying to take over a neighboring state?
The U.S. is survived by a country of the same name, the United States of America, now a presidential dictatorship.
This gets an eye roll from me. The USA is certainly in a lot of danger but anyone who calls the current situation a dictatorship is ignorant of what a dictatorship is.
Here's a hint for the author: you wouldn't be getting an article like this one published in a dictatorship.
Yeah, but they were kidnapped off the street and shipped into camps oversees
...wait
Here’s a hint for the author: you wouldn’t be getting an article like this one published in a dictatorship.
It's still a WIP just give them a couple years.
That's my whole point. Might things be a lot worse in a couple of years? Yes. Are things as bad as this article is all about saying they are right now? No, clearly not.
"The American democratic republic is in danger of dying" is true.
"The American democratic republic has died" is histrionics, and histrionics are particularly counterproductive at a time when what's actually going on is so serious.
The trajectory is pretty well set, though. There is no "might" get worse anymore, it will get worse without radical intervention. It is simply cope to believe that there is any reasonable possibility that this could just blow over.
It is worth treating with the gravity it deserves, even if there aren't Right Wing Death Squads executing dissidents in the streets this very moment.
Don't worry, someone else will surely stop this before it affects me.
Yeah fair, that's a reasonable criticism. I noticed the melodramatic air to the piece too.
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
Aside from this being a little fucking melodramatic and defeatist, the thing that really bothers me is the implicit assumption that if only we'd all just vote blue no matter who we wouldn't have this problem, like the Democratic Party hasn't been kowtowing to and enabling those same oligarchs to undermine our democracy. It's like they're standing in the rubble of a bombing and saying, 'This is happening because you chose the short fuse on the bomb, if only you had chosen the long fuse we wouldn't have noticed this happening quite so quickly wouldn't be having this problem!'
Don't get me wrong, boom tomorrow is definitely better than boom today, but it's important to not forget that there was never not going to be a boom.
save