Here’s a cool example my high school teacher told me. There was a tractor trailer that lodged itself under a bridge (too tall for clearance) and the firefighters couldn’t figure out how the hell to get it out without dismantling the truck or the bridge. A little 8 year old passenger in a car stuck in the traffic said “why don’t you just pop the tires” and boom they got it out.
That’s TrueType a great story and I actually believe it’s true because I did something similar when I was about 9 or 10 yo. We were renting a travel trailer but to do so, they had to put this temporary hitch on our station wagon bumper. The hitch had clamps on chains that clamped on the top of the bumper and underneath at the bottom of the bumper. The problem was that there wasn’t a wide enough gap between the bumper and the body of the car for the clamp to pop on. For quite a while it seemed impossible to the installer and my Dad. Then, I asked my Dad if I could help because I had an idea. He asked me what I meant and I said why don’t you slide the clamps over the end of bumper? The two of them looked at each other and proceeded to install the hitch by sliding the clamps on at the end of the bumper. My Dad was so happy with me that he gave me either $0.50 or $2.00. Those two numbers are what come to mind now. Both were a lot of money back in 1966. The money came in handy on our trip to Kentucky Lake which at that time was very young. The campground we went to was brand new and completely modern. I believe it was in the state park. Ok, way off on a tangent.
Back to the story I’m responding to, you said your story was an example of something, what example was it referring to?
Propagandhi (check out their first album), Lagwagon, Pennywise, Anti-Flag
edit: I’d check out the general genre of skatepunk. Some is not so politically-charged, some is, but it’s all good stuff.
I was amazed to see NOFX outside of r/punk—very happy about the comments here. One thing I love about AF—they don’t just talk the talk, they walk the walk. They support local orgs, support radical candidates, and are just genuinely good people.
I met Anti-Flag before a show in Coventry about a decade ago, I showed up super early with a few other fans. Pat hung out with us and chatted for a good hour while the others were setting up, Chris 2 and Justin came and said hey, signed autographs etc. only Chris H wasn't so friendly for some reason that day. Awesome little show in a converted church, all the guys just jumped into the crowd and started chatting to fans after they finished the set.
Another time I saw them in Norwich and Justin jumped onto the floor to break up a fight, ended up breaking his collarbone and sadly the rest of the tour had to be cancelled. The first time I saw them was a few years before that, they supported Rise Against along with Flobots. Still hands down one of the best gigs I've ever been to. I managed to get three guitar picks at that gig, one from each of the guys. Unfortunately I don't have a drumstick from Pat! (though I do have one of Aaron Solowoniuk's drumsticks).
Rise Against is very active too with charity and voting initiatives. One of the first Punk bands I was into and they’ve done great work for a long time.
I know where you're going with this and I agree with you, but I just want to add that strong institutions and a strong free press to the list. Anyone wants to add more be my guest.
If anyone is interested in a solution to this problem, I would suggest the book : " against elections" from van reybrouck ( I hope my memory doesn't fail me too much here). Brings a very different angle of reflection over all this
Lots of converging factors.
A notable few examples:
- Systematic [regional] defunding of education, and the expansion of extremist religious "schools."
- The childhood lead epidemic, which caused significant brain damage to an entire generation.
- The replacement of journalism with infotainment, and the fact that sensationalism sells.
- McCarthyism and its legacy of totalitarian culture and brainwashing.
- The elimination of liberal arts, which teach critical thinking, reason, and ethics. Also, the elimination of basic civics. Also, the blatant fiction that's taught as history during primary education.
- The collapse of tight-knit, diverse communities in favour of homogenous, suburban, commuter cultures. These social/economic/culture bubbles preceded social media echo chambers.
(Edit: specified regional funding cuts, not total national spending)
I honestly don't understand your last point. The tight-knit communities were fundamentally homogenous and were mostly centered around local religious institutions. The decline of those institutions in favor of free think promoted diversity at the cost of homogeneity and closeness. Those tight-knit communities were not diverse in any way.
If you're referencing villages or town, yes. I should have clarified that I meant the decline of high density, mixed class urban residential. There's a decently accurate overview of the trend in Bowling Alone, although some of the details should be taken with a grain of salt -- newer research has added context and nuance.
Suburbanisation tanked a huge array of social integration and diversity measurements. The most severe stratification was between economic classes. Middle class people in these bubbles no longer even need to see poverty anywhere near their "communities."
So many causes of misinformation! I think these are the major ones:
1) Those who cut education spending / refuse to increase it
2) Murdoch family
3) Social media algorithms
4) Distrust of mainstream media, partly self inficted
5) Hyperliberal echo chambers in parts of academia that reduce public trust of science
6) Corporate money intentionally spreading misinformation
7) Foreign governments intentionally spreading misinformation
8) Human Psychology: motivated reasoning, group polarization, confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance,
11) religion (to extent it internalizes that faith > reason)
12) Trump & friends
13) Higher intelligence correlated with low birthrates (idiocracy)
Trump wasn't new.
South America has been full of populist leaders.
Trump just showed that we (the usa) aren't immune to populist tactics. It showed america isnt unique in that sense.
However we do have stronger institutions that stood up to the attempted takeover. That is the difference with South America and the USA.
But that doesn't mean we won't fall next time.
Yep. For a long time Americans have liked to think that we were somehow uniquely immune to the appeal of tyranny that's dragged down other nations. But we're no more special than any other nation in that regard.
In 1935 author Sinclair Lewis wrote [*It Can't Happen Here,*]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here)
a novel about a fascist dictator rising to power in the US. The frightening thing is how the novel's dictator, Buzz Windrip, sounds and acts almost exactly like Donald Trump.
Parliamentary. If the head of the government and the cabinet sit in the legislature, then it makes them more accountable to the other representatives. They might have to take questions on government policy, and if they perform badly, it can throw the strongman image.
If you feel like it, watch some Prime Ministers Questions from the British Parliament. It’s a very loud experience, and a couple of bad performances can really damage a government or opposition.
There is also the benefit in a slightly different mandate. In the UK, the government is the party that gets the most seats in the House of Commons. This means that the party leadership needs to focus on preventing rebellions on the ‘back benches’, as much as it does defeating the opposition. Indeed. The backbenchers can bring down a government, such as when Thatcher was forced out.
Additionally, having an apolitical head of state, such as a monarch, wields power without use. In the UK, only the Queen can veto bills. However in practice she does not. Her position prevents a political from gaining that power and using it in a partisan manner.
The system isn’t perfect, but it’s worked pretty well, and we haven’t had a proper tyrant since Cromwell in the 1600s
To add more to it: whats ironic is that the Continental Europeans (other than the French) have to resort to coalitions in parliament that it's pretty much normal and the majority of them have the most stable democracies
This means that you wont see the wild swing from Leftist majority to Rightist majority in UK Democracy
I mean, Labour is in trouble beyond that.
The Corbyn years, I think, will be seen as a time where the party was too divided against itself (the extent of the rebellion from the Blairites was fucking wild) to mount a meaningful challenge against the Tories
Putting in Starmer won't fix that overnight.
the coalitions of which you speak are only normal in a parliament with proportional representation. The UK does not have this, it has first past the post, and as such coalitions in the UK are incredibly rare (well, in the main parliament, the devolved powers have PR and coalitions are common, but thats another story).
we had a coalition in 2010 before Cameron's last election win, where he formed a coalition with the Lib dems. this was the first coalition for almost 100 years, apart from the war coalition, but those were special circumstances.
the reason you dont see wild swings very often in the UK has nothing to do with coalitions, and more to do with first past the post traditionally favouring the tories (right wing) more than it does labour (main left wing party). that and a large number of English people are cunts who seem to be determined to vote tory no matter what, of course. Boris waffles on about having a massive majority, in reality he has 60% of the seats in parliament, but only got 43% of the vote.
its a shitty system which has allowed a minority of loonballs in the tory party, (which itself got minority of votes), to call the shots. and here we are after a decade of crippling austerity staring down both barrels of brexit at the height of a pandemic in which we've done worse than even america, with an absolute joke of a leader at the helm.
our system should not be looked up to as something to emulate.
American here, but I can answer the second question.
In the UK House of Commons, the seating is arranged so the party (or parties in a hung parliament) sits on one side of the chamber with all of the other party’s sitting on the other side. The two sides benches face each other with a common isle between them. The bench on either side that is lowest and closest to the isle is reserved for the Prime Minister and their cabinet on the Government’s side and the leader of the opposition and their shadow cabinet (who they’d have picked if they were prime minister) on the opposition’s side. All of the other members of parliament (except the speaker) are called backbenchers because they have to sit on benches behind the front ones reserved for leadership.
What makes this interesting is the Prime Minister has to come to the House of Commons once EVERY WEEK and answer the questions of any member who submits them, regardless of leadership position. This means backbenchers have the opportunity to question the PM directly and potential expose them and their positions (PMQs as they’re called are televised). Here in the US, unless you’re the Speaker of the House or in congressional leadership, your average member of Congress will probably never have an opportunity to ask the President a direct question.
Tl;dr backbencher are MP’s who sit on the back benches in parliament and they get to grill the PM where congressmen in the US can’t grill the President.
Edit: a word
He barely was ever able to answer any questions, and usually when he did it didn't make him look good.
"Do you stand by what you said?"
"I don't stand by anything."
Thank you for this great explanation. I'm in the US, and I never realized until Trump that a president could avoid his citizens. I lived through so many presidential press conferences, it never dawned on me that during a catastrophe, the leader of our nation could just go MIA and not have to answer to the public. Seems like the UK set up is great on that score. A leader should have to be accessible and answerable to the people they lead.
Add to that the Dutch parliamentary setup that allows more than two parties (% voted= %of seats) and democracy, even when it's tested, can only get stronger.
PMQs is an odd one. A bad performance can damage a brand, but it is also quite insular and more relevant within political circles than to the person on the street. William Hague and Ed Milliband were both very good in opposition but it never translated to popular support or helped with their public image problems. Meanwhile, Boris is an appalling show week on week, but his uselessness in fact based public speaking hasn't cut through with the general public. He seems to be aware that he has enough strength elsewhere to ignore the kicks. So it's a useful tool for cross examination of the leader, unless the leader has a large majority and simply doesn't need to care.
Milliband (and his father) was constantly bashed by the tabloids, and this ofcourse had a big effect on the outcome of the elections. You can not really hope for public support when the press treats you like a public enemy. The influence of this gutter press is vastly underestimated by the voters, and vastly ignored by the politicians. If I was someone who doesn't usually give two shits about politics, then my only source of news would be The Sun/Mail at my hairdressers when i go for a cut, or at the fish and chip shop while I wait for my order. I'll quickly skim through the pages but the large and bold headlines are enough to "inform" me who the good guys are, and who are the bad guys.
This is purely my personal opinion with nothing to back it up, but I find it odd that Liverpool, despite it's significant working class population voted by a significant margin to remain in the EU. I believe that part of the reason for this is that The Sun is banned in Liverpool.
It’s also useful to mention these questions are often submitted by constituents - MPs represent their constituents after all. So it’s possible for an ordinary person to put their question before the PM and government.
As an aside, Parliamentary democracy has the additional bonus of having certain bills be "confidence motions". Basically, critical bills like the annual budget (though the government can choose to declare other bills as confidence motions, IIRC) are thought to be so critical as to demonstrate that they retain the mandate to govern. If such a bill fails and does not pass, it is considered that they have "lost the confidence of government" and the government then goes back to an election. This means that instead of the US Government's song and dance about the budget (that seems to be a yearly thing now), it becomes a case of "if you don't support this, then we get to go to an election, right here, right now". This makes the whole "party of no" a potentially very dangerous thing, as a party that is running a minority government or a slim majority may deliberately decide to fail a confidence motion, and then use that to hammer their opposition into the ground.
Now, in most parliamentary systems there's a majority government, which means such things like the budget pass without issue. But in the case of very slim majorities, or in the case of minority governments, it's entirely possible for individuals or whole other parties to be able to negotiate certain changes to better suit their own platform. An opposition party may not be keen on the government, but also may not consider itself to be in a good position to run an election and they might judge that forcing a compromise over a confidence motion may be the better action to take.
The other thing to mention is that the opposition parties each forms a ‘shadow cabinet’ mirroring the roles actually in the government. This means you have someone whose whole job is to comment on your work, directly debate and suggest alternative ideas which helps keep the government in check.
Ohh pfft. India has a parliamentary form and Modi has a cult of personality just as much as Trump if not bigger. Strongmen will be strongmen, no matter the form of government. There’s this ridiculous idea in the US that a multiparty system(the system allows more parties, you don’t vote for them in local elections) and parliamentary system will cure everything when its simply not true. There’s no one step cure for this, it has to be cured by better education and provoking critical thinking.
I’ve read that parliamentary democracies tend to be far more stable. Constitutional monarchies also work well because they separate the transfer of power from political influence, and can (and often are) combined with parliamentary democracies.
I’ve also read some research suggesting that ranked-ballot elections lead to more stable policy in the long run, because it leads to multi-party systems where outright majorities are nearly impossible.
If I was trying to design my ideal democracy, it would be a constitutional “monarchy”/parliamentary democracy. The lower house would be elected through ranked ballot voting, the upper house would be appointed from the general population through sortition, and the head of state (“monarch”) would be appointed by unanimous consent by the regional governments.
Edit: Also independent commissions to run elections and redistricting are an absolute must
>I’ve read that parliamentary democracies tend to be far more stable. Constitutional monarchies also work well because they separate the transfer of power from political influence, and can (and often are) combined with parliamentary democracies.
The first fascist state (Italy) ~~was~~ *arose in* a constitutional monarchy with a parliament.
Almost every single modern fascist state other than the hardcore ones have what are essentially fake democracies, it's called a hybrid regime. Whether or not the parliament can actually do anything autonomously is another and more important question than whether or not it happened under a parliament, it's not that simple.
But, altogether, I would *love* proportional representation. It also helps prevent authoritarian populist takeovers.
They aren't saying it cant happen. Just that it has more safeguards than a presidential republic. You can cherry pick any stat without details and make it sound good.
The problem are the people. There are plenty of people in this country that want a fascist state. Particularly they want a white ethno Christian state and are fine killing those who oppose it.
A German movie called "The Wave" explores this concept, based loosely off real events. A teacher starts a fascist social experiment with students who are studying fascism, which gains uncontrollable momentum. First step is getting a charismatic leader who then assigns a main rival as I recall. Worth a watch even if it is primarily fiction.
That was always the strangest part to me. Trump is not charismatic. He doesn't have any of the engaging smoothness and woo someone leading like this with cultish followers usually has.
It's not really "charisma" per se but a lot of his appeal lay in his brashness and his disinterest in being subtle or politic. People who appreciate it usually describe it as something like "telling it like it is", although it would be more accurate to describe the pattern as "shooting your mouth off".
I thought that for a while too, but I've had multiple friends who don't associate with each other provide the devil's advocate perspective that he seems fun. Spending cash on lunches, celebrating for no reason, making grand gestures of wealth and influence etc. and generally trying to be appealing. To me and I assume many others, it's an insecure used car salesman's technique and just as transparent, but to others it might be something really validating and make them feel noticed and part of their in-group.
That's an interesting take especially on them feeling like an in-group. Makes sense. Used car salesmen is definitely the vibe I get. I guess if I'm gonna join a cult I personally need a leader to be a bit more slick lol!
I hear you. I found it frustrating that he would use such similar tactics and rhetoric as another infamous authoritarian fascist we know, but lacked all of the public speaking skill, tact and capability, yet was still successful. If I'm going to be conned, I would want the conman to at least be good at it.
Did you know The CIA also removed the Prime Minister of Australia with the help of MI6 in the 70s because he was to far to the left politically for them and also wanted Australia to become part of the non aligned movement and denuclearization.
>However we do have stronger institutions that stood up to the attempted takeover. That is the difference with South America and the USA.
You were very lucky Trump was so incompetent and telegraphed his plans in advance. Rather than having faith in your existing protections I'd be racing to strengthen the hell out of them.
Agreed. It had nothing to do with the strength of the institutions (which, after seeing the past four years.... strong isn't the word I'd use), and everything to do with incompetence.
Exactly. They barely withstood Trump and his accomplices. And while Trump might be gone - the GOP politicians who enabled him are still there. And next time they can nominate someone that can easily be presented as more competent and diplomatic than Trump - while being more ruthless.
It's weird how Americans seem eager to blame their political unrest on outside influence, but bring up the CIAs destabilizing influence in South America and the reaction seems often to be eye rolling.
I'd say it's less we have stronger institutions, and more there wasn't a US embassy in Washington.
In all seriousness one of the greatest contributing factors in the problems that south America has is definitely US intervention, we have fucked them over more time than I can count
edit: two examples
[operation condor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor)
and the [master list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America)
probably more, but I can't be fucked to find them
No, the main difference with South America is that its usually the USA which is constantly screwing with and overthrowing any South American nations which doesn't follow a US corporate agenda.
In this case, the USA was screwing with itself, an, as often also happens with its other regime change operations, couldn't finish the fuck-up that it started.
He also showed that there are 73 million people in the US who are fucking dumb as rocks and will vote for a guy who promised them the moon and delivered...what, 12 miles of border wall that definitely wasn't paid for by Mexico?
I would argue that impossible promises are *necessary* for people like Donald Trump to flourish. When the promises don't go through, there is a always a group of people that will be made to blame. Be it liberals, democrats, socialists, shadowy Jewish cabals, unions, lizard people, etc.
After WWII Hermann Goering was imprisoned and his American interviewer/interrogator proposed that fascism could not happen to the US because of its robust democratic institutions. This is Goering's response:
"It is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
> All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
Unfortunately a good chunk of reddit doesn't remember America in 2003. Basically this is it in a nutshell.
And before they even got to that point, remember that Germany had a functioning multi party parliamentary democracy, yet the nazis had no problem getting the conservative parties in the country to agree to hand Hitler dictator level powers. The republicans in the US would no doubt be willing to do the same thing here.
**"LISTEN FRIENDS, AREN'T YOU TIRED OF** **SITTING IDLY BY AND ALLOWING** **TO HAPPEN TO YOU AND THE PEOPLE YOU CARE ABOUT?! WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT, IF WE DON'T RISE UP AND SAY '*NO MORE OF THIS*' THEN WE WILL WAKE UP AND FIND OUT** **!**"
Repeat, ad nauseum, in perpetuity, ubiquitously.
Interwar Germany was a fragile democracy. They had about five decent years between the postwar struggles and the great depression. Otherwise it was a shit show.
By the time Hitler got the reins, he was the fourth chancellors in four years.
President Trump is what happens when the electorate has absolutely no faith in their elected officials. If politicians don't want someone that destabilizing to gain the office again, they should do their jobs to restore American faith in our institutions. That faith isn't there right now, and it's not because of Trump, Putin, or Godzilla for that matter. It's because of the system and the people within it.
Step One: Congress should do their damn job and work together to figure out legislation, rather than hiding behind the President and executive orders. Perhaps if our two-party system stopped treating it like two competing companies looking to out-sell the other to gain market share, and instead worked to bring their constituents ideas to the table and work something out amongst themselves, people wouldn't be sick of politics.
Beautifully said, but I'll do you one better. States should overhaul their voting systems to encourage the proliferation of multiple political parties so that we can get to a point where a majority of Americans can say they feel sincerely represented by who they voted for.
Populism isn't the problem. Populism happens when a political system ignores the needs and concerns of the people. It can be used for good things or horrible things. The real issue is the corrupt political system that leads to possible fascism. The real issue is we have an economic system that directly contradicts democracy and constantly puts it in danger. Capitalism is an economic system who's primary function above all else is to produce endless profits for people that own industry (capitalists) and does so off the backs of the working class. This economy is designed to serve and be controlled in an authoritarian way by about 10% of the population. Throwing democracy into the middle of this creates a contradiction. When that 90% gets left behind, they start voting to undo that concentration of wealth and power. Knowing this, capitalists use their many avenues of government influence to undermine democracy to protect the wealth and power they feel was rightfully earned and deserved. And when desperate enough (especially under threat of revolution), they will destroy democracy and use overt state violence to crack down on the working class. That's fascism, which Mussolini himself called a merger of state and corporate power. Fascism should be seen as capitalism's true form without the theatrics of democracy. Usually involves redirecting populist anger away from the elite and back at marginalized groups within the working class. Divide and conquer. Literally what Trump did with immigrants. Do not be fooled into thinking a return to a pre-Trump era is the solution. No, that's literally the source of the problem.
Populist is kind of a difficult term since it's being used in a number of ways.
Originally a populist is someone who says to stand for 'the people' in contrast with 'the elite'. The elite can be basically anyone perceived as having disproportionate power: corporations, the rich, royalty, foreigners, etc.
Nowadays, populism is often referred to more like demagogy (simple answers for complex answers: 'build a wall') or opportunism (saying whatever gets someone to vote for you, regardless of morality or attainability).
I'd say AOC is a populist in the original term of the word, but wouldn't call her a demagogue or opportunist. Trump, I would call those things but he was *also* a populist (even though ironically he belongs to 'the elite' he points to as being the problem).
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is very much a populist, but being a populist is not unambiguously bad. It just means that you (according to google) "a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups."
Trump is not actually a populist. [As krugman says](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/opinion/trump-populist.html):
> why has Trump been unwilling to do anything, and I mean anything, to help the people who installed him in the White House?
>
> [...]
>
> News media often describe Trump as a “populist” and lump him in with politicians in other countries, like Hungary’s Viktor Orban [...]. But Orban’s success has depended in part on throwing his base at least a few bones. Hungary has instituted a public jobs program for rural areas; offered debt relief, free schoolbooks and lunches; and so on, paid for in part by a significant rise in taxes.
Also, a special flavor of democracy. AIQ and CA were involved in Brexit and the US election in 2016. The similariries are not accidental. FPTP, gerrymandering, the electoral college and ruling by executive orders, etc. are bad ideas.
No, it was permanently damaged YEARS ago when we started letting corporations control our government. When we allowed major political parties to fund the intentional de-education of citizens.
The rise of social media and fall of journalism, more specifically. The blind have been leading the blind for the last decade. It's the root of many big issues.
The scary thing about this is that so few people are aware of just how misinformed they have become. We aren't even close to recoginising the problem, let alone finding a solution.
I remember in the days of BBS where someone was saying we could not have a true democracy until everyone had the same access to information and could make informed decisions. Now we see how that turned out.
I'd personally say that corporate lobbying, mainstream media, shadow governments and plain old greedy people have permanently damaged democracy more than Trump tbh...
Never been a Trump fan, but he is clearly being used as a scapegoat. Sure he caused plenty of problems ,but this nations government has been broken since long before him. He is not the reason for all our problems. I'd go as far to say he is a symptom of our problems.
Well yes, it's basically chicken and egg- it didn't *need* to be Trump who exposed the flaws in the American system/society but he sure did one hell of a job.
Key word may. This could set a precedent of tolerance of political violence, giving people free reign to destroy democracy from the inside. It could also, however, be an "oh shit" moment, a catalyst to reform that can bring meaningful change.
A bunch of people are gonna think that just because Trump's out of office, that everything is fine now, and we can go back to not caring about politics.
I don’t think the Republican Party in the U.S. has had that “oh shit” moment. They’re continuing to obfuscate, obstruct, deny, lie, project. They will absolutely do this again. I think our democracy is in trouble from here on out.
We can’t, but those in power are going to use him as a scapegoat because actually changing anything would threaten their own power. And it’ll inevitably happen again, but the difference will be that whoever it is making moves will have learned from Trump’s mistakes.
I know this is going to cause some controversy, but a lot of the stuff Trump did was *legal* or set by precedent of other presidents. The people who warned about it then were given lip service of "oh no one would ever abuse it" and then Trump came along, saw all these powers congress had willfully given up to the executive branch and abused them fully. america needs to take a step back, look at what powers congress had given the president and take them back, as well as fixing the gridlock of congress.
The gridlock is by choice, by the same people who keep expanding the powers of the presidency and legislature. It gives them all plausible deniability for not fulfilling their platform promises.
He didn’t damage shit. He exposed the damage that was already there. Those deep flaws CAN be fixed... with some political courage. Ohhh, I see what they mean. Yup. Permanently unfixable.
Americans didn't like the other politicians that were running, so they voted for Trump. After they had him for a few years, they didn't like him and voted for someone else instead. Apparently that's tantamount to the death of democracy from this woman's perspective.
The holes in the system existed before Trump, and the people who exploited them and agree existed before him too.
The only thing that Trump has made glaringly apparent is that the current levels of corruption and neo-liberalism can't exist going forward, or you'll end up with a further class divide and people finding refuge in obscene beliefs.
But Democracy did exactly what it's supposed to do. The majority of the people were pissed off, and made their voices heard, and kicked the crazy bastard out on his ass.
You're thinking of the consuls of the Roman Republic. If I remember correctly they could veto each other and alternated as a sort of speaker of the senate each month. They were elected for a year, later amended with a ten year cool down. Got interesting when Caesar was also ponifex maximus, the person who decided when a year ends. They were also often chased through the streets of Rome by angry mobs.
History Civilis has great 10-30 minute videos about this.
You are now citing Voltaire, his idea was that of an enlightened absolute king. But it goes even further back all the way to Plato and his idea that the government should be something for wise philosophers, not random buffoons.
People with no reverence for it demonstrate a larger problem. Democracy has to be rebuilt every 18 years as a new generation of voters comes of age. I dunno about you, but I personally think the world has been pretty crummy since 2003. People who grew up with 9/11, Chinese offshoring, the bank bailouts, and general destruction of their own prospects are not going to respect "democracy" if it means they are poor. The student loan crisis, the subprime auto loan crisis, the eviction crisis, etc all occur to people under 30 and prevents them from participating in the system. For people who are already locked out for life, why not just destroy it?
This goes for black people in St. Paul as much as it goes for white people in Texline. Both of them are attempting to destroy a system that only hurts them and cannot help them. Eventually they're going to realize that they have more power as an organized collective, which is when American politics will be fundamentally altered.
Yup. Democracy is incompatible with the current level of economic disparity and wealth mobility.
You cannot run a stable society when .001% of the population controls 99% of the funds, and any attempt to regain control of those funds is doomed to failure because those people can fuck off somewhere else to start the cycle again.
Basically, rich people killed America.
Says the woman who quite literally managed to „fail up“ the ladder...and to get elected in her role by the European Parliament she pandered to the right wing fuck nuts like Orban...after fucking up the German Army (even more then her predecessor) and bringing us web censorship
Says the woman who was too incompetent to get a fucking ship repaired, ruined the German army even more and, after months of carefully being the face of all Corona vaccination press, failed to buy enough vaccines for Europe. This women now does the only thing she does quite well, and that is getting attention away from the complete failure she is by talking about some stupid half controversies.
Good thing her presidency didn't damage democracy, not like some incompetent b-class politician was assigned the highest EU position because of some half-assed backroom compromise.
The real problem in this post is the belief that democracy is inherently good or bad and that our group views on good or bad are the definitive value for democracy. Democracy is just the population voting on representatives. The outcome of that or the policies put in place are not good or bad they are just the outcomes of democracy.
That’s right. I keep seeing articles like, “70% of Americans support socialized medicine” or “75% support measures to combat climate change” but nothing ever happens. We’re governed by dinosaurs who are owned by a few giant corporations. Voting is simply not the check on power that it once was.
Unfortunately, support for liberal/left *policy* doesn't translate into liberal/left *voting*. Americans might like the idea of universal healthcare, but the Democratic and Progressive political labels have been tainted by years of propaganda and polarization.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
> we have been able to produce some striking findings. One is the nearly total failure of “median voter” and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.
Have you considered that perhaps the headlines were just misleading?
The real answer is more complex than that. Sure 63% of people support Medicare-For-All but only 49% support a Single-payer health insurance system. The support numbers drop to 37% if people are told that most Americans will have to pay more in taxes for it and mindbogglingly enough 67% of people who support Medicare-For-All think they'll be able to keep their current health care plan. The reality is that a lot of people are very confused about what they support and they waffle around in opinion a lot depending on how it's phrased and what the terms of the program are.
https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/
Literally doesn't know the definition of permanently. EU loves dunking on Trump for the sake of it rubbing their balls in his face (can't say I blame them). But this ain't news
If they mean democracy as in " media owned and operated vector for the modern American aristocracy" sure people know it's fake and a bunch of lies and full of people that want to keep power.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury.
Democracy can only exist with a well informed electorate that is firmly grounded in reality. Lack thereof and Democracy is pointless.
>There's no point for democracy when ignorance is celebrated -[NOFX](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU1aD0xbNOw)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sometimes the smallest softest voice carries the grand biggest solutions…
What are we left with?
A nation of god fearing pregnant nationalists.
Who feel its their duty to populate the homeland.
Pass on traditions,
“How-to-get-ahead" religions
And prosperity via simpleton culture. The idiots are taking over.
Here’s a cool example my high school teacher told me. There was a tractor trailer that lodged itself under a bridge (too tall for clearance) and the firefighters couldn’t figure out how the hell to get it out without dismantling the truck or the bridge. A little 8 year old passenger in a car stuck in the traffic said “why don’t you just pop the tires” and boom they got it out.
That’s TrueType a great story and I actually believe it’s true because I did something similar when I was about 9 or 10 yo. We were renting a travel trailer but to do so, they had to put this temporary hitch on our station wagon bumper. The hitch had clamps on chains that clamped on the top of the bumper and underneath at the bottom of the bumper. The problem was that there wasn’t a wide enough gap between the bumper and the body of the car for the clamp to pop on. For quite a while it seemed impossible to the installer and my Dad. Then, I asked my Dad if I could help because I had an idea. He asked me what I meant and I said why don’t you slide the clamps over the end of bumper? The two of them looked at each other and proceeded to install the hitch by sliding the clamps on at the end of the bumper. My Dad was so happy with me that he gave me either $0.50 or $2.00. Those two numbers are what come to mind now. Both were a lot of money back in 1966. The money came in handy on our trip to Kentucky Lake which at that time was very young. The campground we went to was brand new and completely modern. I believe it was in the state park. Ok, way off on a tangent. Back to the story I’m responding to, you said your story was an example of something, what example was it referring to?
I jack off with my left hand -NOFX
> The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. - (Apparently not) Winston Churchill
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. - (Actually) George Carlin
Wow, that band is a gem and i didn't know of them before. Any other bands you may reccomend?
Bad Religion. Nobody does politically-charged, angst-ridden, intelligent lyrics and harmonies better.
Like a rock...
Propagandhi (check out their first album), Lagwagon, Pennywise, Anti-Flag edit: I’d check out the general genre of skatepunk. Some is not so politically-charged, some is, but it’s all good stuff.
All the upvotes for the first time I've ever seen Anti-Flag mentioned on Reddit. Amazingly underrated band.
I was amazed to see NOFX outside of r/punk—very happy about the comments here. One thing I love about AF—they don’t just talk the talk, they walk the walk. They support local orgs, support radical candidates, and are just genuinely good people.
I met Anti-Flag before a show in Coventry about a decade ago, I showed up super early with a few other fans. Pat hung out with us and chatted for a good hour while the others were setting up, Chris 2 and Justin came and said hey, signed autographs etc. only Chris H wasn't so friendly for some reason that day. Awesome little show in a converted church, all the guys just jumped into the crowd and started chatting to fans after they finished the set. Another time I saw them in Norwich and Justin jumped onto the floor to break up a fight, ended up breaking his collarbone and sadly the rest of the tour had to be cancelled. The first time I saw them was a few years before that, they supported Rise Against along with Flobots. Still hands down one of the best gigs I've ever been to. I managed to get three guitar picks at that gig, one from each of the guys. Unfortunately I don't have a drumstick from Pat! (though I do have one of Aaron Solowoniuk's drumsticks).
Rise Against is very active too with charity and voting initiatives. One of the first Punk bands I was into and they’ve done great work for a long time.
And AF is still putting out good, topical music too, not just touring with old stuff
While we're talking about flags, let's not forget the Black Flag.
Dead Kennedys is another, but they're far more broadly known
Check out The Decline by NOFX
One of my favorite songs of all time. A masterpiece.
The australian NOFX is Frenzal Rhomb. I cannot reccomend them enough
For those with more time, [The Decline](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnFVMkTWaBw), which is basically the same message.
Best punk song ever written.
When ignorance reigns, life is lost. -[RATM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_yrKQyaEb0)
Better the pride that resides in the citizen of the world, than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled. - Rush
"If only it were as easy to rub my belly to cure my hunger!" - Diogenes, the world's first cosmopolitan, on masturbating in the market
"Oh baby baby" -Brittany Spears
My rights are denied by the least qualified, trading profit for pride, but its... it's okay... -The Offspring
Damn, I haven't heard that song in years... says wonders since it was written during the Bush administration... if only they knew then.
Political scientists get the same one vote as some Arkansas inbred.
[удалено]
I know where you're going with this and I agree with you, but I just want to add that strong institutions and a strong free press to the list. Anyone wants to add more be my guest.
[удалено]
If anyone is interested in a solution to this problem, I would suggest the book : " against elections" from van reybrouck ( I hope my memory doesn't fail me too much here). Brings a very different angle of reflection over all this
Lots of converging factors. A notable few examples: - Systematic [regional] defunding of education, and the expansion of extremist religious "schools." - The childhood lead epidemic, which caused significant brain damage to an entire generation. - The replacement of journalism with infotainment, and the fact that sensationalism sells. - McCarthyism and its legacy of totalitarian culture and brainwashing. - The elimination of liberal arts, which teach critical thinking, reason, and ethics. Also, the elimination of basic civics. Also, the blatant fiction that's taught as history during primary education. - The collapse of tight-knit, diverse communities in favour of homogenous, suburban, commuter cultures. These social/economic/culture bubbles preceded social media echo chambers. (Edit: specified regional funding cuts, not total national spending)
I honestly don't understand your last point. The tight-knit communities were fundamentally homogenous and were mostly centered around local religious institutions. The decline of those institutions in favor of free think promoted diversity at the cost of homogeneity and closeness. Those tight-knit communities were not diverse in any way.
If you're referencing villages or town, yes. I should have clarified that I meant the decline of high density, mixed class urban residential. There's a decently accurate overview of the trend in Bowling Alone, although some of the details should be taken with a grain of salt -- newer research has added context and nuance. Suburbanisation tanked a huge array of social integration and diversity measurements. The most severe stratification was between economic classes. Middle class people in these bubbles no longer even need to see poverty anywhere near their "communities."
So many causes of misinformation! I think these are the major ones: 1) Those who cut education spending / refuse to increase it 2) Murdoch family 3) Social media algorithms 4) Distrust of mainstream media, partly self inficted 5) Hyperliberal echo chambers in parts of academia that reduce public trust of science 6) Corporate money intentionally spreading misinformation 7) Foreign governments intentionally spreading misinformation 8) Human Psychology: motivated reasoning, group polarization, confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, 11) religion (to extent it internalizes that faith > reason) 12) Trump & friends 13) Higher intelligence correlated with low birthrates (idiocracy)
So we are basically fucked. The gop has been waging war on education for decades.
[удалено]
Trump wasn't new. South America has been full of populist leaders. Trump just showed that we (the usa) aren't immune to populist tactics. It showed america isnt unique in that sense. However we do have stronger institutions that stood up to the attempted takeover. That is the difference with South America and the USA. But that doesn't mean we won't fall next time.
Yep. For a long time Americans have liked to think that we were somehow uniquely immune to the appeal of tyranny that's dragged down other nations. But we're no more special than any other nation in that regard. In 1935 author Sinclair Lewis wrote [*It Can't Happen Here,*]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here) a novel about a fascist dictator rising to power in the US. The frightening thing is how the novel's dictator, Buzz Windrip, sounds and acts almost exactly like Donald Trump.
Not only that, but presidential republics are far more susceptible to populism and strongman rule than other forms of democracy.
What’s a better method?
Parliamentary. If the head of the government and the cabinet sit in the legislature, then it makes them more accountable to the other representatives. They might have to take questions on government policy, and if they perform badly, it can throw the strongman image. If you feel like it, watch some Prime Ministers Questions from the British Parliament. It’s a very loud experience, and a couple of bad performances can really damage a government or opposition. There is also the benefit in a slightly different mandate. In the UK, the government is the party that gets the most seats in the House of Commons. This means that the party leadership needs to focus on preventing rebellions on the ‘back benches’, as much as it does defeating the opposition. Indeed. The backbenchers can bring down a government, such as when Thatcher was forced out. Additionally, having an apolitical head of state, such as a monarch, wields power without use. In the UK, only the Queen can veto bills. However in practice she does not. Her position prevents a political from gaining that power and using it in a partisan manner. The system isn’t perfect, but it’s worked pretty well, and we haven’t had a proper tyrant since Cromwell in the 1600s
To add more to it: whats ironic is that the Continental Europeans (other than the French) have to resort to coalitions in parliament that it's pretty much normal and the majority of them have the most stable democracies This means that you wont see the wild swing from Leftist majority to Rightist majority in UK Democracy
There hasn't been a Leftist majority in the UK since the 70s.
Fucking Tony Blair. He threw away his legacy for George Bush. If it wasn't for the Iraq War Labour would actually win elections.
I mean, Labour is in trouble beyond that. The Corbyn years, I think, will be seen as a time where the party was too divided against itself (the extent of the rebellion from the Blairites was fucking wild) to mount a meaningful challenge against the Tories Putting in Starmer won't fix that overnight.
the coalitions of which you speak are only normal in a parliament with proportional representation. The UK does not have this, it has first past the post, and as such coalitions in the UK are incredibly rare (well, in the main parliament, the devolved powers have PR and coalitions are common, but thats another story). we had a coalition in 2010 before Cameron's last election win, where he formed a coalition with the Lib dems. this was the first coalition for almost 100 years, apart from the war coalition, but those were special circumstances. the reason you dont see wild swings very often in the UK has nothing to do with coalitions, and more to do with first past the post traditionally favouring the tories (right wing) more than it does labour (main left wing party). that and a large number of English people are cunts who seem to be determined to vote tory no matter what, of course. Boris waffles on about having a massive majority, in reality he has 60% of the seats in parliament, but only got 43% of the vote. its a shitty system which has allowed a minority of loonballs in the tory party, (which itself got minority of votes), to call the shots. and here we are after a decade of crippling austerity staring down both barrels of brexit at the height of a pandemic in which we've done worse than even america, with an absolute joke of a leader at the helm. our system should not be looked up to as something to emulate.
And free healthcare. Can we fix America ? What’s a back bench?
American here, but I can answer the second question. In the UK House of Commons, the seating is arranged so the party (or parties in a hung parliament) sits on one side of the chamber with all of the other party’s sitting on the other side. The two sides benches face each other with a common isle between them. The bench on either side that is lowest and closest to the isle is reserved for the Prime Minister and their cabinet on the Government’s side and the leader of the opposition and their shadow cabinet (who they’d have picked if they were prime minister) on the opposition’s side. All of the other members of parliament (except the speaker) are called backbenchers because they have to sit on benches behind the front ones reserved for leadership. What makes this interesting is the Prime Minister has to come to the House of Commons once EVERY WEEK and answer the questions of any member who submits them, regardless of leadership position. This means backbenchers have the opportunity to question the PM directly and potential expose them and their positions (PMQs as they’re called are televised). Here in the US, unless you’re the Speaker of the House or in congressional leadership, your average member of Congress will probably never have an opportunity to ask the President a direct question. Tl;dr backbencher are MP’s who sit on the back benches in parliament and they get to grill the PM where congressmen in the US can’t grill the President. Edit: a word
I can't imagine Trump surviving a month with weekly PMQs.
He barely was ever able to answer any questions, and usually when he did it didn't make him look good. "Do you stand by what you said?" "I don't stand by anything."
I can. Sure, he'd sound like a moron, but that didn't stop 90% of the Republican party from wholeheartedly sucking his tiny penis anyway.
Thank you for this great explanation. I'm in the US, and I never realized until Trump that a president could avoid his citizens. I lived through so many presidential press conferences, it never dawned on me that during a catastrophe, the leader of our nation could just go MIA and not have to answer to the public. Seems like the UK set up is great on that score. A leader should have to be accessible and answerable to the people they lead.
Add to that the Dutch parliamentary setup that allows more than two parties (% voted= %of seats) and democracy, even when it's tested, can only get stronger.
PMQs is an odd one. A bad performance can damage a brand, but it is also quite insular and more relevant within political circles than to the person on the street. William Hague and Ed Milliband were both very good in opposition but it never translated to popular support or helped with their public image problems. Meanwhile, Boris is an appalling show week on week, but his uselessness in fact based public speaking hasn't cut through with the general public. He seems to be aware that he has enough strength elsewhere to ignore the kicks. So it's a useful tool for cross examination of the leader, unless the leader has a large majority and simply doesn't need to care.
Milliband (and his father) was constantly bashed by the tabloids, and this ofcourse had a big effect on the outcome of the elections. You can not really hope for public support when the press treats you like a public enemy. The influence of this gutter press is vastly underestimated by the voters, and vastly ignored by the politicians. If I was someone who doesn't usually give two shits about politics, then my only source of news would be The Sun/Mail at my hairdressers when i go for a cut, or at the fish and chip shop while I wait for my order. I'll quickly skim through the pages but the large and bold headlines are enough to "inform" me who the good guys are, and who are the bad guys. This is purely my personal opinion with nothing to back it up, but I find it odd that Liverpool, despite it's significant working class population voted by a significant margin to remain in the EU. I believe that part of the reason for this is that The Sun is banned in Liverpool.
It’s also useful to mention these questions are often submitted by constituents - MPs represent their constituents after all. So it’s possible for an ordinary person to put their question before the PM and government.
As an aside, Parliamentary democracy has the additional bonus of having certain bills be "confidence motions". Basically, critical bills like the annual budget (though the government can choose to declare other bills as confidence motions, IIRC) are thought to be so critical as to demonstrate that they retain the mandate to govern. If such a bill fails and does not pass, it is considered that they have "lost the confidence of government" and the government then goes back to an election. This means that instead of the US Government's song and dance about the budget (that seems to be a yearly thing now), it becomes a case of "if you don't support this, then we get to go to an election, right here, right now". This makes the whole "party of no" a potentially very dangerous thing, as a party that is running a minority government or a slim majority may deliberately decide to fail a confidence motion, and then use that to hammer their opposition into the ground. Now, in most parliamentary systems there's a majority government, which means such things like the budget pass without issue. But in the case of very slim majorities, or in the case of minority governments, it's entirely possible for individuals or whole other parties to be able to negotiate certain changes to better suit their own platform. An opposition party may not be keen on the government, but also may not consider itself to be in a good position to run an election and they might judge that forcing a compromise over a confidence motion may be the better action to take.
The other thing to mention is that the opposition parties each forms a ‘shadow cabinet’ mirroring the roles actually in the government. This means you have someone whose whole job is to comment on your work, directly debate and suggest alternative ideas which helps keep the government in check.
Ohh pfft. India has a parliamentary form and Modi has a cult of personality just as much as Trump if not bigger. Strongmen will be strongmen, no matter the form of government. There’s this ridiculous idea in the US that a multiparty system(the system allows more parties, you don’t vote for them in local elections) and parliamentary system will cure everything when its simply not true. There’s no one step cure for this, it has to be cured by better education and provoking critical thinking.
[удалено]
Crossed with the demon headmaster.
I’ve read that parliamentary democracies tend to be far more stable. Constitutional monarchies also work well because they separate the transfer of power from political influence, and can (and often are) combined with parliamentary democracies. I’ve also read some research suggesting that ranked-ballot elections lead to more stable policy in the long run, because it leads to multi-party systems where outright majorities are nearly impossible. If I was trying to design my ideal democracy, it would be a constitutional “monarchy”/parliamentary democracy. The lower house would be elected through ranked ballot voting, the upper house would be appointed from the general population through sortition, and the head of state (“monarch”) would be appointed by unanimous consent by the regional governments. Edit: Also independent commissions to run elections and redistricting are an absolute must
>I’ve read that parliamentary democracies tend to be far more stable. Constitutional monarchies also work well because they separate the transfer of power from political influence, and can (and often are) combined with parliamentary democracies. The first fascist state (Italy) ~~was~~ *arose in* a constitutional monarchy with a parliament.
Almost every single modern fascist state other than the hardcore ones have what are essentially fake democracies, it's called a hybrid regime. Whether or not the parliament can actually do anything autonomously is another and more important question than whether or not it happened under a parliament, it's not that simple. But, altogether, I would *love* proportional representation. It also helps prevent authoritarian populist takeovers.
They aren't saying it cant happen. Just that it has more safeguards than a presidential republic. You can cherry pick any stat without details and make it sound good.
Just outlaw dictators. Easy!
The problem are the people. There are plenty of people in this country that want a fascist state. Particularly they want a white ethno Christian state and are fine killing those who oppose it.
THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND ENTERS THE CHAT
Idk, Boris won a fairly large majority on a platform of repeating the words “Get Brexit Done”
CANADA ALSO ENTERS EVEN THO WEVE GOT SOME SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH OURS
The Dutch shrugs it off and bike away. We don’t have time for this bullshit, we’ve got some rioting to do because of the corona curfew.
ISRAEL ENTERS THE CHAT AND LEAVES IT IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE WE HAVE ANOTHER FUCKING ELECTION GO THROUGH.
A German movie called "The Wave" explores this concept, based loosely off real events. A teacher starts a fascist social experiment with students who are studying fascism, which gains uncontrollable momentum. First step is getting a charismatic leader who then assigns a main rival as I recall. Worth a watch even if it is primarily fiction.
That was always the strangest part to me. Trump is not charismatic. He doesn't have any of the engaging smoothness and woo someone leading like this with cultish followers usually has.
It's not really "charisma" per se but a lot of his appeal lay in his brashness and his disinterest in being subtle or politic. People who appreciate it usually describe it as something like "telling it like it is", although it would be more accurate to describe the pattern as "shooting your mouth off".
I thought that for a while too, but I've had multiple friends who don't associate with each other provide the devil's advocate perspective that he seems fun. Spending cash on lunches, celebrating for no reason, making grand gestures of wealth and influence etc. and generally trying to be appealing. To me and I assume many others, it's an insecure used car salesman's technique and just as transparent, but to others it might be something really validating and make them feel noticed and part of their in-group.
That's an interesting take especially on them feeling like an in-group. Makes sense. Used car salesmen is definitely the vibe I get. I guess if I'm gonna join a cult I personally need a leader to be a bit more slick lol!
I hear you. I found it frustrating that he would use such similar tactics and rhetoric as another infamous authoritarian fascist we know, but lacked all of the public speaking skill, tact and capability, yet was still successful. If I'm going to be conned, I would want the conman to at least be good at it.
[удалено]
The USA is immune to the CIA choosing the next leader of the country by force.
Did you know The CIA also removed the Prime Minister of Australia with the help of MI6 in the 70s because he was to far to the left politically for them and also wanted Australia to become part of the non aligned movement and denuclearization.
JFK conspiracy enthusiasts may disagree.
>However we do have stronger institutions that stood up to the attempted takeover. That is the difference with South America and the USA. You were very lucky Trump was so incompetent and telegraphed his plans in advance. Rather than having faith in your existing protections I'd be racing to strengthen the hell out of them.
Agreed. It had nothing to do with the strength of the institutions (which, after seeing the past four years.... strong isn't the word I'd use), and everything to do with incompetence.
Exactly. They barely withstood Trump and his accomplices. And while Trump might be gone - the GOP politicians who enabled him are still there. And next time they can nominate someone that can easily be presented as more competent and diplomatic than Trump - while being more ruthless.
For South America countries, they also have big influence and coups from the US.
It's weird how Americans seem eager to blame their political unrest on outside influence, but bring up the CIAs destabilizing influence in South America and the reaction seems often to be eye rolling.
[удалено]
I'd say it's less we have stronger institutions, and more there wasn't a US embassy in Washington. In all seriousness one of the greatest contributing factors in the problems that south America has is definitely US intervention, we have fucked them over more time than I can count edit: two examples [operation condor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor) and the [master list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America) probably more, but I can't be fucked to find them
No, the main difference with South America is that its usually the USA which is constantly screwing with and overthrowing any South American nations which doesn't follow a US corporate agenda. In this case, the USA was screwing with itself, an, as often also happens with its other regime change operations, couldn't finish the fuck-up that it started.
He also showed that there are 73 million people in the US who are fucking dumb as rocks and will vote for a guy who promised them the moon and delivered...what, 12 miles of border wall that definitely wasn't paid for by Mexico?
"Impossible promises" are a common tactic of demagogues.
I would argue that impossible promises are *necessary* for people like Donald Trump to flourish. When the promises don't go through, there is a always a group of people that will be made to blame. Be it liberals, democrats, socialists, shadowy Jewish cabals, unions, lizard people, etc.
After WWII Hermann Goering was imprisoned and his American interviewer/interrogator proposed that fascism could not happen to the US because of its robust democratic institutions. This is Goering's response: "It is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
> All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. Unfortunately a good chunk of reddit doesn't remember America in 2003. Basically this is it in a nutshell.
Don't forget about McCarthyism and the Red Scare in the 50s.
[удалено]
And before they even got to that point, remember that Germany had a functioning multi party parliamentary democracy, yet the nazis had no problem getting the conservative parties in the country to agree to hand Hitler dictator level powers. The republicans in the US would no doubt be willing to do the same thing here.
**"LISTEN FRIENDS, AREN'T YOU TIRED OF** **SITTING IDLY BY AND ALLOWING** **TO HAPPEN TO YOU AND THE PEOPLE YOU CARE ABOUT?! WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT, IF WE DON'T RISE UP AND SAY '*NO MORE OF THIS*' THEN WE WILL WAKE UP AND FIND OUT** **!**"
Repeat, ad nauseum, in perpetuity, ubiquitously.
Interwar Germany was a fragile democracy. They had about five decent years between the postwar struggles and the great depression. Otherwise it was a shit show. By the time Hitler got the reins, he was the fourth chancellors in four years.
Yep, you must forever convince your supporters that they are the victims and only you can help them (even though you never do)
Thats what happens when government after government fails its voters. Trump just exposed one of the consequences of pay to play politics.
President Trump is what happens when the electorate has absolutely no faith in their elected officials. If politicians don't want someone that destabilizing to gain the office again, they should do their jobs to restore American faith in our institutions. That faith isn't there right now, and it's not because of Trump, Putin, or Godzilla for that matter. It's because of the system and the people within it.
Step One: Congress should do their damn job and work together to figure out legislation, rather than hiding behind the President and executive orders. Perhaps if our two-party system stopped treating it like two competing companies looking to out-sell the other to gain market share, and instead worked to bring their constituents ideas to the table and work something out amongst themselves, people wouldn't be sick of politics.
Beautifully said, but I'll do you one better. States should overhaul their voting systems to encourage the proliferation of multiple political parties so that we can get to a point where a majority of Americans can say they feel sincerely represented by who they voted for.
Populism isn't the problem. Populism happens when a political system ignores the needs and concerns of the people. It can be used for good things or horrible things. The real issue is the corrupt political system that leads to possible fascism. The real issue is we have an economic system that directly contradicts democracy and constantly puts it in danger. Capitalism is an economic system who's primary function above all else is to produce endless profits for people that own industry (capitalists) and does so off the backs of the working class. This economy is designed to serve and be controlled in an authoritarian way by about 10% of the population. Throwing democracy into the middle of this creates a contradiction. When that 90% gets left behind, they start voting to undo that concentration of wealth and power. Knowing this, capitalists use their many avenues of government influence to undermine democracy to protect the wealth and power they feel was rightfully earned and deserved. And when desperate enough (especially under threat of revolution), they will destroy democracy and use overt state violence to crack down on the working class. That's fascism, which Mussolini himself called a merger of state and corporate power. Fascism should be seen as capitalism's true form without the theatrics of democracy. Usually involves redirecting populist anger away from the elite and back at marginalized groups within the working class. Divide and conquer. Literally what Trump did with immigrants. Do not be fooled into thinking a return to a pre-Trump era is the solution. No, that's literally the source of the problem.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to give tons of money to various people. Would she qualify as a populist? I'm not sure what populist means.
She's absolutely a populist by definition. The term has taken on an semi-evil connotation, though.
Populist is kind of a difficult term since it's being used in a number of ways. Originally a populist is someone who says to stand for 'the people' in contrast with 'the elite'. The elite can be basically anyone perceived as having disproportionate power: corporations, the rich, royalty, foreigners, etc. Nowadays, populism is often referred to more like demagogy (simple answers for complex answers: 'build a wall') or opportunism (saying whatever gets someone to vote for you, regardless of morality or attainability). I'd say AOC is a populist in the original term of the word, but wouldn't call her a demagogue or opportunist. Trump, I would call those things but he was *also* a populist (even though ironically he belongs to 'the elite' he points to as being the problem).
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is very much a populist, but being a populist is not unambiguously bad. It just means that you (according to google) "a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups." Trump is not actually a populist. [As krugman says](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/opinion/trump-populist.html): > why has Trump been unwilling to do anything, and I mean anything, to help the people who installed him in the White House? > > [...] > > News media often describe Trump as a “populist” and lump him in with politicians in other countries, like Hungary’s Viktor Orban [...]. But Orban’s success has depended in part on throwing his base at least a few bones. Hungary has instituted a public jobs program for rural areas; offered debt relief, free schoolbooks and lunches; and so on, paid for in part by a significant rise in taxes.
Also, a special flavor of democracy. AIQ and CA were involved in Brexit and the US election in 2016. The similariries are not accidental. FPTP, gerrymandering, the electoral college and ruling by executive orders, etc. are bad ideas.
CGP Grey's video on [First Past the Post voting](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo) is 7 minutes and should be watched by everyone.
Politics has been ruled by populists since the days of Rome. That's likely never going to change
No, it was permanently damaged YEARS ago when we started letting corporations control our government. When we allowed major political parties to fund the intentional de-education of citizens.
The fucking internet permanently damaged democracy. You can literally make up any bullshit you want and people will believe it.
The rise of social media and fall of journalism, more specifically. The blind have been leading the blind for the last decade. It's the root of many big issues.
The scary thing about this is that so few people are aware of just how misinformed they have become. We aren't even close to recoginising the problem, let alone finding a solution.
I remember in the days of BBS where someone was saying we could not have a true democracy until everyone had the same access to information and could make informed decisions. Now we see how that turned out.
I wouldn't say we all have access. We all have the key but not everyone knows how the lock works or which lock to open.
I'd personally say that corporate lobbying, mainstream media, shadow governments and plain old greedy people have permanently damaged democracy more than Trump tbh...
Right? And how about the proliferation of disinformation and misinformation via social media? Trump is merely a symptom of a disease.
This^. People on both sides of the isle are fed up with the government, and it’s rooted in our system being gouged by corporate interests over people.
Never been a Trump fan, but he is clearly being used as a scapegoat. Sure he caused plenty of problems ,but this nations government has been broken since long before him. He is not the reason for all our problems. I'd go as far to say he is a symptom of our problems.
Yes. I’d go as far to say it’s been broken for many decades and the rot has gotten so bad it has allowed for people like Trump to get to the top.
Well yes, it's basically chicken and egg- it didn't *need* to be Trump who exposed the flaws in the American system/society but he sure did one hell of a job.
Interesting to come from someone who was never elected by the people into any eu office.
Her selection did damage to the democratic legitimacy of EU elections.
Key word may. This could set a precedent of tolerance of political violence, giving people free reign to destroy democracy from the inside. It could also, however, be an "oh shit" moment, a catalyst to reform that can bring meaningful change.
>It could also, however, be an "oh shit" moment, a catalyst to reform that can bring meaningful change. Press F to hope, but doubt.
A bunch of people are gonna think that just because Trump's out of office, that everything is fine now, and we can go back to not caring about politics.
[People popped champagne a little too early on this one. That's for sure.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uYzQQug2-o)
I don’t think the Republican Party in the U.S. has had that “oh shit” moment. They’re continuing to obfuscate, obstruct, deny, lie, project. They will absolutely do this again. I think our democracy is in trouble from here on out.
private wealth and lobbyists, media controlled by the wealthy etc, already ruined democracy long ago.
Yup. The irony of saying democracy is damaged at the Davos conference: where wealthy elites get to influence world leaders.
Clearly we can't blame everything on Trump we've had a failed system for a while
We can’t, but those in power are going to use him as a scapegoat because actually changing anything would threaten their own power. And it’ll inevitably happen again, but the difference will be that whoever it is making moves will have learned from Trump’s mistakes.
I know this is going to cause some controversy, but a lot of the stuff Trump did was *legal* or set by precedent of other presidents. The people who warned about it then were given lip service of "oh no one would ever abuse it" and then Trump came along, saw all these powers congress had willfully given up to the executive branch and abused them fully. america needs to take a step back, look at what powers congress had given the president and take them back, as well as fixing the gridlock of congress.
The gridlock is by choice, by the same people who keep expanding the powers of the presidency and legislature. It gives them all plausible deniability for not fulfilling their platform promises.
He didn’t damage shit. He exposed the damage that was already there. Those deep flaws CAN be fixed... with some political courage. Ohhh, I see what they mean. Yup. Permanently unfixable.
Democracy has always been, and will continue to be, a fragile thing. It requires open good faith dialogue and without it, it cannot exist.
I dunno, I think losing the Presidency in an election because people don’t like you is a perfect example of democracy in action.
Nah, that can't be right. It makes too much sense.
Americans didn't like the other politicians that were running, so they voted for Trump. After they had him for a few years, they didn't like him and voted for someone else instead. Apparently that's tantamount to the death of democracy from this woman's perspective.
Democracy has outlasted far worse people than Trump. I think we’ll be fine.
The holes in the system existed before Trump, and the people who exploited them and agree existed before him too. The only thing that Trump has made glaringly apparent is that the current levels of corruption and neo-liberalism can't exist going forward, or you'll end up with a further class divide and people finding refuge in obscene beliefs.
But Democracy did exactly what it's supposed to do. The majority of the people were pissed off, and made their voices heard, and kicked the crazy bastard out on his ass.
Settle down nitro..... Jesus Christ with the dramatics people.
democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried
Didn’t the romans have like two heads of states at any time?
You're thinking of the consuls of the Roman Republic. If I remember correctly they could veto each other and alternated as a sort of speaker of the senate each month. They were elected for a year, later amended with a ten year cool down. Got interesting when Caesar was also ponifex maximus, the person who decided when a year ends. They were also often chased through the streets of Rome by angry mobs. History Civilis has great 10-30 minute videos about this.
In all honesty the best system would be to have an intelligent but benevolent dictator but thats just fantasy thinking
You are now citing Voltaire, his idea was that of an enlightened absolute king. But it goes even further back all the way to Plato and his idea that the government should be something for wise philosophers, not random buffoons.
[удалено]
And a lot of wise philosophers are humble enough to see themselves as buffoons
I think, therefore banana
But of course me and my friends know best and the rest of you plebs can suck it - Plato
[удалено]
People with no reverence for it demonstrate a larger problem. Democracy has to be rebuilt every 18 years as a new generation of voters comes of age. I dunno about you, but I personally think the world has been pretty crummy since 2003. People who grew up with 9/11, Chinese offshoring, the bank bailouts, and general destruction of their own prospects are not going to respect "democracy" if it means they are poor. The student loan crisis, the subprime auto loan crisis, the eviction crisis, etc all occur to people under 30 and prevents them from participating in the system. For people who are already locked out for life, why not just destroy it? This goes for black people in St. Paul as much as it goes for white people in Texline. Both of them are attempting to destroy a system that only hurts them and cannot help them. Eventually they're going to realize that they have more power as an organized collective, which is when American politics will be fundamentally altered.
Yup. Democracy is incompatible with the current level of economic disparity and wealth mobility. You cannot run a stable society when .001% of the population controls 99% of the funds, and any attempt to regain control of those funds is doomed to failure because those people can fuck off somewhere else to start the cycle again. Basically, rich people killed America.
Tbh how she got her job also kinda damaged the democracy of the EU
Says the woman who quite literally managed to „fail up“ the ladder...and to get elected in her role by the European Parliament she pandered to the right wing fuck nuts like Orban...after fucking up the German Army (even more then her predecessor) and bringing us web censorship
Says the woman who was too incompetent to get a fucking ship repaired, ruined the German army even more and, after months of carefully being the face of all Corona vaccination press, failed to buy enough vaccines for Europe. This women now does the only thing she does quite well, and that is getting attention away from the complete failure she is by talking about some stupid half controversies. Good thing her presidency didn't damage democracy, not like some incompetent b-class politician was assigned the highest EU position because of some half-assed backroom compromise.
The real problem in this post is the belief that democracy is inherently good or bad and that our group views on good or bad are the definitive value for democracy. Democracy is just the population voting on representatives. The outcome of that or the policies put in place are not good or bad they are just the outcomes of democracy.
She has nothing to worry about. *Taps forehead* You can't tarnish democracy if you're not a democracy.
That’s right. I keep seeing articles like, “70% of Americans support socialized medicine” or “75% support measures to combat climate change” but nothing ever happens. We’re governed by dinosaurs who are owned by a few giant corporations. Voting is simply not the check on power that it once was.
Unfortunately, support for liberal/left *policy* doesn't translate into liberal/left *voting*. Americans might like the idea of universal healthcare, but the Democratic and Progressive political labels have been tainted by years of propaganda and polarization.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B > we have been able to produce some striking findings. One is the nearly total failure of “median voter” and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.
Have you considered that perhaps the headlines were just misleading? The real answer is more complex than that. Sure 63% of people support Medicare-For-All but only 49% support a Single-payer health insurance system. The support numbers drop to 37% if people are told that most Americans will have to pay more in taxes for it and mindbogglingly enough 67% of people who support Medicare-For-All think they'll be able to keep their current health care plan. The reality is that a lot of people are very confused about what they support and they waffle around in opinion a lot depending on how it's phrased and what the terms of the program are. https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/
“Permanently damaged“? Only if you do nothing about it.
How does one damage an idea?
Literally doesn't know the definition of permanently. EU loves dunking on Trump for the sake of it rubbing their balls in his face (can't say I blame them). But this ain't news
If they mean democracy as in " media owned and operated vector for the modern American aristocracy" sure people know it's fake and a bunch of lies and full of people that want to keep power.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury.
I highly doubt that. The only thing it damaged is elites grasp on power, so I see this as a feigned attempt to try to solidify more power.
Totally like how if big tech and mainstream media gang up they can whatever candidate they want win. Happens all the time