“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.”
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.
The d’s had 50 years to come up with their own plan. And they did nothing. We had a choice of different sides of the same coin and here we are.
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.”
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?
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.
Hilary was pushing for Obamacare since her husband was in office.
That part’s mixing up two different plans. The healthcare plan that Hillary came up with when Bill Clinton was in office was overly complex, would have delivered even less than Obamacare (which was Romneycare rebranded, with a few tweaks-- Romneycare was a response to Hillary’s disastrous plan), and didn’t make it through Congress. It was a red flag that Hillary didn’t have what it takes to lead any complex effort (such as the Presidency).
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
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.
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.
Because even after the facts are laid bare, you still seem unable to take any responsibility for it and the entire world pay for the mistakes the people of the USA make
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.
Buttigieg is establishment democrat. Actually listen to him instead of doing what most people do, which is stare at him and wait for him to “say something gay” and then be impressed that he’s such a great orator. He’s never advocated for the social and financial overhaul that the US needs. He’s argued that the system is sufficient for our best outcomes, the same system that is currently on fire.
This reminds me of Obama so much. On one hand it would be nice to have another leader who unites the country, but Obama wasn’t necessarily good for our nation’s long-term future. He was not a leftist or advocate for the poor, he was also establishment Dem/Liberal who passed every opportunity to create real and lasting change in the country.
Buttigieg is currently touring the right-wing spaces and dropping his messages there without resistance because he’s advocating for preserving the wealth in the country. He’s tacitly being endorsed by the billionaire class. They want a return to normalcy, and Buttigieg may have exactly what the country needs to get there, which is clear messaging, hypnotic blue eyes and an appeal to many men’s latent curiosity about what what a strong homosexual male even looks like… or if nothing else, an avenue for libs and neo-libs to feel performatively progressive by dropping his name. It’s enthralling to the masses and we should all be terrified.
He is going to be a strong candidate if we have elections again, and I would take him over Trump, but we need to understand what he is. He is NOT our leftist savior, he’s barely more progressive than a liberal savior.
I want to make it clear, if he’s the final candidate against like, Mecha Trump or Don JR or Vance or someone equally absurd, we all better push Buttigieg’s booty up that hill and I will wave that rainbow flag along with everyone else. But we have to understand that it’s a band-aid on a massive infected wound that’s bleeding out.
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.
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’
Watch his messaging when he tours FOX and other right-wing podcasts and youtube channels. He talks to the right without without resistance or pushback from the hosts because he’s advocating preservation of existing systems instead of actual overhaul to our nation’s policies and financial systems.
He is likely going to be our next Obama. Charming and beloved by many, but secretly propped up by the billionaire class who want to keep feasting from the table of status-quo. Obama was a great leader, but as a president, he passed on very real opportunities to make lasting change over and over. He didn’t exercise his power in any remotely overreaching way even when he had house and senate. He didn’t pack the Supreme Court and didn’t enshrine rights in any way that would protect people. He could have rammed single-payer healthcare through and been hated and loved by many, probably impeached, but we would have had something great from it.
We really need to do better as a nation understanding the different between leadership and management. And we need to pick people for our local and community elections that have these qualities. They are the ones who prop up the larger system and the ones who largely run unopposed because people are far more fascinated with Buttigieg’s dazzling blue eyes than what their local comptroller believes.
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.
shame them into doing something progressive
That’s been failing for the 30+ years during which I voted blue, why does anyone imagine it would suddenly start succeeding 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.
Not to be churlish but does gay marriage just not count as progressive now? Or marijuana legalization? Exceptions to the rule possibly, but pretty fucking big exceptions if so.
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.
Stopping the bomb from going off is wishful thinking, but I agree, that’s why I said 'boom tomorrow is definitely better than boom today`.
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.
Yeah, it’s definitely melodramatic. I just enjoyed how it laid out the actions of Trump that got us here, as well as describing the expanded role of the Executive.
So cute copium, but it’s over. You can discuss what we can do with the next empire? I’m over this one and good riddance honestly it was cringe at the end.
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.
It’s like saying “let’s all get rid of smartphones together” the cat is out of the box with having social structures (and therefore empires unfortunately)
time to flee to the old world from prosecution and religious pressure lol
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.
give it a C- on my Democracy-O-Meter (patent pending
Are you grading on a curve? Where was there a more functional democracy in the mid-19th century?
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.
we count ancient Greece as a democracy, don’t we?
Last I checked, democracy didn’t mean “fair,” it ment that the leaders were voted into power.
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.
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.
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.
In a couple thousand years historians will call us the Merkin Empire
I sure hope not
