I have a lot of sympathy for the American people, and many personal American friends. Still, in a democracy everyone is collectively responsible for the government. "It’s not us, it’s our government" only work for so long.
That's assuming that the population has any power, which in pretty much all countries in the world is not true. "Democracy" isn't just a value to behold, if the population has no power, it has no power and a country can't be called as such out of nowhere. Now, the people might have no actual power, but it's in their hands to get it.
True, there is usually the caveat of the electoral college and gerrymandering. That can excuse the impotence of Congress, but Trump won the popular vote. By any measure, it is a democratic result.
Trump won the popular vote, so even without electoral college shenanigans, he would be in power.
It’s a representative democracy, in which the people delegate their legislative power to representatives and the executive power to, largely, a president. Its executive branch is stronger than a lot of democracies, but that itself does not make it "not a democracy". It turns out that its constitution is not as much of a guarantee than some people expected but, again, it does not prevent it from being a democracy. It’s on its way to Orbanization, though, which is very concerning and a sign that it might not be an actual democracy for too long.
> And never forget that the post-American internet will be good for Americans. Because, in a K-shaped, bifurcated, unequal America, the trillions that American companies loot from the world don't trickle down to Americans. The average American holds a portfolio of assets that rounds to zero, and that includes stock in US tech companies.
> The average American isn't a shareholder in Big Tech, the average American is a victim of Big Tech. Liberating the world from US Big Tech is also liberating America from US Big Tech.
There's no mechanism for the people to remove the president.
You can't have a loss of confidence vote that every eligible voter can partake in. There's no coalition system where one part can pull out and essentially dissolve the sitting coalition. No snap election.
By now it should be clear to anyone that the only way to remove the president, by lawful means, is to impeach and remove him. But with politicians choosing party over people, that will likely not happen anytime soon.
The median senator and congressman in the US has a net worth close to a million dollars. Other than in the very unlikely event that the US invaded, they will really never feel the effects of bad presidents.
At worst they will live under the threat of being primaried.
US politics is very much a case of "you've made your bed, now lie in it" for minimum the next 4 years.
If legislators are afraid of the President, should they not be more afraid of their constituents?
* in the event, it looks like it took them 4 years as well, 1988-1991, but somehow I doubt they were just telling themselves they'd sit around and wait for 2028...
It is fascinating how Americans see their system like something unchangeable given by god. My country is in about its sixth iteration and I'm already thinking it is time for new constitution.
Oh no, they did not. USSR collapse was precipitated by decades of economic war, where trying to keep up with US advancements depleted more and more of russian budget, finally plunging the country into collapse deep enough for elites to accept formal change of regime (of course while ensuring they stay on top).
Unfortunately, that makes a great deal of sense to me.
This explanation kind of implies the whole planet winds up sunk into the banana republic attractor?
(might Fahd have had more to do with the final collapse than Reagan? By opening his spigots to keep the nomenklatura from earning much hard currency with their principal export, could he have pulled a classic "the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" trillionaires' poker move?)
I don't think there's any suggestion that Americans are the enemy.
Indeed, the article makes it clear that (a) the issue is not individuals, and (b) the desired changes would be good for most (non-billionaire) Americans.
I mean this kindly - but Americans need to ditch their current administration fast. I don't understand how a Democrat can be a lame duck for four years but the current president can literally threaten NATO members with invasion and nothing happens. If the US goes too far, it won't be coming back. There are no more Obama years of stability. No more soft power. No more tacit agreement from the rest of the democratic world with whatever hair brained scheme US wants to do.
The US is great at making money from monopolies. It has thousands of billionaires and it has more money than sense. It is not a technological supremacy. It is at a stark risk of turning away 450m highly educated people, who traditionally would align with the US as 'shared democracies'. Imagine those same people aligning with China, not out of shared principle, but out of necessity. That would end the US hegemony in a single day.
I don't think the average US person realises what their government is doing. All empires end eventually, but your America is running towards the finish line chasing some dream of 'greatness' and imperial ambition. Meanwhile the average schmoe doesn't even have universal healthcare.
Possibly. But the people who matter the most in this discussion lost their trustworthiness. The government and the tech giants are working together to be a bad partner.
It unfortunately doesn't matter if the average Joe is not with them unless they do something about the state of things.
And not trying to get too political: the GOP and Trump did win the electorate and the popular vote. So the USA kinda wanted this.
I have a lot of sympathy for the American people, and many personal American friends. Still, in a democracy everyone is collectively responsible for the government. "It’s not us, it’s our government" only work for so long.
That's assuming that the population has any power, which in pretty much all countries in the world is not true. "Democracy" isn't just a value to behold, if the population has no power, it has no power and a country can't be called as such out of nowhere. Now, the people might have no actual power, but it's in their hands to get it.
True, there is usually the caveat of the electoral college and gerrymandering. That can excuse the impotence of Congress, but Trump won the popular vote. By any measure, it is a democratic result.
It's not a democracy (by definition)
Trump won the popular vote, so even without electoral college shenanigans, he would be in power.
It’s a representative democracy, in which the people delegate their legislative power to representatives and the executive power to, largely, a president. Its executive branch is stronger than a lot of democracies, but that itself does not make it "not a democracy". It turns out that its constitution is not as much of a guarantee than some people expected but, again, it does not prevent it from being a democracy. It’s on its way to Orbanization, though, which is very concerning and a sign that it might not be an actual democracy for too long.
It's not an either / or though; enough Americans are in support of the government, that's how democracy works. Nobody can speak for everyone.
From the article:
> And never forget that the post-American internet will be good for Americans. Because, in a K-shaped, bifurcated, unequal America, the trillions that American companies loot from the world don't trickle down to Americans. The average American holds a portfolio of assets that rounds to zero, and that includes stock in US tech companies.
> The average American isn't a shareholder in Big Tech, the average American is a victim of Big Tech. Liberating the world from US Big Tech is also liberating America from US Big Tech.
> We’re just as upset by these idiots
The former soviets were upset with their empire, and got rid of it themselves.
Is there any reason you all would not be capable of doing what they did?
There's no mechanism for the people to remove the president.
You can't have a loss of confidence vote that every eligible voter can partake in. There's no coalition system where one part can pull out and essentially dissolve the sitting coalition. No snap election.
By now it should be clear to anyone that the only way to remove the president, by lawful means, is to impeach and remove him. But with politicians choosing party over people, that will likely not happen anytime soon.
The median senator and congressman in the US has a net worth close to a million dollars. Other than in the very unlikely event that the US invaded, they will really never feel the effects of bad presidents.
At worst they will live under the threat of being primaried.
US politics is very much a case of "you've made your bed, now lie in it" for minimum the next 4 years.
If I understand correctly, this is to say the Soviet Union was more responsive* to its people than the United States is?
If the people wished to, could they not make it clear what the results of a primary would be, eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Unio...
If legislators are afraid of the President, should they not be more afraid of their constituents?
* in the event, it looks like it took them 4 years as well, 1988-1991, but somehow I doubt they were just telling themselves they'd sit around and wait for 2028...
9 replies →
It is fascinating how Americans see their system like something unchangeable given by god. My country is in about its sixth iteration and I'm already thinking it is time for new constitution.
Oh no, they did not. USSR collapse was precipitated by decades of economic war, where trying to keep up with US advancements depleted more and more of russian budget, finally plunging the country into collapse deep enough for elites to accept formal change of regime (of course while ensuring they stay on top).
The actual soviet people were bystanders.
Unfortunately, that makes a great deal of sense to me.
This explanation kind of implies the whole planet winds up sunk into the banana republic attractor?
(might Fahd have had more to do with the final collapse than Reagan? By opening his spigots to keep the nomenklatura from earning much hard currency with their principal export, could he have pulled a classic "the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" trillionaires' poker move?)
1 reply →
I don't think there's any suggestion that Americans are the enemy.
Indeed, the article makes it clear that (a) the issue is not individuals, and (b) the desired changes would be good for most (non-billionaire) Americans.
I mean this kindly - but Americans need to ditch their current administration fast. I don't understand how a Democrat can be a lame duck for four years but the current president can literally threaten NATO members with invasion and nothing happens. If the US goes too far, it won't be coming back. There are no more Obama years of stability. No more soft power. No more tacit agreement from the rest of the democratic world with whatever hair brained scheme US wants to do.
The US is great at making money from monopolies. It has thousands of billionaires and it has more money than sense. It is not a technological supremacy. It is at a stark risk of turning away 450m highly educated people, who traditionally would align with the US as 'shared democracies'. Imagine those same people aligning with China, not out of shared principle, but out of necessity. That would end the US hegemony in a single day.
I don't think the average US person realises what their government is doing. All empires end eventually, but your America is running towards the finish line chasing some dream of 'greatness' and imperial ambition. Meanwhile the average schmoe doesn't even have universal healthcare.
Possibly. But the people who matter the most in this discussion lost their trustworthiness. The government and the tech giants are working together to be a bad partner.
It unfortunately doesn't matter if the average Joe is not with them unless they do something about the state of things.
And not trying to get too political: the GOP and Trump did win the electorate and the popular vote. So the USA kinda wanted this.