You’d think a hegemony with a 100-years tradition of upkeeping democracy against major non-democratic players, would have some mechanism that would prevent itself from throwing down it’s key ideology.

Is it really that the president is all that decides about the future of democracy itself? Is 53 out of 100 senate seats really enough to make country fall into authoritarian regime? Is the army really not constitutionally obliged to step in and save the day?

I’d never think that, of all places, American democracy would be the most volatile.

    • Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Who would have thought a government created in model of a constitutional monarchy would do this?

      Oh right, all the people who opposed the US constitution. People forget the Anti Federalists every time.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Except most of the Anti Federalists weren’t arguing against the specifics of the model, they were arguing against a centralized government at all. Which had literally just failed.

      • samus12345@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        9 hours ago

        I guess ignoring Washington’s wishes foreshadowed what the US would eventually become.

        • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 hours ago

          To some extent, political parties are naturally occuring . The group dynamics of a legislative body will naturally result in groups forming around specific issues and even philosophies. But there is definitely a strong argument to be made that we’ve made them far too official, and far too entrenched.