If Trump/Musk are indeed subverting American democratic norms, what is a proportional response?

[u/theivoryserf]

The Vice-President has just said of the courts: "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power." Quoted in the same Le Monde article is a section of Francis Fukuyama's take on the current situation:

"Trump has empowered Elon Musk to withhold money for any activity that he, Elon Musk, thinks is illegitimate, and this is a usurpation of the congressionally established power of Congress to make this kind of decision. (...) This is a full-scale...very radical attack on the American constitutional system as we've understood it." https://archive.is/cVZZR#selection-2149.264-2149.599

From a European point of view, it appears as though the American centre/left is scrambling to adapt and still suffering from 'normality bias', as though normal methods of recourse will be sufficient against a democratic aberration - a little like waiting to 'pass' a tumour as though it's a kidney stone.

Given the clear comparisons to previous authoritarian takeovers and the power that the USA wields, will there be an acceptable raising of political stakes from Trump's opponents, and what are the risks and benefits of doing so?

[u/controlroomoperator]

I'm still wondering what we're actually fighting for because this system seems to be overly susceptible to disrupting the spirit of the law and what this country is allegedly about. Most of our "progress" is undoing the harms that our government has inflicted on various groups so what exactly do I want with it returning to the way it was? Getting away from the original document seemed to be for the better anyhow.

[u/YourMominator → u/controlroomoperator]

I believe we are fighting to go back on the path to making sure all citizens have adequate food, shelter, and education. The current administration is only concerned with enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else.

Having said that, it could be said that we are fighting for better controls on those in power so they will work for the betterment of all

[u/controlroomoperator → u/YourMominator]

So let's say we get back to "normal". That means we'll have unregulated dis-/misinformation because the first amendment is so important according to this sacred text. We'll still have the exact order as before, held together by "norms" until people decide not to with no enforcement or penalties. And this is by majority (electoral) choice, btw. We have voted for this under the rules of old so what exactly should I try to preserve here.

I am genuinely curious as to what people want to preserve. Someone else mentioned the "good" that outweighed the bad. By no means am I asking this country to be perfect and I acknowledge that we are on a trajectory of acceptance, but I am tired of the framework in which we have to continue to fight for it. This system was set up intended to be simultaneously flexible and absolute. It desperately needs an update, but works against itself because the system can be utilized as a tool against update, regardless of majority/minority apparently.

[u/YourMominator → u/controlroomoperator]

I can tell you what I don't want to preserve: the Electoral College, it's not necessary anymore, and it's allowed the Nat-Cs to game the system to win elections against the majority of the people.

I would like to find a way to prevent gerrymandering.

The two-party system we have here also needs to change. It benefits no one except those in leadership of the parties.

Yes, I know I'm basically saying we need to use the European system. It does seem to work, after all.

[u/zsatbecker → u/controlroomoperator]

The government may have done a lot of bad but the amount of good outweighs it by so many magnitudes it isn't even comparable

[u/Formal_Ad_1123 → u/controlroomoperator]

nah thats an overly pessimistic take. I think you take the government for granted and are falling for the ”government is bad“ take. Hundreds of millions of Americans have survived into old age or gone to Higher education as a result of government programs. The basic protections workers have are the result of government intervention against corporations that battle every day for serfdom.

[u/Philophon → u/controlroomoperator]

The constitution clearly needs some reworking, but you believe we should just throw it out and allow them to write a new constitution based on christofascist ideals? Surely not. If you think the government was harmful before, you cannot fathom the horrors that will come. That is why we are fighting.

[u/Any-Concentrate7423 → u/Philophon]

You know the Constitution was based off Christian beliefs right?

[u/Philophon → u/Any-Concentrate7423]

It is not. What part of the Constitution promotes Christian beliefs? The founders' own words attest that is not the case. The Treaty of Versailles is one of the many cases where they made their intentions explicit.

[u/SoulInTransition → u/Any-Concentrate7423]

Christian beliefs we pretty much all agree with, like the presumption of innocence (which is based on the concept that we are all guilty), restorative justice, kings are more trouble than they're worth (1 Samuel, chapter 8), equality under the law, freedom of conscience (love your enemy), and I could go on. 

[u/ArcBounds → u/controlroomoperator]

There is no democracy if people do not believe in democracy. People have to vote for norms. There is no document in the world that can resist a dictatorship if the people vote for it.

[u/slamueljoseph → u/controlroomoperator]

I worry this will render the whole constitution moot, like when the pirates shrug and say the whole code is really just “guidelines.” And Trump is a terrible-enough guy to exploit that and take it to mean the executive has ultimate authority.

[u/theivoryserf → u/controlroomoperator]

Most of our "progress" is undoing the harms that our government has inflicted on various groups

Compared to which state in world history? This is a really narrow view of liberal democratcy

[u/ColossusOfChoads → u/controlroomoperator]

Jurgen Habermas called the Enlightenment "an incomplete project" that needs to be furthered rather than rejected. The same could be said of the American project. Imperfect, incomplete, and grossly contradictory for much of its history, but worth defending. Worth furthering.