7 ms·

Bearing in mind that this administration won the election and a lot of what they are doing is more-or-less what they campaigned on, I'm not sure democracy is at

Bearing in mind that this administration won the election and a lot of what they are doing is more-or-less what they campaigned on, I'm not sure democracy is at risk. One can pick around the details, but for example with regard to the firings, voters clearly approved of the concept of smaller, cheaper government. Which is basically what's happening. This is essentially democracy in action. Yes, the voters may come to regret their vote, yes they likely didn't understand what they were voting for, but that's the flaw in democracy we're aware of. Is this what everyone wants? Clearly not. But democracy is about majority rule, not consensus. When an election is canceled then one can talk about democracy dying. But right now, Americans are just getting what the majority voted for. They may not necessarily like it, but they voted for it. And the lack of reaction by Republicans in congress suggests that they feel the best way to be reelected is to go along with it. Like if or not, the "democracy" part is working well.

andix 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 Edit: you can use a democratic process to kill off democracy. In the end democracy is dead, and it doesn't really matter anymore why.
- coliveira 2y ago
  You're right, but that's a flaw of democracy itself. It is known since ancient Greece.
amluto 2y ago
This: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/19/donald-trump-king-imagery-021013 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/19/donald-trump-king-i... doesn’t really sound like democracy.
- andix 2y ago
  That's just a prank. But it shows how little the president cares about democracy, or even monarchy.
- bruce511 2y ago
  Democracy is not about what he does. It's all about how he comes to power. In 4 years the people will vote again.
  - devin 2y ago
    Optimistic.
    - bruce511 2y ago
      I mean, to the degree in which I expect there to be an election in 2 years, and 4 years, I suppose that counts as optimism. I've not seen any indication that elections themselves are under threat. Given that elections would happen at state level anyway (and absent disbandment of congress) those elections would elect senators and representatives. Which in turn have the power to remove a president. So yes, I see nothing to suggest that elections themselves are at risk.
      - Braxton1980 2y ago
        What about constant attacks by Republicans on whose votes counts? It's happening again right now https://www.propublica.org/article/north-carolina-voters-jefferson-griffin-supreme-court-challenge https://www.propublica.org/article/north-carolina-voters-jef... They justify these actions to their voters by lying about election fraud or exaggerating the issue.
        try_the_bass 2y ago
        Did you read this article? > The state election board and a Donald Trump-appointed federal judge have dismissed Griffin’s argument that the missing information should invalidate votes. The protests you speak of have already been dismissed (the last link in the quoted section). Seems like the system is working as intended, even under ostensibly adversarial conditions?
        Braxton1980 2y ago
scarface_74 2y ago
Trump specifically disavowed Project 2025 when he ran and now is embracing it. He never said he was going to put an unelected billionaire in charge and disregard the Constitution. > And the lack of reaction by Republicans in congress suggests that they feel the best way to be reelected is to go along with it. They are worried about getting primaried and their primary opponent being financed by Musk.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Wasn't Doge floated before the election, with Trump embracing the idea? Regardless, Trump has made a living as a (slimy) business man. No one should have heard his campaign speeches and taken them at face value. He didn't even have to be lying at the time, he could have simply changed his mind. The man seems to be driven only by two motivations: his family and making deals. The first one is often seen as admirable or honorable, the second means you'll do whatever it takes to negotiate a situation where you're better off by whatever metrics matter to you (usually money and status).
  - BLKNSLVR 2y ago
    Family is an interesting one, given five kids across three marriages, so the 'thought' is admirable and honourable, but he's unable to live up to it - which kind of educates us as to his ability to live up to his word, or his ability to deal with difficult situations calmly and rationally. And having Musk alongside him entirely destroys the family angle (media-prop children aside).
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      That really depends on your view what the "right" setup for a family is. Historically that's a husband and wife with their kids, but that isn't the only approach by far. My point there was only that he does seem to actually care about and love his family, especially (maybe mostly?) his kids.
- bruce511 2y ago
  He disavowed project 25, but it was written by all his inner circle, and he hired them into govt. So, if the voter believed him, well duh. Musk was a big part of the inner circle before the election. His track record is well known. In other words everything that is happening was predictable and predicted. Voters knew what they were voting for. Those who are surprised really weren't paying any attention.
BLKNSLVR 2y ago
I mostly agree. Trump is behaving in a way that's consistent with his prior rhetoric. Where I disagree is that there may have been an expectation that the systems outside of "The President" would have stood up for themselves more, offered more resistance and slowed him down more. The slow-moving of government is (was though to be) it's own protection to some extent.
- bruce511 2y ago
  I'm not sure what evidence suggests that Republicans in congress would grow a spine to resist this. Conversely the evidence since 2016 suggests they actively applaud it. The voters have voted out any congress people who resisted, sending a clear message that they want this path. This may not be the pretty side of democracy, but it is democracy. My point above (which I see is being downvoted) is not thst I see this as "good" , but rather that I see it as democratic. Everything going on is literally because the people voted for it. The stacking of the Supreme Court, the obstructionist behavior in congress, the tolerance for (Trump) crimes- this has all been rewarded, not penalized by voters. If democracy is the will of the people , then what you see seeing is the power of that will.
  - malcolmgreaves 2y ago
    Except it’s not really democracy. You have gerrymandered districts. You elect a leader not by who gets the most votes, but who wins a system that was designed for the benefit of white slave owners. And of course, who really believes the election results when you have Trump saying that Musk rigged some voting machines in his favor. Face it, the US no longer creates its government from the collective will of its citizens. They’ve replaced politicians with corporate backers for the actual corporations themselves.
    - bruce511 2y ago
      I buy the gerrymandering concept at the congressional level. But Trump won the popular vote. He increased his numbers in 90% of counties. He grew across all demographics. This was not a structural failure. It was very clearly a country-wide mandate.
jltsiren 2y ago
This is based on a too literal interpretation of democracy. Democracy had a bad reputation in the ancient world, because unconstrained majority decisions often led to terrible outcomes. In the modern world, democracy usually means liberal democracy, which includes things like the rule of law and constitutional protections. As a rough approximation, a constitution exists to prevent the government from doing what the voters want. A constitution in itself a worthless document, and the checks and balances have no power. The power comes from conventions. Conventions on how the constitution should be interpreted and how the people in power should act within the constitutional framework. If too many people ignore the conventions and interpret the laws and regulations literally to their advantage, democracy will die. It died in the Roman Republic, and it has died in many modern republics. Plenty of authoritarian states maintain nominally democratic institutions. And many of them became like that in a way that was at least nominally legal.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  > This is based on a too literal interpretation of democracy. Attempting to run a democracy in a non-literal way seems like a recipe for disaster. That seems to imply that citizens get to cast a vote and have their voice heard...unless those in charge decide the citizens don't know what is best for them. As a country we picked Trump. For better or worse we made that bed and we now have to lie in it.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Folks on the left would do well to remember that the same unelected bureaucracy that declared “resistance” to Trump would destroy an AOC or Sanders presidency too. Ultimately, it’s a good thing if electing the President can effectuate drastic changes in the executive branch, because that’s the only real lever voters have for affecting the largest and these days most powerful branch of government.
    - archagon 2y ago
      In a modern nation, it’s not tenable to flush the federal government down the toilet every four years.
majormajor 2y ago
Trump specifically ran saying he didn't agree with many of these plans. His actions are consistent with cheaper federal government but not smaller federal government. Just a centralized executive government that does what he says. The method is simple: say what you need to to get approval, do what you always wanted to do after you get it. See also Kennedy walking back his anti-vaccine positions to get crucial votes out of Republican senators in committee and then promptly revealing he is still anti-vax. So when he makes comments about at third term and claiming even more power... how consistent do you think that is with smaller federal government or continuing democracy?
- bruce511 2y ago
  Trump ran on saying whatever to whomever. his intentions though were obvious. He ran on cutting spending by 2 trillion. Where did people think this was going to come from? He ran on ending red tape. He ran on reducing regulation. These days folk getting approved by the senate just have to show up. No one believes RFK when he says he's changed his mind on vax. I mean, these guys are lackeys, not stupid. Democracy is about letting people who have no understanding, who pay minimal attention, who are easily led by media and populism, choose who should be in charge. It is working as designed. Do we need a better system? I'd argue yes. But all the others are worse. If the population votes him a 3rd term, If they vote for congress who supports that- that is democracy. The people will get what they vote for. We are literally seeing what "govt by the people" looks like. This is not democracy dying. It's democracy showing its flaws.
  - xnx 2y ago
    I'm not happy with the situation, but I agree with almost all of what you've said. > Do we need a better system? I'd argue yes. But all the others are worse I think there's a lot of room for improvement here. Eliminate the senate. Dramatically expand the house. Eliminate the electoral college. Sane district boundaries. Etc.
  - transcriptase 2y ago
    Perhaps the Democrats should consider letting their voters choose the candidate for once instead of anointing it. Nobody wanted Clinton except the DNC establishment, and then they lied about Biden until he was forced aside for Kamala at the behest of insiders.
rurp 2y ago
> voters clearly approved of the concept of smaller, cheaper government. Which is basically what's happening. Except that this is completely false. These haphazard cuts are a miniscule portion of the federal budget, even assuming they don't incur a whole bunch of second and third order costs. The exact same administration doing those is going to burn literal orders of magnitude more money on tax cuts for billionaires, border security theater, and other corrupt nonsense. Federal finances were in bad shape a year ago and are going to be absolutely horrid a few years from now.
- bruce511 2y ago
  Oh, I agree, finances are going to be poor. But these departments cost a lot more than salaries, so firing everyone does save real coin. And it plays very well with an electorate who wants to see "big changes". That thr changes will hurt them is the point missed by most. Killing federal departments also plays well with those encumbered by red tape. If there's no CFB there's no one getting in my way to treat customers badly. USaid buys (bought) a lot of food from US farmers , so in effect that subsidy is going away (without the bad press). The money "going to Ukraine" was being spent at US munition suppliers, so really, it'll hurt those suppliers.
pstuart 2y ago
> they are doing is more-or-less what they campaigned on, He campaigned on bringing prices down and exacting revenge. So far failing on the former and going strong on the latter. This administration has made it clear that they think that the current President should have the power of a king, and the reign to match. We're in uncharted waters and there's rocks ahead.

andix 2y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 Edit: you can use a democratic process to kill off democracy. In the end democracy is dead, and it doesn't really matter anymore why.

coliveira 2y ago
You're right, but that's a flaw of democracy itself. It is known since ancient Greece.

amluto 2y ago

This: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/19/donald-trump-king-imagery-021013 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/19/donald-trump-king-i... doesn’t really sound like democracy.

andix 2y ago
That's just a prank. But it shows how little the president cares about democracy, or even monarchy.
bruce511 2y ago
Democracy is not about what he does. It's all about how he comes to power. In 4 years the people will vote again.
- devin 2y ago
  Optimistic.
  - bruce511 2y ago
    I mean, to the degree in which I expect there to be an election in 2 years, and 4 years, I suppose that counts as optimism. I've not seen any indication that elections themselves are under threat. Given that elections would happen at state level anyway (and absent disbandment of congress) those elections would elect senators and representatives. Which in turn have the power to remove a president. So yes, I see nothing to suggest that elections themselves are at risk.
    - Braxton1980 2y ago
      What about constant attacks by Republicans on whose votes counts? It's happening again right now https://www.propublica.org/article/north-carolina-voters-jefferson-griffin-supreme-court-challenge https://www.propublica.org/article/north-carolina-voters-jef... They justify these actions to their voters by lying about election fraud or exaggerating the issue.
      - try_the_bass 2y ago
        Did you read this article? > The state election board and a Donald Trump-appointed federal judge have dismissed Griffin’s argument that the missing information should invalidate votes. The protests you speak of have already been dismissed (the last link in the quoted section). Seems like the system is working as intended, even under ostensibly adversarial conditions?
        Braxton1980 2y ago

scarface_74 2y ago

Trump specifically disavowed Project 2025 when he ran and now is embracing it. He never said he was going to put an unelected billionaire in charge and disregard the Constitution. > And the lack of reaction by Republicans in congress suggests that they feel the best way to be reelected is to go along with it. They are worried about getting primaried and their primary opponent being financed by Musk.

_heimdall 2y ago
Wasn't Doge floated before the election, with Trump embracing the idea? Regardless, Trump has made a living as a (slimy) business man. No one should have heard his campaign speeches and taken them at face value. He didn't even have to be lying at the time, he could have simply changed his mind. The man seems to be driven only by two motivations: his family and making deals. The first one is often seen as admirable or honorable, the second means you'll do whatever it takes to negotiate a situation where you're better off by whatever metrics matter to you (usually money and status).
- BLKNSLVR 2y ago
  Family is an interesting one, given five kids across three marriages, so the 'thought' is admirable and honourable, but he's unable to live up to it - which kind of educates us as to his ability to live up to his word, or his ability to deal with difficult situations calmly and rationally. And having Musk alongside him entirely destroys the family angle (media-prop children aside).
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    That really depends on your view what the "right" setup for a family is. Historically that's a husband and wife with their kids, but that isn't the only approach by far. My point there was only that he does seem to actually care about and love his family, especially (maybe mostly?) his kids.
bruce511 2y ago
He disavowed project 25, but it was written by all his inner circle, and he hired them into govt. So, if the voter believed him, well duh. Musk was a big part of the inner circle before the election. His track record is well known. In other words everything that is happening was predictable and predicted. Voters knew what they were voting for. Those who are surprised really weren't paying any attention.

BLKNSLVR 2y ago

I mostly agree. Trump is behaving in a way that's consistent with his prior rhetoric. Where I disagree is that there may have been an expectation that the systems outside of "The President" would have stood up for themselves more, offered more resistance and slowed him down more. The slow-moving of government is (was though to be) it's own protection to some extent.

bruce511 2y ago
I'm not sure what evidence suggests that Republicans in congress would grow a spine to resist this. Conversely the evidence since 2016 suggests they actively applaud it. The voters have voted out any congress people who resisted, sending a clear message that they want this path. This may not be the pretty side of democracy, but it is democracy. My point above (which I see is being downvoted) is not thst I see this as "good" , but rather that I see it as democratic. Everything going on is literally because the people voted for it. The stacking of the Supreme Court, the obstructionist behavior in congress, the tolerance for (Trump) crimes- this has all been rewarded, not penalized by voters. If democracy is the will of the people , then what you see seeing is the power of that will.
- malcolmgreaves 2y ago
  Except it’s not really democracy. You have gerrymandered districts. You elect a leader not by who gets the most votes, but who wins a system that was designed for the benefit of white slave owners. And of course, who really believes the election results when you have Trump saying that Musk rigged some voting machines in his favor. Face it, the US no longer creates its government from the collective will of its citizens. They’ve replaced politicians with corporate backers for the actual corporations themselves.
  - bruce511 2y ago
    I buy the gerrymandering concept at the congressional level. But Trump won the popular vote. He increased his numbers in 90% of counties. He grew across all demographics. This was not a structural failure. It was very clearly a country-wide mandate.

jltsiren 2y ago

This is based on a too literal interpretation of democracy. Democracy had a bad reputation in the ancient world, because unconstrained majority decisions often led to terrible outcomes. In the modern world, democracy usually means liberal democracy, which includes things like the rule of law and constitutional protections. As a rough approximation, a constitution exists to prevent the government from doing what the voters want. A constitution in itself a worthless document, and the checks and balances have no power. The power comes from conventions. Conventions on how the constitution should be interpreted and how the people in power should act within the constitutional framework. If too many people ignore the conventions and interpret the laws and regulations literally to their advantage, democracy will die. It died in the Roman Republic, and it has died in many modern republics. Plenty of authoritarian states maintain nominally democratic institutions. And many of them became like that in a way that was at least nominally legal.

_heimdall 2y ago
> This is based on a too literal interpretation of democracy. Attempting to run a democracy in a non-literal way seems like a recipe for disaster. That seems to imply that citizens get to cast a vote and have their voice heard...unless those in charge decide the citizens don't know what is best for them. As a country we picked Trump. For better or worse we made that bed and we now have to lie in it.
- rayiner 2y ago
  Folks on the left would do well to remember that the same unelected bureaucracy that declared “resistance” to Trump would destroy an AOC or Sanders presidency too. Ultimately, it’s a good thing if electing the President can effectuate drastic changes in the executive branch, because that’s the only real lever voters have for affecting the largest and these days most powerful branch of government.
  - archagon 2y ago
    In a modern nation, it’s not tenable to flush the federal government down the toilet every four years.

majormajor 2y ago

Trump specifically ran saying he didn't agree with many of these plans. His actions are consistent with cheaper federal government but not smaller federal government. Just a centralized executive government that does what he says. The method is simple: say what you need to to get approval, do what you always wanted to do after you get it. See also Kennedy walking back his anti-vaccine positions to get crucial votes out of Republican senators in committee and then promptly revealing he is still anti-vax. So when he makes comments about at third term and claiming even more power... how consistent do you think that is with smaller federal government or continuing democracy?

bruce511 2y ago
Trump ran on saying whatever to whomever. his intentions though were obvious. He ran on cutting spending by 2 trillion. Where did people think this was going to come from? He ran on ending red tape. He ran on reducing regulation. These days folk getting approved by the senate just have to show up. No one believes RFK when he says he's changed his mind on vax. I mean, these guys are lackeys, not stupid. Democracy is about letting people who have no understanding, who pay minimal attention, who are easily led by media and populism, choose who should be in charge. It is working as designed. Do we need a better system? I'd argue yes. But all the others are worse. If the population votes him a 3rd term, If they vote for congress who supports that- that is democracy. The people will get what they vote for. We are literally seeing what "govt by the people" looks like. This is not democracy dying. It's democracy showing its flaws.
- xnx 2y ago
  I'm not happy with the situation, but I agree with almost all of what you've said. > Do we need a better system? I'd argue yes. But all the others are worse I think there's a lot of room for improvement here. Eliminate the senate. Dramatically expand the house. Eliminate the electoral college. Sane district boundaries. Etc.
- transcriptase 2y ago
  Perhaps the Democrats should consider letting their voters choose the candidate for once instead of anointing it. Nobody wanted Clinton except the DNC establishment, and then they lied about Biden until he was forced aside for Kamala at the behest of insiders.

rurp 2y ago

> voters clearly approved of the concept of smaller, cheaper government. Which is basically what's happening. Except that this is completely false. These haphazard cuts are a miniscule portion of the federal budget, even assuming they don't incur a whole bunch of second and third order costs. The exact same administration doing those is going to burn literal orders of magnitude more money on tax cuts for billionaires, border security theater, and other corrupt nonsense. Federal finances were in bad shape a year ago and are going to be absolutely horrid a few years from now.

bruce511 2y ago
Oh, I agree, finances are going to be poor. But these departments cost a lot more than salaries, so firing everyone does save real coin. And it plays very well with an electorate who wants to see "big changes". That thr changes will hurt them is the point missed by most. Killing federal departments also plays well with those encumbered by red tape. If there's no CFB there's no one getting in my way to treat customers badly. USaid buys (bought) a lot of food from US farmers , so in effect that subsidy is going away (without the bad press). The money "going to Ukraine" was being spent at US munition suppliers, so really, it'll hurt those suppliers.

pstuart 2y ago

> they are doing is more-or-less what they campaigned on, He campaigned on bringing prices down and exacting revenge. So far failing on the former and going strong on the latter. This administration has made it clear that they think that the current President should have the power of a king, and the reign to match. We're in uncharted waters and there's rocks ahead.