Democrats present a weak front against strongmen opponents and are surprised when they lose voters who don’t trust the Dems to protect them from autocrats
Simply put, Trump lacks the discipline, credibility and knowledge to implement most of the policies he explicitly endorses, let alone those Democrats accuse him of planning. It’s reasonable for voters to question Democrats’ dire warnings based on what they have seen with their own eyes.
Trump is incompetent, but the architects for project 2025 will be the ones implementing the policies. Love how this article completely ignores that connection. This article is garbage.
The only reason he didn’t do more damage his first term is because he didn’t appoint enough sycophants.
They only have a commitment of talking about Democracy, not protecting it
That’s not true because a lot of election protection work in the U.S. comes from the Democrats
I mean, it’s a logical argument, all except for the fact Trump has been on his knees servicing Vladimir Putin for the past 8 years, whilst Joe Biden has been giving Vlad bloody noses through Ukraine since Russia invaded.
Republicans vote for Trump, who is friends with Tyrants and Autocrats because they’re the only people he understands, and respects.
I am not saying I agree with the article, but I am trying to understand the psychology behind why elections are razor thin even when the Republican candidate is immensely incompetent and unqualified. I think this support is from consistent and strong messaging, which the Dems can lack. Ultimately people want to feel safe against the unknown, economic or otherwise. I am saying the Dems can be stronger about that messaging, I am not saying the Dems need to become autocratic or strongmen.
And I agree with all your points 100%, Democrats do not fight for Democracy with near as much intensity as Republican have fought to destroy it, and there are quite a lot of voters who value the projection of brute strength over diplomatic informed intelligent logical arguments
The Hill - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Hill:
Wiki: reliable - The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. The publication’s opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. The publication’s contributor pieces, labeled in their bylines, receive minimal editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources.
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Search topics on Ground.News
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4961898-trump-democracy-warning-voters/
Democracy is the foundation of this country.
It should have been, but it wasn’t.
If democracy was overwhelmingly popular, then we wouldn’t have gotten the electoral college.
Or given each state the same number if Senate seats. That used to be “balanced” by the House, but then we froze the number and it’s off too.
We’re taught in school that democracy was a foundation of this country, but it’s bullshit revisionist history.
This is wrong and has been debunked many times.
See for example https://www.thoughtco.com/republic-vs-democracy-4169936 or https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/yes-constitution-democracy/616949/ (archive: https://archive.is/FbuL5 )
Granted, some specific decisions like the EC could have gone better. But overall, the US is a democracy - specifically a representative democracy.
In fact, to say otherwise is a major GOP talking point. For example (from the Atlantic article),
Republicans such as Senator Mike Lee of Utah have taken to reminding the public that “we’re not a democracy.”
It is quaint that so many Republicans, embracing a president who routinely tramples constitutional norms, have suddenly found their voice in pointing out that, formally, the country is a republic.Of course the counter example is a theocratic republic. A living example? The Islamic Republic of Iran.
Iran citizens living in Iran vote for their President, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Iranian_presidential_election#Opinion_polling_and_forecasts
They also vote for their version of “member of Congress” (ok so they don’t call it Congress), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_districts_of_Iran & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Consultative_Assembly#Constituencies
But while the President of Iran is the head of government there, he’s second to the divinely appointed supreme leader, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran (in practice the SL appoints members to a Guardians Council, who vet approve members of the Assembly of Experts, who reappoint the SL - a bunch of silly layers for the SL to basically elect himself) - so this is a republic where folks technically have their representatives but the power lies elsewhere.
I see people say this all the time. It is not revisionist history. This is the American form of democracy. It is what is in the constitution. How much more foundational do you need? Our foundational document defines how our democracy works.
The only universal definition of Republic is “not a monarchy”. That doesn’t mean we get to run the spectrum from anarchy to totalitarian regime.
Exactly. The most common rebuttal I’ve heard to this is that the word “democracy” doesn’t appear in the U.S. Constitution. However, other ideas like “freedom of religion” and “separation of powers” also do not appear as exact quotes in the Constitution.
Instead, the concept embodied by these phrases do exist and are written into the very fabric of the Constitution.
Here’s a link which explains it best: https://www.thoughtco.com/republic-vs-democracy-4169936
The United States, while basically a republic, is best described as a “representative democracy.”
Also, back in the founders era, they would have understood democracy to mean what we today consider direct democracy. They thought that was too messy (to have every citizen vote on every new law etc) which is why went with a slightly different model. So they went with representative democracy instead of direct democracy. Even the Electoral College technically fits with this definition - we use the statewide popular vote (direct voting) to pick our representatives, the electors, who will represent us in the vote for the US President and VP. (Except for the two states that do it by district and split their EC votes, but in that case it’s the district wide popular vote that picks the representative.)
The problem isn’t the democracy bit. It’s the enabling racism and genocide, being spineless, and blind trust in institutions and civility bit that could cost them the election.
Agreed. I also don’t quite buy the premise of the article - see https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/28/us/politics/kamala-harris-donald-trump-2024-election.html / https://archive.is/EwIkC for the positive vibes and optimism that Harris’s own campaign is seeing by going this route.
