Are Democracies robust or fragile systems of governance?

[dullard]

Can 1 million of the them actually:
1. Get together

Easily. I think you understimate the country's divide and the power of certain media and certain politicians.

2. coordinate a proper attack with strategy
3. not get divided with internal affairs and dissent
4. Then actuall occupy any meaningful city

You were again confusing (1) a war with (2) a successful war.

 

[Torn Mind]

You do the bolded a LOT actually and most of the time you're WAY off base.



What you fail to take into account (and omission is usually your issue) is that large portions of the Federal government WILL "pick a side" and the same can be said for the military.

Having said that, I sincerely hope you are correct about the odds but I 100% wouldn't bet on it.

Oh, so your saying there's a military coup imminent? Well, then there should be names of the big bad. The politicians are usually fat cat lawyers who love money that the federal government has; the contention to whom gets the rewards. Corporations and 1%ers won't be happy if war occurs.

 

[Captante]

Oh, so your saying there's a military coup imminent? Well, then there should be names of the big bad. The politicians are usually fat cat lawyers who love money that the federal government has; the contention to whom gets the rewards. Corporations and 1%ers won't be happy if war occurs.

No .... actually YOU said that just now I did not.

What I said was that there IS a decent chance of some kind of civil war in the US in the next 5-10 years and if it happens parts of both the feds and the military will come down on opposing sides.

And NOBODY will be "happy" if we have another civil war in America with the exception of POS white supremacist groups like the Proud Boys. (and possibly the Orange Dumpster!)

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Depends is the only right answer here.

Modern American democracy is basically nothing like the "democracy" that most Americans lived under in 1780. America has really had three *foundational* shifts in governance over our ~250 years and they've all been paid in blood: The Revolution to decide the relationship between colonists and the crown, the Civil War to decide the question of Slavery and the relationship of states with their citizens and the Federal Gov., and The New Deal Era/World War 2 to redefine the relationship between the Federal Government and the individual citizen.

There have been smaller changes between those periods but they were less drastic.

I would define our Democracy as relatively robust *at this point*, largely thanks to the blood price we have paid for our institutions and the inertia behind them. This isn't to say that the edges don't fray or that they do not require vigilance and maintenance, because they definitely do.

We look at other countries and see democracy as fragile because they often don't make it passed the civil war phase, which if the Confederacy had managed to break free I doubt the US (and even the Confederacy for that matter) would have persisted for as long as we have.

 

[Torn Mind]

Easily. I think you understimate the country's divide and the power of certain media and certain politicians.

You were again confusing (1) a war with (2) a successful war.

The US democracy required a civil war. Looks like it is headed for another.

You hold a grand web of emotionally associated ideas inside your personal schema. But the plain language you use would lead a reader to infer that the US is headed for another civil war, not just a war or a series of violent protests/outbursts, or things like one-time terrorist acts or something akin to a quickly shut down revolt like Nat Turner's Rebellion.

The concepts of "we're going to have conditions like it's 1861-1865" is materially different from "we're going to have some cadre of individuals led by a charismatic leader in a locality go around and kill 60 or so individuals but stop them". In the Civil War, states voted to formally secede, the industries got geared up for war proper, there were battles on land and blockade. A civil war in the American context implies a large scale of conflict and effect, not merely just a small uprising. Jan 6 managed to honeytrapand capture about 2000 people.

The term civil war also implies an internal conflict for sovereignty, and many other components in dispute. For something to go beyond terrorism and into a civil war, there's needs to more than just "violence against government".

Any war does require those with intent to start a war to actually be able to do war. In addition being head for war carries a reasonable implied thought that living and business conditions would be war-like. Based on you commenting, just having a "first attack" is enough to constitute a "war" equivalent to the war in Ukraine.

In addition, you negligently failed to post another question asked in the poll in what specific situations would violence against government is in people's opinion justified. I already with the matter of violence against is not equivalent to wanting to take over and replace.

13.(IF EVERJUSTIFIED) Under what circumstances would it be justifiable to take violent action against the United States government?(Up to twoopen-endresponses accepted)
Government violates or takesaway rights or freedoms/Oppressespeople 22
Government no longer a democracy/Becomes a dictatorship/Coup/Military takes over 15
Government violates constitution 13
Government abuses power/Tyranny 12
Government is violent againstcitizens/Safety at risk 11
Government not working in citizens’ best interests/will of people8
Corruption/Fraud 5
To stop communism or socialism 4
American Revolution/Declarationof Independence/Reference to founding fathers 3
President or government does notaccept election results/Electionscancelled/Widespread voter fraud 3
Government is wrong (in general) 3
Nazis/Fascists take power 2
Other 7
No opinion/No answer 12

Given that questions appear politically neutral, there could many events that lead do such answers. The top 7 reasons are not that scandalous justifications once you think about it.

You think McConell wants a war? He's too busy sucking Toyota's behind so they would pick Kentucky for their factory, or big oil and Wall Street. A war is basically a giant bill for the government to pay and a PR disaster. You also lack awareness of who really gets in a politicians' ear, which are lobbyists. One lobbyist can hold more power than 1,000 laypeople living a "normal life".

 

[Muse]

Their first democracy failed after 2 centuries, not 2 millennia. It was followed by decades of the Peisistratids Tyranny.

Not saying their democracy lasted 2000 years, just that the idea of democracy that they created has endured.