This is true of the Democratic leadership, most notably Schumer and Jeffries. But there are plenty of Democrats in congress and (most importantly) among the voters who do recognize this threat. I think the leadership will change (and obviously must change).
…I’ll believe it when I see it. I have no confidence in it happening although obviously I hope that it does.
And for the record I’m seeing the same where I live. The NZ Labour Party shows signs of following the lead of the UK Labour Party that has embraced austerity/anti-trans policies. Its enough that I’m shifting to another party, we have proportional representation here so a vote for a minority party isn’t a waste. But this is a global thing. And I don’t have much faith that the Democrats will do what they need to do because most of the centre-left parties around the world are doing the same thing.
It’s debatable whether America could ever really be called a democracy in the first place. A country that established itself by ensuring that only white men could vote, and even then didn’t vote directly for President but rather for people who vote for President, and making its upper parliamentary house non-proportional and up for election only every 6 years, is not a fully democratic nation, and contains in it the seeds to drift in either direction (more democratic or more anti-democratic).
The pendulum has swung both ways a number of times in history. If you measure it from the passage of the Civil Rights act then we’re on a backswing, and have entered a highly abnormal situation. That’s the frame of reference for most of us. But if you consider that for the majority of American history women couldn’t vote, minorities couldn’t vote, and random armed gangs of white men could drag you out of your house and hang you for race-related reasons, and that gerrymandering and other anti-demiocratic political manipulation was quite common, right now we’re just retreading familiar ground.
What I think is different now is that in the past, though white supremacists have always been concerned about losing power, they’ve never been concerned about losing all their power. Right now they’re facing the prospect of permanently being an equal or lesser (non-supreme) voice in the democracy, so they’re trying to dismantle the levers of democracy. Worse, they’ve committed actual crimes in doing so, hence they’re not just facing a loss of political power but the prospect of prison.
There’s no guarantee they’ll succeed. But the levers of democracy have proven wholly inadequate to preventing these maniacs from gaining power. Now that they actually have gained power it’s far from clear that democratic process will be adequate to remove them from power.
Voting and pressuring your representatives is required, and you should disdain anyone who suggests it’s useless or unnecessary. But at the same time, it’s the bare minimum. Participatory democracy alone will likely not be adequate to tackle this problem. This is a very dangerous moment. Historically we’ve been here before and prevailed, but this outcome can’t be taken for granted.
I’ve been watching this guy lately and really like every thing he says. If he leads, I believe I’d follow.
We can all vote for representatives. We cannot all afford meaningful access to representatives. A lot of this is money, but a lot is numbers: each of my sentators represents nearly forty million people.
My complaint about voting above is that I don’t have representation. I can vote for a human, but not one that will actually represent me. Those with millions to spend can. How is that not post democracy?
How is that any different from the USA in 1820? Hint: it isn’t.
How is it different? No senator represented forty million people is how. Access was restricted, so it wasn’t fully democratic, but once we gave access to all but then made that access impossible, I’m calling “post.”
You’re right the number of people per senator or rep are larger today than 150 years ago.
But by and large access to senators and reps has always been rationed on the ability to pay.
Which does little, and yes, in Congress they are vocal, it is just that the media doesnt report much meaningless talk.
Not really.
Good points.
The elections of 2025 proved the USA is NOT “post democracy”.
You are not the OP nor are you an American. Since you arent the OP your personal opinion is not what we are debating here.
Biden pushed back, so this is clearly not true. Newsom just pushed back in a BIG way.
Correct.
I dont know if anyone noticed but the Democratic House Leadership just passed a ACA tax credit extension, joined by several of the more sane Republicans. That is being effective. Ture, the Senate may not pass it, but now it has been made clear exactly what party is trying to take away peoples health care. This will come to roost in November 2026.
How about the people who have been marinating in RWNJ media for years and think the country is being overrun by violent mobs of illegal immigrants, see no difference between Venezuela and past U.S. interventions, and think the poor woman shot in Minneapolis was a provocateur who intentionally tried to run over an ICE officer?
(I got to hear all this yesterday from a friend and co-worker who I’ve known for years.)
Why on earth would you be friends with someone like that?
I’ve known him for 18 years now. He wasn’t like that when I first met him.
And even now I don’t think he’s a bad or evil person, just woefully ignorant and/or misinformed from what I can tell. I have lots of relatives in Texas who fall into the same boat.
He’s in a cult. Some cult members can be de-programmed, but many cannot, and will literally kill themselves or others when commanded by the leader.
…whoah. Non-Americans aren’t allowed to have opinions now?
This was a split-thread. “Post-democracy” hasn’t been defined by the OP(who is the OP simply because their post was the one that was split) nor any one else. But I can’t imagine how post-“democracy” would only ever mean “fascist dictatorship.” So I’ve provided my definition for one reason only: to give my responses context.
Personal opinions are allowed here. Everyone else is debating their personal opinions, why can’t I?
Biden isn’t the “Democrats.” But are you talking about this Biden?
And I’m speaking in broad strokes here. “Not pushing back” doesn’t mean never pushing back. It means the pushing back that they do would be largely (but not necessarily entirely) ineffective. I’m painting a picture. Not writing a thesis. So of course sometimes Biden “pushed back.” But often that “push back” was largely ineffective. And he was also sometimes lock-stock-in-agreement.
And that also depends on how you define “push back”. But you don’t want me to define that as well, do you?
I just looked up Google News for Newsom and apart from an article titled “Gavin Newsom on Democrats, 2028 and His Fruit-Only Breakfasts” I didn’t see anything particularly newsworthy. Not a particular fan of the guy myself. I couldn’t imagine a fruit-only breakfast. But apparently I’m not American, so I can’t have an opinion.
Yes, Jacobin indeed falls neatly into this category:
The fact that Jacobin is unhappy with what policies Biden has pushed is not evidence that we are in a post-Democracy era; it is evidence that Biden was not, in fact, a Socialist (despite Fox News’ whining to the contrary). Great! Fantastic! Thanks, Biden!
Do you have a reputable source for the opinion that Biden did not “push back” on Republicans?
Biden did a great job of pushing back and even getting real policy pushed through:
Certainly he did far, far, FAR more to push back on Republicans and their harmful policies than virtue signalers like Jill Stein and co. have.
…it was an article from 2020.
And I didn’t post it as evidence we are in a “post-Democracy era.” What are you even on about?
I don’t need to.
As I said to DrDeth I said Democrats, NOT Biden, and I clarified I was speaking in broad strokes, and that "not pushing back” doesn’t mean never pushing back.
I’m not sure what relevance Jill Stein has here. Only the Republicans and Democrats have any real political power in America. Well, the Democrats…not so much at the moment. They lost the House, the Senate, the Executive and the Supreme Court for a generation.
…ok, and? Again, who cares what Jacobin thinks now or what they thought in 2020?
I’m sure we can find Fox News articles lambasting Biden, as well as OANN or Breitbart articles. Yes, people who are writing from a fundamentally Illiberal perspective will be unhappy with a Liberal politician. That’s not particularly remarkable.
Speaking in such broad strokes that it’s impossible to ever provide any evidence when called on it is a remarkable skill. I don’t find it very convincing, though.
The House and Senate are up for grabs in this year’s election, and despite the best efforts of “it doesn’t matter Democrats don’t push back” blokes I think it’s very likely that Dems will take those back.
The Executive is far less powerful when it doesn’t have a pliant Legislature.
Even the courts can be addressed, if Democrats win in 2028.
That’s how fascism works. They might not seem like bad people, but they do great harm in the world and giving them aid and comfort supports their fascism.
…obviously you don’t.
But my question was directed specifically to DrDeth. I asked them “did they mean this Biden?” My question had a very specific context and you are quoting it out of context.
I didn’t “lambast” Biden. I asked DrDeth a question. I could lambast him if you like. But probably not here.
But we all speak in broad strokes. For example, I’ve read plenty of articles on Fox News that don’t lambast Biden. But I’m not going to nitpick you on that. Because I understand that you are speaking broadly.
:: shrugs :: Thank you for sharing your opinion, I guess?
:: shrugs again :: They very well might. But as long as the current leadership is in place, IMHO they will be largely ineffective. (For clarity: by “largely ineffective” that doesn’t mean they won’t ever be effective. I’m speaking in broad strokes.)
The damage has been done.
Sure. If the Democrats actually decided to do something about it.
No, I’m quoting it precisely in context. @DrDeth said that Biden pushed back on the Republicans, and you responded “Did you mean this Biden” with a link to the Jacobin article as if the fact that they don’t like Biden implies that Biden did not push back against Republicans.
If by largely ineffective you mean they will fail to oppose Republican policy, you are clearly factually wrong about that. If by largely ineffective you mean they will fail to push the sort of Socialist nonsense favored by Jacobin then I agree and I think that’s great.