You're viewing a single thread.
The myth of checks and balances.
The myth of checks and balances.
The myth of (checks notes) every single admirable or positive aspect I was raised to believe was true about our system of government and our values as a nation.
I'm in my 50s. Somewhere WAY down the list of shit that I'm absolutely furious about is that I can no longer pretend that a single thing about US values or the resilient and balanced design of our government has turned out to be true.
Every single thing that has ever benefitted non-wealthy non-white non-male non-straight or non-cis people in the US has been hard won with blood over decades or centuries. And we're well on the way to undoing nearly all of those after not even two months of a despot in office.
Every thing I have ever been taught about what made the US great or special or even good has been a lie. It's very plain to see now. It turns out we had some elected people superficially following the rules, and that was really the only thing keeping it all together.
Honestly, I am just hoping that the new country/countries that emerge from the smoking heap of America will try harder to enshrine democracy. Likely that will take decades.
It feels alot like margaret atwood wasn't writing fiction at the moment. The religious and/or far right wing seems to be getting their way over there and it honestly feels like the handmaids tale is their vision. At least that is my take here from the other side of the pond.
As an American woman, I’m just waiting for the day they disable my credit card… that’s how the show starts out.
That's scary as hell! I also worry about how the world is changing because of your current admimistration, if you can call it that, but actually fearing about your basic rights like that really sucks. Wish you all the best and hope it never comes to extremes like that!
she largely wasn't. she was writing a warning and no one took it.
Their vision is basically Saudi Arabia.
Yeah, I've been referring to them as the Gilead Party fairly often since the show came out. (I missed the book somehow.)
Well you're in luck because the book has a sequel after the success of the show
I did not know that either thank you!
Oh yeah, 100% for sure I will die of old age before we have recovered (whatever that will mean in this context) from this. I wish I was wealthy enough to do more than just hope really hard I can keep my family safe until then.
hijacks thread
Whoa. Instance switch? Or impostor? 🤔
I'm mid-switching.
No really, I am. 😆
But I'm kinda flattered that you recognized my username.
This account still exists because I want to sort through and preserve some saved threads and other stuff.
Gotcha. No harm in keeping it alive as a backup, either. A lot of us have multiples for variety of reasons. Unless there was some drama that I missed, in which case, do whatever you need to. I think slrpnk will be a good fit either way 👍
No particular drama, mostly that being a member of .ml sends a message that I'm generally not trying to send, and through no fault of anyone at .ml I just kinda got tired of having to deal with that from time to time.
edited to add - I'm also not a communist, which didn't really seem to bother anyone at .ml, but that's all wrapped up in the whole "unintentional messaging" thing.
Is there a reason you aren't a communist?
Are you a capitalist?
I’m in my 50s. Somewhere WAY down the list of shit that I’m absolutely furious about is that I can no longer pretend that a single thing about US values or the resilient and balanced design of our government has turned out to be true.
You should be mad at yourself for believing this bullshit for 50+ years.
Well, I didn't just stop believing it all this morning. It's been a process. This is just the nail in the coffin.
Ignore them. People like to feel superior. The like to think that they’re somehow different and would never have been so easily fooled. They’re just fooling themselves.
They don’t realize that dogging you for not having your realization earlier is based on the exact same logical flaws that have led to republicans believing that poor people are only poor due to a failure of character, thus believing we shouldn’t waste our time on helping people who don’t deserve it.
Thanks buddy. 🙂
Again, it’s enforced by willingness, a want to uphold the US Constitution.
Once you decide you’re done doing that the US Constitution is done.
It is done. Everyone will continue to sit on their asses waiting for a correction that will never come. It’s already broken. And people act like it’s not because they know no other way to be.
And when you complain, the rest of the world calls you alarmist
The checks and balances were there, but they've been methodically corrupted and dismantled over decades without anyone doing anything about it.
That’s just it. There is no perfect government. The government is made of humans, and humans are imperfect. Any government, no matter how pure/noble its founding intentions, will eventually become corrupt need to be replaced.
We’re finally feeling that in America after a good 250 year run.
Alexis de Tocqueville, a Frenchman sent to analyze the American government in its early days— specifically studying its checks and balances—called it way back in 1835. There’s nothing to stop tyranny in America. Well worth reading his writings, “Democracy in America.”
The checks and balances were never what they were advertised to be. They haven't really been corrupted, just revealed to be more something people followed out of convention than an actual working system.
The US founding fathers were a bunch of mainly rich dudes, mostly in their 20s, from the 1700s. Their knowledge was limited to what a rich kid could in the 1700s. They had a decent grasp on how the English parliamentary system worked, some vague ideas of how systems worked in ancient Rome and Greece, they'd read a bunch of philosophers, and had a lot of youthful enthusiasm.
They come from a time 200 years before Game Theory and a century before the beginnings of Political Science. When they came up with these checks and balances, they didn't do it in any kind of formal way, trying to attack the system as a clever adversary would. There were all kinds of assumptions baked into their models of how the system would work that they never questioned. As a result, their system of checks and balances doesn't stand up to a popular party that wants the US to be a dictatorship.
Democracy is a mental construct. It only constrains you if you believe in it. But it can give you over power as long as you convince enough people to do it. It will, however, never be restored once broken through violent means without the use of violent means.
States, rule of law, democracy (and every other government type) and constitutions are mental constructs. They are linked together by the idea of a natural dependency. The only thing upholding any and all of these is the willingness to uphold the oath sworn by all those granted public authority, be that legislature, executive or judicial. They all check each other - in theory. Which is why they swear on the constitution - not a person - because that is the very thing that granted them the power and that acts as the web that weaves them all together.
If they stop checking and balancing each other than there's nothing holding the statedom together - there's afterall no natural consequence to breaking the web
I mean the checks and balances are definitely there. They've just been taken over too. You just can't have democracy without the people having faith in democracy.
Yeah... Kinda miffs people blaming the balances and checks. Like, they are there. They're just being ignored. Lmfao. Cause some dipshits gave the fascists all 3 branches
I feel like if controlling all three branches is enough to undo the whole constitution, it wasnt that good. If they wanted to prevent a tyrant, they shouldve thought to ask "what if that tyrant is popular"
I mean... A popular tyrant will win no matter the political system, because who's gonna do anything about them?
Turkey had a pretty good system for that until the solution was circumvented by religos
If they wanted to prevent a tyrant, they shouldve thought to ask "what if that tyrant is popular"
They did dude. What do you think the 2nd amendment is for.
Also, you say that like controlling all 3 branches is a small thing. It means you control the whole government....
The weakness with the Second Amendment is that it effectively relies on a minority winning if it gets to that point. I hope I don't have to point out that wars that come down to numbers rarely end well
If the majority supports tyranny, were fucked anyways. Do you not understand that?