American democracy might not survive another year – is Europe ready for that? | Hacker News Reader

American democracy might not survive another year – is Europe ready for that?

theguardian.com

48 pointssaubeidl55 comments

Unfortunely too many European countries are following along voting into the same kind of local parties.

Those of my generation and previous ones following WW II, just wasted all the efforts for a better society.

It's the political parties in power in Europe over the last 50-60 years that are to blame for Europe's current problems, not the parties that are rising in reaction to that. Yet, we are told that the only option is more of the same, which in turns fuels the growth of discontent.

You are missing the long arm of russia that is funding discontent all over the EU as well as to help create the problems that are at the root of that discontent. Between those two and outright xenophobia there is a lot of opportunity for mayhem. I can't wait until that asshole kicks the bucket and I hope - but I don't have a lot of evidence for that hope - that the next generation of russian leaders will realize that if they keep this up they will end up achieving exactly that which they are afraid of. By now it should be clear that the days of empire are over.

> You are missing the long arm of russia that is funding discontent all over the EU as well as to help create the problems that are at the root of that discontent.

The trend in Europe started many decades ago. It is too convenient to blame Russia to avoid acknowledging reality. Russia does not create problems, it is an opportunistic actor that tries to use the existing problems and discontent to its advantage.

Immediately labelling discontent as "xenophobia" is exactly what I mentioned in my previous comments, a denial of reality and of people's concerns. It shuts down debate and only fuels discontent. People are effectively told that they have no choice and if they don't like it they are wrong and racist.

> The trend in Europe started decades ago.

In the intelligence community there is very little doubt that russia has been doing this for decades. Yes, there is a home grown component as well but it would not be nearly as large if not for all this meddling.

> Immediately labelling discontent as "xenophobia" is exactly what I mentioned in my previous comments, a denial of a reality and of people's concerns. It shuts down debate and only fuels discontent. People are effectively told that they have no choice and if they don't like it they are wrong and racist.

Yes.

That is plain delusion, really. Economic and, especially, immigration issues are fully home-made. Again, Russia is only using them with very small effects.

This will end badly because of this denial of reality and denial of people's voices, not because of Russia.

> Economic and, especially, immigration issues are fully home-made.

This is incredibly short-sighted and is in fact exactly such a denial of reality that you accuse others of. The world is divided into poorer regions and wealthier regions, and regions that are peaceful and ones that are less peaceful. Then there is oppression based on race, creed, sexual preference and a whole raft of other things.

As long as that is the case there will be people that want to move away from where they were born.

You are claiming to speak for a group, but in fact you are just speaking for yourself, and poorly reasoned and supported at that.

Odd how the replies to my comments seem to quickly swerve into ad hominem attacks and irrelevant points... Perhaps that's QED.

The world is what it is. That has nothing to do with the immigration policies in Europe, which are chosen by the governments not imposed on them, and nothing to do with the growing range of issues in Europe.

I am not claiming to speak for anyone, by the way. I only acknowledge the election results and trends across Europe and how those signs of public opinion are met.

Have a nice one, guys.

> The world is what it is. That has nothing to do with the immigration policies in Europe, which are chosen by the governments not imposed on them, and nothing to do with the growing range of issues in Europe.

It does however, have everything to do with centuries of European imperialism. We shaped the world to be the way it is. It didn't happen by accident.

It is interesting how few people are willing to admit that these are problems in large part of our own making. If there are two places that are both poor and one decides to plunder the other and becomes fabulously wealthy because they are able to turn what they plundered into wealth more effectively than the places that they plundered then it stands to reason that at some point the citizens of the places that were plundered would like to move their residence to the wealthier place.

Long term sustainable policies that do not result in such an imbalance require a longer term view and possibly lower short term profits. In fact, the United States was on that path until Trump took over. Mexico was slowly getting wealthier and people were already moving back because it was a more viable alternative. Now of course all that progress has been destroyed but it was really working, and I'm pretty sure that it could have been accelerated.

Worse, because after we left many of those countries to their own "freedom", the imperialism kept going by having big corporations sponsor the new goverments.

Our goverments could do better fixing the ways of the past, instead it is much easier to complain about immigration, from countries politians themselves would not freely chose to live on, other than on big monthly check from one of those corporations.

That's exactly what the Dutch did with Surinam for instance (And with Indonesia, which was in many ways far, far worse and which caused massive bloodshed). They pretty much left the place in shambles with no credible path to stability. I think to some degree it was petty revenge for the loss of the colony, as in 'if you think you can do without us then we'll make that as hard as possible for you'. They could have done a much more graceful handover, instead they abandoned their responsibilities overnight and pretended that any fall-out was the locals' problem.

Interestingly, at the time when this happened there was due to the fact that Surinam people were considered to be citizens a massive influx of Surinam people to NL, the ones that saw the writing on the wall and realized that there would be a less-than-optimal situation post dutch pull-out. This then - predictably - led to exactly the same levels of xenophobia about the Surinam people coming to NL. The kind of stuff dutch people at the time were saying about them does not bear repeating here, suffice to say it was pretty horrible. Now, a good 40 years later they've integrated into Dutch society, and you don't hear anybody anymore about how they were going to cause the end of our 'way of life' That honor simply shifts from one group to the next. The only ones so far that seem to escape such scorn are the Ukrainians, but I suspect if their numbers would rise further that that would happen just the same, already Wilders has been trying out that fiddle to see how well it plays. But he's playing with fire on that subject and he knows it, we have not forgotten his response to the Russian downing of MH-17.

"People's concerns" is a way too broad term to pick for your personal agenda.

I, too, am part of the "people". My concerns are that we are seeing xenophobia rise as a distraction from the issues caused by capitalist contradictions and that Russia is fueling that fire for its own motives.

I, too, am unhappy with the current political parties, but for reasons opposite to yours. As long as the means of production are owned by the capitalist class, we will continue to suffer.

My "people's concern" is not the same as yours. Please do not try to commandeer it.

Ah, yes, true leftist belief that all evil arise from capitalism. The moment socialism arrives there won't be racism or xenophobia.

It is as true as the belief that social dynamics can be explained without the notion of class and modes of production.

> Ah, yes, true leftist belief that all evil arise from capitalism.

Strawman detected. That's not what the GP wrote.

> The moment socialism arrives there won't be racism or xenophobia.

And that makes two.

> It is as true as the belief that social dynamics can be explained without the notion of class and modes of production.

Ok, I give up.

You are right, but people would always prefer to put all blame on external factors (in this case Russia) than to admit that their precious liberal democracy and global order was just a temporal thing, as everything else in human history, and it ends because its own contradictions as well as incompetent and corrupted elites steering it this way.

Why would next Russian leaders start to believe that suddenly countries stop having opposing interest and don't need to use variety of tools to secure them, including war and sowing discontent among the countries they consider their rivals?

Much can be said, but not that they are so naive as your typical HN commenter.

Because there is no upside for them. Nobody cares or wants to invade russia, that's mostly in their heads. But if they keep going like this at some point it might actually be on the table. There was a point in time where what you just wrote could have been said for Amsterdam and Utrecht, which were regularly at war. But cooperation and collaboration are a much better way to run the world. Russia should move out of 1905 and get to 2025 if they want to continue to be a factor in the long term.

Cooperation is better until it stops being better. You are taking last few decades, which were anomaly due to unprecedented situation of total global hegemony of US, and you extrapolate for the rest of future human history, whereas it dissolves right before your eyes.

And invasion or occupation is hardly the only example of adversarial policy, even if most obvious.

> Cooperation is better until it stops being better.

It was better for Russia than the present.

> You are taking last few decades, which were anomaly due to unprecedented situation of total global hegemony of US, and you extrapolate for the rest of future human history, whereas it dissolves right before your eyes.

The US has nothing to do with this.

> And invasion or occupation is hardly the only example of adversarial policy, even if most obvious.

Yes, you can make enemies out of thin air. But the facts are simple: Europe has tried to appease Russia by trading with them, in the end that trade balance was and is used to wage war. That's a dead end strategy. Russia can not survive by itself and needs trading partners more than it needs more territory. Putin and his band of mafiosi are robbing Russia blind and are the root cause of a lot of this, they will at some point be replaced and hopefully the new guard will be smarter than the old guard. And if not we'll deal with that when we get there.

You live in Poland, but your position does not strike me as typically Polish. Poland has seen first hand what it was like to live as a Russian occupied country. The same goes for the Baltics, Romania and lots of other countries in the East. Between all of them there is a solid agreement that this will not happen again. They're more than happy to let Russia be Russia, but within its own borders. Just like it would be if your country bordered Somalia or Iran.

> The US has nothing to do with this.

On the contrary. Epitome of close transnational cooperation, the EU, would not exist if not for the US. So called "international law" and "free trade" are creations of US hegemony as well.

> You live in Poland, but your position does not strike me as typically Polish. Poland has seen first hand what it was like to live as a Russian occupied country.

I suspect it is because you for some reason believe it is impossible to hold multiple, noncontradictory thougths simultaneously in mind:

1. Russia is Poland's adversary, always have been, always will be. Not because of some good vs evil bs, or because Putin is madman, but because success of one is a loss of the other. Yes, some games are zero-sum, and this is why wars will happen. Alliances always are more or less situational.

2. Russia is a country of misery, and always was.

3. Unrest and far-right success we face internally, as other countries do as well, though definitely exploited and fueled by Russia, are fault of people that were in charge so far, and systemic problems they created or failed to address.

4. Russian policy against neighbouring countries is independent from who is currently ruling there.

> I suspect it is because you for some reason believe it is impossible to hold multiple, noncontradictory thougths simultaneously in mind:

No, it is because I too lived in Poland, have a ton of friends and family there and know from first had experience what Poland looked like under Russian occupation.

The EU was preceded by several other institutions which had absolutely nothing to do with the United States.

> No, it is because I too lived in Poland, have a ton of friends and family there and know from first had experience what Poland looked like under Russian occupation.

And how from this experience follows anything that you postulated before?

My great grandfather was in three German camps, Auschwitz among them, and I do not produce from this fact any theory on German foreign policy, or politics in general. That would be quite silly.

> The EU was preceded by several other institutions which had absolutely nothing to do with the United States.

ECSC in 1951 was created due to US encouragement and active involvement. US was preventing France from enacting more severe reparation policies after WW2, US was pushing UK to go against traditional British policy of preventing mainland Europe from any unification, US was making sure Germany will be part of any initiative (France was reluctant, UK even more so) etc. We can add to that the Marshall Plan as well. Of course nothing of that wasn't motivated by charity of the US, and it doesn't mean that there were no forces internal to Europe that also pushed for closer cooperation, but it doesn't change facts that are a bitter pill for some euro enthusiasts. History usually brings bitter pills for those that think it ended.

Unless you mean Holy Roman Empire as a predecessor of the EU, then sure, you are right.

The main reason why the US was supportive is because they wanted to break open the coal market as well as the German near monopoly (together with the Swedes) for high grade steel at the time. It was a purely selfish reason, and not because the USA wanted Europe to unite. The hypocrisy is obvious given the numerous US monopolies at the time and various attempts to insert US standards into EU practices to give US companies a leg up. Funny enough, they tried the same in Iraq. EU dependency on the US is bad, but fortunately finally (and thanks to the most unlikely person) we are realizing this. But repairing it is going to take a lot of time and will be costly. We also have to guard not to become similarly dependent on China, whose motives are no better.

https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-histor...

The USA does not even rate a mention, though it probably should have, that's a bit of EU revisionism afaic.

More on this in Wikipedia:

"The United States was not officially part of the treaty negotiations, but it was a major force behind the scenes. The US High Commissioner for Occupied Germany, John McCloy, was an advocate of decartelization and his chief advisor in Germany was a Harvard anti-trust lawyer, Robert Bowie. Bowie was asked to draft anti-trust articles, and texts of the two articles he prepared (on cartels and the abuse of monopoly power) became the basis of the treaty's competition policy regime. Also, Raymond Vernon in the State Department (of later fame for his studies on industrial policy at Harvard university) carefully reviewed successive drafts of the treaty. He stressed the importance of the freedom of the projected common market from restrictive practices.

The Americans insisted that the German coal sales monopoly, the Deutscher Kohlenverkauf (DKV), should lose its monopoly, and that the steel industries should no longer own the coalmines. It was agreed that the DKV would be broken up into four independent sales agencies. The steel firm Vereinigte Stahlwerke was to be divided into thirteen firms, and Krupp into two."

As for the Holy Roman Empire, no, that was not what I had in mind but since you are arguing in bad faith all over this thread I don't think it is worth my time to continue the discussion, even if I think that in principle we agree. It has been noted before that just like here you are stating a lot of things without actually aiming to make a point and you are repeating things that are objectively false in order to confuse the discussion, and things that are true but that are besides the point and not worth the contest because of the ridiculous out-of-proportion weight you assign on some details. I have no clue why you are doing this but I also simply don't have the energy for it.

I mean... it is quite hard to expect to find nuanced and multifaced history of EU/ECSC and why it came into being in Schuman Declaration, for similar reasons it would to silly to expect you will know US history and process of its creation by reading US Constitution. And I would recommend to read some books on this topic, instead of relying on Wiki article, which is very short and shallow.

You couldn't prove that any of my claims are "objectively false". And that would be ridiculous, as we discussed things somewhere at intersection of history and politics, where it is immensely difficult to state anything objectively true or false.

All I did was to question popular, ideological sentiments your comments exemplify. Your reaction, as well as calling it "arguing in bad faith" proves that this ideology is indeed something that should be challenged, as it is blinding and makes you disregard some key facts apriori. Also, stating I am all over place while rambling something about US hypocrisy and its monopolies, when neither has anything to do with topics we discussed is funny. And naive.

Agree that it is pointless, but in truth I have never written with an intent of convincing you. I leave my comments for others to read and think.

The good thing is though that Europe is fragmented enough that it won't go to pieces all at once in all countries, which gives some chance to remedy. Hopefully we - NL - will be able to move on from Wilders and his fear based movement soon. Another big factor is how long putin will be in a position to try to influence Europe by shoving refugees by the trainload into the EU immigration system whilst at the same time funding the right wing and various secession movements. I suspect that once that regime collapses that there will be a lot of people that will be missing their paychecks.

Don't forget putin is actively pushing these parties in the US and Europe. It's not an organic backsliding of societies into fascism, but a concentrated effort

Russia involvement is one thing, but it would be delusional to believe without its tentacles everything would be fine.

Do you have any proof for that except the usual drivel of European politicians of blaming Putin for any domestic problems? The rise of the "brown wave" is natural considering politicians in power have been constantly ignoring domestic problems in favour of pursuing geopolitical agenda. If you want to see a concrete example of election interference, look no further at recent elections in Moldova, Romania or Georgia and lengths EU has gone in keeping pro Russian politicians to get elected.

It's actually the domestic ruling classes of these countries which are engineering the move to the right, as shown by Silicon Valley beginning to re-platform Trump even before the Butler assassination hoax gave them air cover to go all the way and also get their man JD Vance the VP nom.

American democracy is already dead… an electorate does not shoot itself in the head twice and survive.

If the US democracy collapses to the point where there truly is no hope (think civil war or Trump declares himself king (or whatever other fancy word)), I'd imagine Europe will take that very seriously and push to get out of there and become independent in all the ways that matter that they aren't now.

However, I have a hard time imagining that happening. As long as elections are still a thing over there, even if Trump gets a third term, that's still probably not enough hope lost to push Europe over the edge to actually take action rather than continuing to wait it out and slowly distancing themselves from the US rather than quickly.

If it actually happens, it'll be too late. Europe needs to prepare for that eventuality in advance.

> As long as elections are still a thing over there, even if Trump gets a third term

I think you misunderstand. The Presidency is term-limited by the Constitution. Trump cannot run for a third term. The only way he remains in power after his second term is if the Constitution is abolished, in which case "continuing to wait it out" is futile. It would be equivalent to this:

> Trump declares himself king (or whatever other fancy word)

> The Presidency is term-limited by the Constitution.

I have no faith Trump gives a shit about the constitution. He and his goons can amend and screw around till they find something that gives them what they want. So long as there's a somewhat legitimate election that says Trump's president, the fire burning under Europe's bottom isn't burning hot enough for them to move. Unless there's literally no election, not even the pretence of democracy, I can't imagine anyone doing anything much different from what they're doing now. If they were going to, they'd have already done it.

> I have no faith Trump gives a shit about the constitution.

I didn't say he does. But again, abolishing the Constitution is the only path to staying in power.

> He and his goons can amend

No, they can't. Have you studied the amendment process?

> So long as there's a somewhat legitimate election that says Trump's president

That's the point. There can't be another somewhat legitimate election that says Trump's President.

If they can't amend, they can bypass. Or ignore.

If people go out to vote for Donald Trump, and he wins the election for a third term, or someone just says the right combination of words that wills him into being president for a third time, regardless of the constitution, that'll be legitimate enough. I have very little faith in both the US and Europe.

> If they can't amend, they can bypass. Or ignore.

Yes, that was my point! Again, the only path to remaining in power is to completely bypass or ignore the Consitution. There is no legal means, not even nominally.

> If people go out to vote for Donald Trump, and he wins the election for a third term

This is explicitly, clearly unconstitutional.

> or someone just says the right combination of words that wills him into being president for a third time

This is just hand-waving.

> regardless of the constitution, that'll be legitimate enough.

How will it be legitimate at all?

> I have very little faith in both the US and Europe.

You also appear to have very little knowledge of the US.

What's constitutional is what 5 out 9 people believe to be constitutional, and the bench is very stacked. He's already above the law.

My point isn't really about the US. My point is that Europe will do naught more than what they're doing now unless the US democracy compleatly collapses. Even if the elections are made and choose a candidate that can't legally be elected, him being elected still has a shred of democracy that means it isn't totally gone, and thus probably not gone enough for Europe to actually wake up. It won't be a free and fair election if that's the way things go, but it will be an election, and I believe that will be enough.

> What's constitutional is what 5 out 9 people believe to be constitutional

This is not entirely accurate. If 5 Supreme Court justices declared that Trump is king, or that Christianity is the official religion of the United States, that doesn't make it Constutional. There are certain actions that are just obviously, blatantly unconstitutional, and everyone would recognize it, regardless of what the justices say. At a certain point, the justices themselves would be deemed to be ignoring the Constitution. The declaration may spawn another civil war, but we're not stupid enough to think, "Oh, hey, a king is actually Constitutional", and I doubt that Europeans are stupid enough to believe that either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States

I am of course already aware of that case. If you have an argument to make, then make it; a bare link is not an argument.

Note that the case is about criminal prosecution. Congress retains the power specified in the Constitution to impeach and remove the President.

At this point, having already misunderstood our electoral system, you don't seem to be in a strong position to lecture US citizens about US law.

My brother in Christ, the point is that Trump v. United States itself was unconstitutional, and that Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution is at direct odds with a Supreme Court decision that the president has any form of immunity for any acts. See here:

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: *but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.*" [emphasis mine]

Not to mention, the decision for ANY evidence that could discern an act from being official, unofficial or personal as being inadmissible in court, and that we simply have to take the Executive's word for whether an act was "official" or not, is such sovereign immunity that we might as well backtrack our historical roots.

Trump v. United States is a blank check for power overreach that we have yet to see the full amount of.

> My brother in Christ

I am not your brother in Christ.

> the point is that Trump v. United States itself was unconstitutional

I wasn't defending the decision. There are plenty of Supreme Court decisions that I consider to be badly wrong.

> Trump v. United States is a blank check for power overreach that we have yet to see the full amount of.

It doesn't magically give him a new election or a third term in office, which is what this discussion was about.

>"I am not your brother in Christ."

It's an expression lol

>"It doesn't magically give him a new election or a third term in office, which is what this discussion was about."

He gave an astute example of how constitutionality (which is your crutch for "elections" and "third terms" being protected procedure) doesn't matter when there are currently unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings being honored - which is currently the easiest avenue for Trump to make any more unconstitutional advances (election suspension, third term, etc etc), and you acted - slightly arrogantly in fact - as if it wasn't a valid retort.

That's where we are now - and I don't even have a dog in this fight; I joined merely because you falsely motioned that his link to Trump v. US wasn't complimentary to his position, and I've only elucidated on his behalf how it is.

> It's an expression lol

I don't like it and don't find it endearing or persuasuve.

> which is your crutch for "elections" and "third terms" being protected procedure

I'm not sure what you mean by "protected procedure". My point is just that it's blatantly obvious to everyone that Trump cannot run for a third term, and if the Supreme Court says he can, that would be equivalent to the Supreme Court saying that black is white or night is day, a bald-faced lie. I doubt they would, though.

If Trump attempted to remain in power, it would no doubt be via some kind of contrived emergency, martial law, state of "war", and not via running for election again, which nobody is going to accept, not even Republicans.

> there are currently unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings being honored

Yes, but that's true of many rulings, even before Trump took office.

> you acted - slightly arrogantly in fact - as if it wasn't a valid retort

A link is not a retort, valid or invalid.

> you falsely motioned that his link to Trump v. US wasn't complimentary to his position

No, I said that a link by itself is not an argument. The relevance and applicability of the link needs to be explained.

>"I doubt they would, though."

>"which nobody is going to accept"

I respect your blind optimism.

The rest is moot for a reply.

Discourse on Voluntary Servitude: Why People Enslave Themselves to Authority By E. LaBoetie (Philosopher and Writer, 1530-1563)

https://billkatz.substack.com/p/discourse-on-voluntary-servi...

But if not one thing is yielded to him, if without any violence he is simply not obeyed, he becomes naked and undone and nothing, just as when the root receives no nourishment, the branch withers and dies.

>> The Presidency is term-limited by the Constitution. Trump cannot run for a third term.

The Constitution says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". It doesn't say no person shall serve as President more than twice.

Gerald Ford was never elected to the office of the President. He was never even elected to the office of Vice President. Yet he served as President.

One scenario: Trump runs as a Vice President on a ticket with someone else as President. 5 minutes after being inaugurated, the President resigns, making Trump President for a third term.

I'm sure clever people can think of other scenarios.

> One scenario: Trump runs as a Vice President on a ticket with someone else as President. 5 minutes after being inaugurated, the President resigns, making Trump President for a third term.

You can conceive of imaginary scenarios, but that's not going to happen. Nobody who wins the Presidency is going to resign. If that's the scenario you're afraid of, it's just silly.

I would note that Republican Senators are reluctant even to bypass the current Democratic filibuster shutting down the government. As much as Republican politicians are deferential to Trump, they still have their own political ambitions. Some of them are biding their time in the hope that they themselves can become the next President.

>"Nobody who wins the Presidency is going to resign"

I dunno, man. People are already putting their name next to a "NAY" vote for the President, specifically when it comes to releasing files regarding the most prolific child sex trafficker of our time; who likely had such connections to the President.

Being masochistic enough for someone to do that, and to resign as president, are less steps away than you think.

The 12th amendment says "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States". But what that means, or indeed any part of the constitution means, is determined by the Supreme Count of the day.

Unfortunately, having elections isn’t the same thing as having free and fair elections.

It's a tragic mistake believing that Europe is any superior ethically and politically. As long as yachts and mansions in Balearic, Canaries, and Polynesia are well supplied and serviced, Europe is content. The only difference is that they're not that much into golf.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com