[flagged]
Isn't that how all parties work? If you accept ideological opponents of a party in then the party will just collapse. There has to be a process to make sure that new members of the party agree with its core principles before they join. Which is to say, the party has to be closed and self-select members.
If a party just lets any person join then there isn't any point to the party.
By far not. In Germany for example, you can just fill out an application form, and in practice, they'll just google you to make sure you're not a known extremist - and that's it. Additionally, according to §7 PartG [1], a party's organizational structure must provide a way for every member to have an influence over where the party goes.
In some countries like the Netherlands however, there is e.g. the far right PVV [2] whose only registered member is Geert Wilders. Something like that would run completely counter towards the idea behind German political parties.
[1] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/partg/BJNR007730967.html
That sounds like an awefully low bar, especially with the current administration, e.g. it currently score as 64th in the freedom of press index [0].
I think the people making those "established measures" are just measuring what they think makes a good government and then calling that Democracy.
Modern democracy is based on the separation of powers and, in the vast majority of countries, a constitution or charter(s) that can't be overturned by a simple majority vote. For example, a party can't suspend Habeas Corpus on a whim, even if said party won the presidency, the Congress and the Senate.
But just ask the Supreme Court who carved an exception for the FED and not other government agencies...
Why would this be far fetched? Many civilized countries, including the U.S., have similar policies.
I am Swedish and understand the relationship between our government and the various agencies. Elected people make laws to direct the agencies, and the agencies implement said directives.
Hungary's Orban had been in power for 16 years and if he'd won the election it would've been impossible to ever remove him.
Trump will be gone in two years. And even he can be removed if Congress wills it.
Europe came tantalizingly close to an authoritarian regime with Orban.
And yes Orban is an exception, the average tenure of a prime minister in parliamentary democracies is considerably shorter than that of US presidents.
That’s the part about having a mature attitude towards democracy.
1. Congressional authority for federal spending. The current administration has withheld or redirected spending that lawmakers had already approved.
2. Independence of the Department of Justice. A number of examples where the current administration has pressured DoJ representatives to pursue obviously ridiculous and un-pursuable charges against political 'enemies'.
3. Almost anything that DOGE did. Choose your example from the grab bag.
And the bonus round of breaching constitutional norms such as birthright citizenship and outright defiance of court orders.
The system hasn't failed because someone I dislike got elected, the system failed because the system is not constraining the current administration from their overt system-contravening actions.
I'm very sorry, and I'd rather it wasn't the case, but the system has failed.
2. The President has authority over placing judges, as per the Constitution. Every President puts judges they want in, that’s how it’s supposed to work.
3. See point #1
You seem to think the system failed because you don’t understand the powers the Executive has
If the Constitution is violated, then sue in court (as has been done). If the court agrees with the EO, then they don’t think the Constitution is violated.
It’s not unconstitutional because you don’t like the outcome
It’s a bit silly to expect ordinary citizens to have a near infinitely more mature attitude towards democracy than their elected representatives though? It’s not like anybody could have ever expected until relatively recently that one of the (objectively) most immature public figures in the country would somehow end up its president
Abducting and killing people in the streets, immigrants and US citizens alike.
And that probably isn't exactly correct but it is a big chunk of the way there. It isn't "what they believe is just so far out, and crazy, I don't even know how to describe it". It's easy to describe.