US democracy is about to die

Trump's getting more brazen, or maybe more forgetful. He claims he did not sign the proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act, despite the fact that the proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act appears in the Federal Register with Trump’s signature at the bottom.

Trump says he didn’t sign proclamation invoking Alien Enemies Act | CNN Politics

Trump's getting more brazen, or maybe more forgetful. He claims he did not sign the proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act, despite the fact that the proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act appears in the Federal Register with Trump’s signature at the bottom.

Trump says he didn’t sign proclamation invoking Alien Enemies Act | CNN Politics

From that article it all sounds like a bit of a storm in a tea cup to me.

Not responsible for that much, probably admin heavy and various conservative presidents wanting to close it down since the Reagan era (40 years) and Trump finally getting round to it.

Maybe they decided there were better ways to admin the £188 billion of funding it gets.

Trump attacking unnecessary bureacracy in education or Trump negatively impacting the education of thousands of the vulnerable ? Each will decide their own I guess.

Isn't this a similar situation to how education in the UK is devolved to the different countries ? For example I think education in Scotland is managed by its own education department and budget.

I don't know much about US education, but I from what I have seen from what Trump says he suggests that the US education system is failing US children and that education is best devolved to the individual states.

If you take an overview of the US, to me it always seems like a bunch of fairly disparate states bound together by the minimal glue (Federal law and the constitution) in order for them all to be able to agree. In fact Americans are much more impacted by state law in their general day to day lives than Federal law.

I think you can make a basis for dissolving education on two fronts. One because the states have different ideas on education and should be allowed to proceed on that basis (in the same way parents have choices as to whether their children are educated in religious or secular schools in the UK), and two because the current methods appear to be failing.

Not sure about the relevance of RFKjr being in charge of something at a Federal level if there is not going to be a Federal level but again I don't know the full facts about this.

I think the situation here is a bit more complex than you described and has different sides to the argument. This is something I find often on discussions about Trump and his policies. There is rarely any balanced discussion.

A bit of background here

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07zpmzxln1o

A common misconception is that the federal education department operates US schools and sets curriculum, but that is primarily done by states and local districts.

A relatively small percentage of funding for primary and secondary schools - about 13% - comes from federal funds. Most of the money comes from state and local taxes.

Established in 1979, the department administers student loans and runs programmes to help low-income students.

But Trump has accused it of indoctrinating young people with racial, sexual, and political material.

It's pretty clearly laid out in Project 2025. Most of his voters just chose not to believe it.

Isn't this a similar situation to how education in the UK is devolved to the different countries ? For example I think education in Scotland is managed by its own education department and budget.

I don't know much about US education, but I from what I have seen from what Trump says he suggests that the US education system is failing US children and that education is best devolved to the individual states.

If you take an overview of the US, to me it always seems like a bunch of fairly disparate states bound together by the minimal glue (Federal law and the constitution) in order for them all to be able to agree. In fact Americans are much more impacted by state law in their general day to day lives than Federal law.

I think you can make a basis for dissolving education on two fronts. One because the states have different ideas on education and should be allowed to proceed on that basis (in the same way parents have choices as to whether their children are educated in religious or secular schools in the UK), and two because the current methods appear to be failing.

Not sure about the relevance of RFKjr being in charge of something at a Federal level if there is not going to be a Federal level but again I don't know the full facts about this.

I think the situation here is a bit more complex than you described and has different sides to the argument. This is something I find often on discussions about Trump and his policies. There is rarely any balanced discussion.

Trump is certainly following project 2025's checklist with dismantling the Education Department

Opening words in their education chapter

“Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal U.S. Department of Education should be eliminated.”

RFKjr is going to be put in charge of SEN

I know, but it was vague winks, not a policy platform. If he had openly and clearly stated his intention to end democracy if elected, I don't imagine he would have won. Most of his voters, ironically, saw the democrats as a thread to democracy.

Well they got what they voted for and he didn't hide what he was.

But the majority of his voters have swallowed the narrative that he did, in fact, win in 2016 and that the insurrection was a broadly peaceful protest, because that's what Trump and right wing media have told them.

What's vague about an insurrection?

WASHINGTON, July 27 (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump told Christians on Friday that if they vote for him this November, "in four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good, you're not gonna have to vote."

Seems pretty clear to me.

I know, but it was vague winks, not a policy platform. If he had openly and clearly stated his intention to end democracy if elected, I don't imagine he would have won. Most of his voters, ironically, saw the democrats as a thread to democracy.

He hinted at it, saying "you won't have to vote any more" at least twice.

Re. your first paragraph- Trump didn't run on a platform of dismantling democracy so I don't think the point holds.

Wow that's beautiful actually

The situation in America illustrates the most significant flaw with democracy, or at least a paradox. Any democracy worthy of the name must allow for itself to be dismantled and replaced. It must allow voters to choose candidates who will destroy it. A democracy that doesn't allow voters to replace it with another form of government isn't really a democracy. (North Korea has democracy but few would describe it as true democracy because although technically someone could oppose the current ruler it wouldn't end very well for them.)

If we look at human history, democracy is an unusual way of running things. Most of the time, in most places, a small elite has held power, power based on military strength.

Generally the form of government a society has runs through a cycle. People get increasingly angry, they revolt and overthrow the existing hierarchy, install a different one they are more happy with, get complacent, get disillusioned, get increasingly angry and the cycle starts again. Our current style of democracy has been around for long enough for people to have become disillusioned and are getting increasingly angry. It signifies change is coming.

People voted for Trump for the same reason people voted for Brexit and for the same reason they voted for Starmer. They were sick of the way things had been run for years and wanted change. They didn't really think about what that change would be, perhaps they didn't even care - the logic went "it's shit now, if we vote for the same we'll get more shit, if we vote for something different it might be better and it might be worse, but at least we've tried."

I deliberately included Starmer in that list because it may help people understand why people voted for Trump or Brexit. Lots of Starmer-voters hate Trump and hated Brexit but the point is the thinking pattern among the electorate was the same: it's shit now, let's vote for something different.

Ah, but democracy is not defined by the character of one administration it’s defined by the system’s ability to correct itself. Leaders come and go, some with grace, others kicking and screaming, but the machinery of democracy grinds on.

If an administration defies the rule of law, the response isn’t to declare democracy dead it’s to use the very mechanisms built to restrain power. Elections, courts, legislatures, even the will of the people in the streets these are the antibodies of a democracy fighting off infection. If alternative means become necessary, it’s not proof that democracy has failed, but that it is in the process of defending itself. Democracy isn’t a static ideal; it’s a battlefield, and so long as the fight continues, it lives