[TheAdamAndChe]

> When is enough enough? No-one gets to say.

Yet we do get to say. A big cause of the political instability in the US is due to increasing inequality and a declining quality of life for much of the country. If such economic forces cause protectionist legislation to be passed, isn't that the people getting a say?

Also, the idea that you must jump on the global capitalist bandwagon to remain relevant is odd to me. Is being an economic powerhouse the only factor in a country's relevance?

[justin_vanw]

What political instability in the US? Please define what you mean by instability, the US has been the most stable national government since it was founded, with a big exception of the Civil War of course. Even then, compare it to the governments of any continental European or Asian or African nation that isn't part of the British Commonwealth, and we have had a stable democracy while basically every single non-commonwealth government has gone through collapse, been reformed, and collapsed again in the meantime.

I mean it's easy to say 'inequality' as some kind of Marxist trump card that you think automatically ends all possible debate, but meanwhile things in the US are fine. Fine != Perfect, of course, but it is yet to be demonstrated that you can have a socialist/market capitalist welfare state that functions outside of the Nordic countries. Every other attempt at it has been a complete disaster.

[TheAdamAndChe]

> What political instability in the US?

The election of Trump and the near-election of Sanders.

They are signs that a huge chunk of the population is discontent with our political system and with the direction of the country. A history of collapse isn't required for there to be instability in a nation.

> it is yet to be demonstrated that you can have a socialist/market capitalist welfare state that functions outside of the Nordic countries.

I didn't say that's what we should do to solve the problem, merely stated the fact that worker protection laws are important, then questioned when return on investment should supersede quality of life. A socialist welfare state wasn't involved in the 1930's when inequality declined in the US, which is proof that things can change without such systems.

I worry that if we don't do something about the growing discontent among our lower and lower-middle classes, they'll continue electing populist candidates until someone truly dangerous gets elected, and I feel that correcting the inequalities caused by globalization and the strong dollar would be a good place to start.

[justin_vanw]

And we elected Richard Nixon multiple times (governor, vice president, president!).

I suggest you don't get caught up in the hype. The current period is actually extremely placid compared to many in the course of our history. Just because Trump is really dumb, and that people voted for someone really dumb, doesn't make things 'unstable'.

If anything Trump's term so far has been a case study in what a stable system looks like. He can barely implement any policy and has yet to get any legislation passed. In the meantime the government seems to be functioning, checks are being mailed on time and the military is still under civilian control and is 100% loyal.

I mean what sort of scenario do you have in mind (if any) of how this 'instability' would play itself out? Generally the biggest threat to democracy isn't "electing someone that everyone thinks is stupid and has negative charisma, during a peaceful time with few major problems" it's the opposite, someone super charismatic during a time of extreme danger.

I would say that electing Clinton would have been a far greater symptom of something deeply wrong. Not because of her personally, but because it would have been the second time in 12 years that we elected someone who was in the nuclear family of a previous president. Oligarchy destroys democracy, an incompetent leader is just someone we put up with for awhile (and we have had plenty far worse).

I think Trump would have lost by double digits if Biden had run, and he would have lost handily if Bernie had won the primary. It almost goes without saying that a hypothetical Trump vs Obama election would have been a bloodbath. There are probably half a dozen establishment democrats that would have beaten him easily. However, they didn't run because the Clinton machine was actively threatening anyone who didn't get in line for years ahead of the election. THIS is what destroys democracy, the ability of powerful families to perpetuate their power and influence. That Bernie did so well says very little about him, and a lot about how well anyone would do running against Hillary Clinton, a candidate that a sizable majority of people dislike and believe to be a liar. Frankly, Clinton is probably one of the only people in the country that Trump would have won against.

Anyway, the point of all that is to say that Trump didn't win because of discontent or something that made him popular, he won because the Democrats nominated someone who is not electable. Trump was never popular, even on the day he 'won' the election.

[gaius]

They are signs that a huge chunk of the population is discontent with our political system

Had that system delivered their preferred candidate they would have been perfectly satisfied with it, and we all know it.

We see it here in the UK, the LibDems are forever trying to monkey with the system in ways that, by pure coincidence, would favour them. We had a referendum on PR which they lost. Had they won it, in the 2015 election UKIP with their 4 million votes would have been a decisive force in Parliament. Then suddenly all the PR freaks went very, very quiet...