[aibrahem]

There is nothing inherently special about Americans that makes them more democratic. I agree we shouldn't compare the U.S. with Middle Eastern countries; they were never democratic in the first place. A more appropriate comparison would be with the German Weimar Republic, where a charismatic leader managed to overthrow democracy.

Many people raised in democratic societies don't fully understand the intricacies of the relationship between the military and dictatorships; they see the military as a tool in the dictator's hand to wield at will. This couldn't be further from the truth. A (strong) military in a dictatorship is its own institution, largely isolated from the rest of society and granted its own perks and benefits. The dictator can wield the military only to the extent that it aligns with the institution's goals. Competent ones try to align the military's goals with their own; incompetent ones get overthrown.

Because of this isolation from broader society, the officers and soldiers believe that what is good for the institution is good for the country. They're not suppressing their citizens; they believe they are protecting the republic.

The U.S. Army is already operating as an isolated entity from broader U.S. society. Monetary corruption is quite substantial—consider the medium- to high-ranking officers and their relationships and revolving doors with defense contractors.

I'm not saying the U.S. is going to become -insert non-democratic country here-, but if we ignore the usual Western caricature of Stalinist-style dictatorships and realize that there are multiple forms of eroding democracy, you'll start to understand why it's not such a far-fetched idea.

[sensanaty]

Comparisons to Weimar Germany are ridiculous because the state of the two countries are vastly, VASTLY different. Nevermind the fact that we're also in a different, much more interconnected and mixed world than back then.

On the one hand you have a once-proud and powerful state recovering from the most devastating war humanity has ever waged (by that point) that it lost in, which subsequently forced them into paying back massive reparations, sanctions and economic and military limits imposed on it by the victors of said war. Of course a charismatic, populist leader who gives the resentful nation a boogeyman to fight against is going to win.

On the other you have the de facto #1 world power with the most cartoonishly powerful military on the planet that has their fingers involved in every single pie on the planet, which was founded on the principle of democracy some 200 years ago, with strong safeguards put in place to prevent the exact thing that happened with the Weimar republic.

Even pretending like the Weimer Republic's military was anything even resembling what the US military is is ridiculous.

[palata]

> On the other you have the de facto #1 world power

Wasn't always the case, and honestly it's hard to tell where China stands right now, and it seems like it's not slowing down... if you look at e.g. robotics or drones...

> which was founded on the principle of democracy some 200 years ago

Didn't it need a civil war to actually become a democracy? My understanding was that it was not exactly founded as a democracy. But maybe I'm being pedantic there.

> with strong safeguards put in place to prevent the exact thing that happened with the Weimar republic.

Genuinely interested! What are those safeguards and what do they prevent that happened with the Weimar republic?

[shkkmo]

With the Weimar Republic, it was specifically section 48 of their constitution which granted emergency powers to pass laws and the normalization of its invocation, paired with a dysfuctional legistlative body that was the only check on that power, that allowed the measures to be taken that culminated in probably unconstitutional passage of the Enalbing Act that killed the republic.

[kfajdsl]

> Didn't it need a civil war to actually become a democracy? My understanding was that it was not exactly founded as a democracy. But maybe I'm being pedantic there.

Definitely think you are being pedantic. By that standard, we're not a "real" democracy right now with felons not being able to vote in many states. That's a valid position to have, but imo not really useful for this discussion.

[palata]

I'm saying that because I recently read somewhere that it needed a civil war to modify the Constitution and make it a democracy. The article was making the point that it was purposely not designed as a democracy at first.

Which I found interesting, but admittedly not necessarily useful here.

[sensanaty]

> Wasn't always the case...

Sure, but it has been for the better part of a few decades. The whole reason US hegemony has spread so far and wide is due to this.

> Genuinely interested! What are those safeguards and what do they prevent that happened with the Weimar republic?

I'm not American so I'm probably getting the tiny details wrong here so please correct me if I'm wrong on any points. A lot of this is going off my memory, so I'm probably getting some dates and such details wrong as well. I'm definitely not including a very comprehensive answer here, as it's a complex topic with a lot of history attached that I don't know too much myself. I'm mostly just a nerd who finds this kinda stuff fascinating, not any kind of expert :)

The big sticking points for the Weimar were that the president wielded much more legislative and executive power than US presidents do. Article 48 let the Reichspresident call a state of emergency without ever involving the Reichstag (Parliament) which basically enabled them to become dictators whenever they wanted. Article 48 was one of the early keys Hitler used to seize power, as a fire in the Reichstag parliament house gave him an excuse to call a state of emergency because of a supposed Communist uprising. He used Article 48 to arrest Communists en-masse on the basis of the Reichstag Fire Decree which was signed shortly after the fire, which also included many provisions that restricted free speech, movement and other similar civil liberties. I'd recommend further reading up on the Fire Decree yourself, as it's quite interesting as a key turning point in the Weimar turning into Nazi Germany.

In contrast, US presidents cannot supersede congress and decrees are subject to congressional oversight (there probably exist exceptions, so take my words here with a grain of salt). Even emergency powers (such as the ones Hitler used) are much weaker for US presidents and have to go through congressional approval. Even if every single member of congress is a republican, republicans are not a completely united party. A lot of them dislike Trump and have their own agendas they'd prefer to be pushed, and ultimately they have no real reason to bow to the president since they are elected in completely different timeframes, wield different but almost equal power and are also competing with every other member of congress. For example the fear mongering about leaving NATO, there's basically a 0% chance of that happening because it requires a supermajority from congress, despite whatever the President might want. It's a pretty common reason why things like the recently proposed student loan debt forgiveness never end up happening, the president can't just will it to happen.

Another big one is that the militaries work under different philosophies and circumstances between the two, and you can't have a takeover without military backing. The Weimar military was still pretty loyal to the old monarchists and viewed Weimar as a forced state that they were put into under pressure after losing WW1. You have to understand that the whole "democracy" idea was a pretty fresh one at that time for Germany, they only switched from monarchism to republicanism in 1918 after the November revolution.

By contrast, US military as far as I understand it isn't really all that loyal to whoever the current president is, but rather to the constitution. The president might be commander-in-chief, but that doesn't mean he can tell the military to do whatever they want. They still wield power over the military of course, but it's a lot less pronounced than it was in Germany, because the military were loyal to Hitler. If the military leaders who are ultimately the ones commanding the troops don't like the president, there isn't much they can do. Even the national guard is interesting, since it's a split responsibility between states and the federal government. And, again, congress also has a say in many military things, though my knowledge there is for sure lacking so I'd recommend you do your own reading up there.

An example there of the limited power of the president was when Nixon was getting the boot, the secretary of defence James Schlesinger at the time instructed military leaders to run Nixon's order by either him or the secretary of state, because he was worried about Nixon's reaction.

And again, the economic and social situation in Germany at the time cannot be overstated. People were miserable, the country was massively poor and were in a major demographic problem due to the war. Their industry was quickly stagnating due to the aftermath of WW1 and there was a lot of resentment building up in Germany for what they considered to be unfair and harsh treatment from the Allies. They were, to put it charitably, extremely unstable times and it was a matter of time before all of it exploded like it did. If it wasn't Hitler, it would've been the next charismatic leader promising to take revenge on the people who ruined the country (which is massively oversimplifying things of course, but you get the gist)

[palata]

That is super interesting, thank you so much!

[shkkmo]

There are real, significant between Weimar, Italy 10 years before and the USA today.

However the explanation for the rise of Hitler you allude to is woefully incomplete. Hitler and his party didn't get into power by winning the majory popular vote. Instead the Hitler and the Nazis formed a coalition with the monarchists and convinced Hindenburg that they would help restore the Monarchy if Hindenburg helped them take power and granted them new powers.

I'm not going to claim we are necessarily in the same situation today, but I do think it is worth being aware of how this kind of thing can happen.

We should be extremely wary about giving a charismatic leader extraordinary powers, even if that leader promises that power will only be used to accomplish your goals.

[sensanaty]

You're 100% right, my comment was definitely not meant to imply that the Nazi party's takeover was a simple affair that was as cut and dry as Hitler winning the vote and turning the country into Nazi Germany.

However the way I see it, people (not you, I just mean in general people who seem to believe Trump will bring about the 5th Reich) are probably out of ignorance of the history there also massively oversimplifying and overestimating how much power the president ultimately wields, especially when compared to Weimer-era Germany. People aren't aware that there are safety mechanisms in the US that didn't exist in the Weimar Republic, and as such simply bringing up that "This is exactly what happened with Nazi Germany!" is massively oversimplifying things as well from the other side.

The comment my comment was replying to did this exact thing, in fact, where they equated the election of a charismatic leader to what happened with the Nazis.

I do agree with you though, I personally tend to align with Frank Herbert when it comes to people who want to wield power and rule over others, in that they should be studied and watched closely and carefully and disposed of swiftly if they pull any Hitler-tier shenanigans

[prepend]

> A more appropriate comparison would be with the German Weimar Republic, where a charismatic leader managed to overthrow democracy

This doesn't resonate to me. The conditions in the US are so different than the German Weimar Republic. I mean sure it's possible but without a compelling reason I kind of discard those arguments. The US has had lots of charismatic leaders screwing stuff up and yet still survived.

More importantly, American Exceptionalism is deeply ingrained in our philosophy. I think we're wrong, but it exists. So the general populace doesn't believe this stuff and just makes people sound out of touch. I think when someone is thinking about inflation and rent and mortgages, the idea that they should care about an existential threat to democracy doesn't seem to matter much. That's a rich person's worry.