* Bills of rights and other limitations on the power of government
* Free speech, freedom to protest, etc.
* Transparency rules (eg the Freedom of Information Act)
* Reporters and news media
* Protections for whistleblowers
* Jury trials
* Presumption of innocence
* Term limits
The combination of all of these things means that the truth does eventually get around and the powerful are eventually held accountable. It can take a while (see how long it took to really get a decent lawsuit against the orange man), but it happens. In contrast, throughout history, people have tried to circumvent these mechanisms in order to make them run faster. Inevitably, that leads to people who exploit them for power.
Many countries in Europe and North America have had democratic systems that have lasted 150+ years, including through the reigns of several would-be dictators, but they continue. You may have noticed that all of these "self-healing" mechanisms rely on the work of people in the system, and they do take constant work to maintain, but that doesn't mean that the system is fragile.
- Elections are no longer trusted thanks to a radicalized right
- There is no freedom to protest, and the right to free speech is easily forgotten, distorted, misapplied.
- The news can say whatever it wants without consequence, unless another big corporation sues them.
- There are absolutely not protections for whistleblowers. We have seen this time and time again.
- In such a divided and hateful climate, jury trials are regular people bringing their personal biases to the court room. Picture the average person and decide if your freedom is safe in their hands. That's forgetting that Jury's decisions can be overridden (Breonna Taylor)
- Presumption of innocence (see above)
- There should be term limits for Supreme Court justices, whose seats were completely stolen from the democratic party.
> - There are absolutely not protections for whistleblowers. We have seen this time and time again.
So much so that even Chuck Grassley, the guy who wrote the book on protecting whistleblowers, was fine going after the whistleblower who made it public that the President was attempting to extort bribes from Ukraine.
> - Elections are no longer trusted thanks to a radicalized right
If you actually look at the primary sources, only a small minority of people don't trust US elections as a whole. A lot of them are suspicious of one or two particular past elections - particularly Democrats in 2000 and 2016 and Republicans in 2020. That distrust isn't a partisan issue, it happens because people are sore losers.
> - There is no freedom to protest, and the right to free speech is easily forgotten, distorted, misapplied.
A lot of high-profile protests have happened recently, and generally went well. Very, very few of those protests have gotten violent and had police intervention, but the vast majority go just fine and get the message out.
> - The news can say whatever it wants without consequence, unless another big corporation sues them.
Yeah, kind of. Except they are having a harder time getting away with it recently - CNN had to settle with a lot of people on the right (individuals) over defamation, and Fox has had many losses including the recent Dominion case. In this case, the courts have been a check on the power of media, and arguably could be a little stronger.
> - In such a divided and hateful climate, jury trials are regular people bringing their personal biases to the court room. Picture the average person and decide if your freedom is safe in their hands. That's forgetting that Jury's decisions can be overridden (Breonna Taylor)
This has always been the case of jury trials. However, in terms of juries getting overruled, I think you are thinking of grand juries, which are more of an investigative body at an early stage in the process. Trial juries can be overruled on a guilty verdict if there is very good reason but can't on an innocent verdict. It honestly seems like you're upset about juries and the legal system as a whole because a few particular cases haven't gone the way you wanted. Maybe they had more information than you and made a better decision?
> - Presumption of innocence (see above)
Welcome to Blackstone's formulation. It is honestly a lot better that 100 guilty people go free than that 1 innocent gets punished. Yes, that means that some guilty people go free, but maybe you should be okay with that because the other side has a very different idea of who ought to be in jail than your side does, and the presumption of innocence keeps everyone out of jail.
> - There should be term limits for Supreme Court justices, whose seats were completely stolen from the democratic party.
This narrative of "stolen" when both parties technically played by the rules (albeit playing dirty) is a big part of how third-world countries end up devolving into dictatorships - One side thinks that someone stole something that was rightly theirs, and changes the rules to make them more "fair" (in terms of getting what they want). In fact, in some of these countries, court packing is almost a meme: one side gets power and doubles the size of the courts to take control (since "they stole seats from us"), then the other side gets power and doubles them again in retaliation, and this continues until the court doesn't function at all.
Thinking of the 2015 nomination of Garland, that was pretty dirty of Mitch McConnell, and I hope he pays for it by losing some of his party's appointees. If you are referring to the other two Trump appointees as stolen, no. He won the 2016 election (see the above comment on trusted elections) - those seats were up to him to appoint.
---
In general, this kind of paranoia about the state of Democracy (or the state of "The Republic" if you play for the other team) in the USA comes out of consuming a lot of partisan news media from one side or the other. It does not actually represent reality - it represents a point of view that gets you to consume more partisan media, which you will happen to do if you think something catastrophic is happening.
The key problem here is that it is very easy to let your idea of what is perfect be the enemy of good. You can look at all these instances and think "we can do better," but if you do, be wary that what you thought was better may come back and bite you. It usually does. It sounds like you play pretty strongly for one team, and that is a recipe for being disappointed in a working democratic system - the other side should win about half the time in a healthy democracy.
> If you actually look at the primary sources, only a small minority of people don't trust US elections as a whole.
Define a small minority? 60% of republicans don't trust elections [1].
> Welcome to Blackstone's formulation. It is honestly a lot better that 100 guilty people go free than that 1 innocent gets punished. Yes, that means that some guilty people go free, but maybe you should be okay with that because the other side has a very different idea of who ought to be in jail than your side does, and the presumption of innocence keeps everyone out of jail.
I was not saying Presumption of Innocence is a bad thing. Rather, that it's non-existent with jury trials. Having people determine your innocence based on "the cut of your gib" is incompatible with the current political climate.
> This narrative of "stolen" when both parties technically played by the rules (albeit playing dirty) is a big part of how third-world countries end up devolving into dictatorships - One side thinks that someone stole something that was rightly theirs, and changes the rules to make them more "fair" (in terms of getting what they want). In fact, in some of these countries, court packing is almost a meme: one side gets power and doubles the size of the courts to take control (since "they stole seats from us"), then the other side gets power and doubles them again in retaliation, and this continues until the court doesn't function at all.
You were originally arguing American democracy isn't that fragile. This is exactly why I say it is fragile.
> Thinking of the 2015 nomination of Garland, that was pretty dirty of Mitch McConnell, and I hope he pays for it by losing some of his party's appointees. If you are referring to the other two Trump appointees as stolen, no. He won the 2016 election (see the above comment on trusted elections) - those seats were up to him to appoint.
The reason Trump was in a position to appoint a third judge is because Ruth Bader Ginsberg was afraid to resign, given what happened to Gorsuch. And then she died. And then they filled her seat immediately after lying about "A president has never confirmed a judge in their last year of office." These are two stolen seats. This has nothing to do with Mitch, this is the entire Republican party.
In general, I wouldn't assume everyone with non-centrist ideas is somehow drinking kool-aid. Protecting the status quo is, itself, a massive bias. And this particular line is puzzling
> the other side should win about half the time in a healthy democracy.
What other side? Can a functioning democracy have only two sides? I would think a functioning democracy is one where the people's interests are represented. As the country grows more left year over year, should republicans still win half the time?
You might think of people passionate about their political agendas as unenlightened people rooting for politicians that don't care about them to begin with, but consider that saying "Both sides are the same and people should be happy with gridlock because change is scary" is equally ridiculous to others
personally I think democracy is particularly fragile and requires constant work to continue reproducing.