You’d think a hegemony with a 100-years tradition of upkeeping democracy against major non-democratic players, would have some mechanism that would prevent itself from throwing down it’s key ideology.
Is it really that the president is all that decides about the future of democracy itself? Is 53 out of 100 senate seats really enough to make country fall into authoritarian regime? Is the army really not constitutionally obliged to step in and save the day?
I’d never think that, of all places, American democracy would be the most volatile.
What part are you referring to? This?
Cause that not the same context. One is responding to the “100-years tradition of upkeeping democracy against major non-democratic players” claim and the other is talking about the USA political system as it exists right now. These are not just referring to different periods; but the former is not even asking whether democracy exists in the USA. It’s asking whether the US has a long tradition of fighting for democracy against its major enemies. That’s why I didn’t just mention just the lack of voting rights for minorities, but also stuff like violently interfering in other countries’ politics. The sentences seem inconsistent to you because you took out every bit of context.
Yes they do vary. One could argue objective definitions don’t exist in the first place. It’s not problematic, it’s a good thing. If definitions didn’t vary by time, black people would still be slaves and women would not have the right to vote. It is our changing definition of who “the people” of a country are that changed the rights afforded to those people. And the fact that even the most fundamental words of the most minimal definition are not objective and unchanging is why you cannot come up with a single universally accepted definition. I mean, if you think you have one, why don’t you share it?