American Democracy Might Not Survive Another Year – Is Europe Ready for That?
Posted3 months agoActive3 months ago
theguardian.comOtherstory
heatednegative
Debate
80/100
Us DemocracyTrumpEuropean Politics
Key topics
Us Democracy
Trump
European Politics
The article warns that American democracy may not survive another year due to Trump's influence and potential authoritarianism, sparking discussion on Europe's preparedness and potential consequences.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Active discussionFirst comment
21m
Peak period
16
0-2h
Avg / period
5.1
Comment distribution46 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 46 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 6, 2025 at 3:51 AM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 6, 2025 at 4:12 AM EDT
21m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
16 comments in 0-2h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 7, 2025 at 6:08 AM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45488746Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 5:11:42 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Those of my generation and previous ones following WW II, just wasted all the efforts for a better society.
The trend in Europe started many decades ago. It is too convenient to blame Russia to avoid acknowledging reality. Russia does not create problems, it is an opportunistic actor that tries to use the existing problems and discontent to its advantage.
Immediately labelling discontent as "xenophobia" is exactly what I mentioned in my previous comments, a denial of reality and of people's concerns. It shuts down debate and only fuels discontent. People are effectively told that they have no choice and if they don't like it they are wrong and racist.
In the intelligence community there is very little doubt that russia has been doing this for decades. Yes, there is a home grown component as well but it would not be nearly as large if not for all this meddling.
> Immediately labelling discontent as "xenophobia" is exactly what I mentioned in my previous comments, a denial of a reality and of people's concerns. It shuts down debate and only fuels discontent. People are effectively told that they have no choice and if they don't like it they are wrong and racist.
Yes.
This will end badly because of this denial of reality and denial of people's voices, not because of Russia.
This is incredibly short-sighted and is in fact exactly such a denial of reality that you accuse others of. The world is divided into poorer regions and wealthier regions, and regions that are peaceful and ones that are less peaceful. Then there is oppression based on race, creed, sexual preference and a whole raft of other things.
As long as that is the case there will be people that want to move away from where they were born.
You are claiming to speak for a group, but in fact you are just speaking for yourself, and poorly reasoned and supported at that.
The world is what it is. That has nothing to do with the immigration policies in Europe, which are chosen by the governments not imposed on them, and nothing to do with the growing range of issues in Europe.
I am not claiming to speak for anyone, by the way. I only acknowledge the election results and trends across Europe and how those signs of public opinion are met.
Have a nice one, guys.
It does however, have everything to do with centuries of European imperialism. We shaped the world to be the way it is. It didn't happen by accident.
Our goverments could do better fixing the ways of the past, instead it is much easier to complain about immigration, from countries politians themselves would not freely chose to live on, other than on big monthly check from one of those corporations.
Long term sustainable policies that do not result in such an imbalance require a longer term view and possibly lower short term profits. In fact, the United States was on that path until Trump took over. Mexico was slowly getting wealthier and people were already moving back because it was a more viable alternative. Now of course all that progress has been destroyed but it was really working, and I'm pretty sure that it could have been accelerated.
I, too, am part of the "people". My concerns are that we are seeing xenophobia rise as a distraction from the issues caused by capitalist contradictions and that Russia is fueling that fire for its own motives.
I, too, am unhappy with the current political parties, but for reasons opposite to yours. As long as the means of production are owned by the capitalist class, we will continue to suffer.
My "people's concern" is not the same as yours. Please do not try to commandeer it.
It is as true as the belief that social dynamics can be explained without the notion of class and modes of production.
Strawman detected. That's not what the GP wrote.
> The moment socialism arrives there won't be racism or xenophobia.
And that makes two.
> It is as true as the belief that social dynamics can be explained without the notion of class and modes of production.
Ok, I give up.
Much can be said, but not that they are so naive as your typical HN commenter.
And invasion or occupation is hardly the only example of adversarial policy, even if most obvious.
It was better for Russia than the present.
> You are taking last few decades, which were anomaly due to unprecedented situation of total global hegemony of US, and you extrapolate for the rest of future human history, whereas it dissolves right before your eyes.
The US has nothing to do with this.
> And invasion or occupation is hardly the only example of adversarial policy, even if most obvious.
Yes, you can make enemies out of thin air. But the facts are simple: Europe has tried to appease Russia by trading with them, in the end that trade balance was and is used to wage war. That's a dead end strategy. Russia can not survive by itself and needs trading partners more than it needs more territory. Putin and his band of mafiosi are robbing Russia blind and are the root cause of a lot of this, they will at some point be replaced and hopefully the new guard will be smarter than the old guard. And if not we'll deal with that when we get there.
You live in Poland, but your position does not strike me as typically Polish. Poland has seen first hand what it was like to live as a Russian occupied country. The same goes for the Baltics, Romania and lots of other countries in the East. Between all of them there is a solid agreement that this will not happen again. They're more than happy to let Russia be Russia, but within its own borders. Just like it would be if your country bordered Somalia or Iran.
On the contrary. Epitome of close transnational cooperation, the EU, would not exist if not for the US. So called "international law" and "free trade" are creations of US hegemony as well.
> You live in Poland, but your position does not strike me as typically Polish. Poland has seen first hand what it was like to live as a Russian occupied country.
I suspect it is because you for some reason believe it is impossible to hold multiple, noncontradictory thougths simultaneously in mind:
1. Russia is Poland's adversary, always have been, always will be. Not because of some good vs evil bs, or because Putin is madman, but because success of one is a loss of the other. Yes, some games are zero-sum, and this is why wars will happen. Alliances always are more or less situational.
2. Russia is a country of misery, and always was.
3. Unrest and far-right success we face internally, as other countries do as well, though definitely exploited and fueled by Russia, are fault of people that were in charge so far, and systemic problems they created or failed to address.
4. Russian policy against neighbouring countries is independent from who is currently ruling there.
No, it is because I too lived in Poland, have a ton of friends and family there and know from first had experience what Poland looked like under Russian occupation.
The EU was preceded by several other institutions which had absolutely nothing to do with the United States.
And how from this experience follows anything that you postulated before?
My great grandfather was in three German camps, Auschwitz among them, and I do not produce from this fact any theory on German foreign policy, or politics in general. That would be quite silly.
> The EU was preceded by several other institutions which had absolutely nothing to do with the United States.
ECSC in 1951 was created due to US encouragement and active involvement. US was preventing France from enacting more severe reparation policies after WW2, US was pushing UK to go against traditional British policy of preventing mainland Europe from any unification, US was making sure Germany will be part of any initiative (France was reluctant, UK even more so) etc. We can add to that the Marshall Plan as well. Of course nothing of that wasn't motivated by charity of the US, and it doesn't mean that there were no forces internal to Europe that also pushed for closer cooperation, but it doesn't change facts that are a bitter pill for some euro enthusiasts. History usually brings bitter pills for those that think it ended.
Unless you mean Holy Roman Empire as a predecessor of the EU, then sure, you are right.
However, I have a hard time imagining that happening. As long as elections are still a thing over there, even if Trump gets a third term, that's still probably not enough hope lost to push Europe over the edge to actually take action rather than continuing to wait it out and slowly distancing themselves from the US rather than quickly.
I think you misunderstand. The Presidency is term-limited by the Constitution. Trump cannot run for a third term. The only way he remains in power after his second term is if the Constitution is abolished, in which case "continuing to wait it out" is futile. It would be equivalent to this:
> Trump declares himself king (or whatever other fancy word)
I have no faith Trump gives a shit about the constitution. He and his goons can amend and screw around till they find something that gives them what they want. So long as there's a somewhat legitimate election that says Trump's president, the fire burning under Europe's bottom isn't burning hot enough for them to move. Unless there's literally no election, not even the pretence of democracy, I can't imagine anyone doing anything much different from what they're doing now. If they were going to, they'd have already done it.
I didn't say he does. But again, abolishing the Constitution is the only path to staying in power.
> He and his goons can amend
No, they can't. Have you studied the amendment process?
> So long as there's a somewhat legitimate election that says Trump's president
That's the point. There can't be another somewhat legitimate election that says Trump's President.
If people go out to vote for Donald Trump, and he wins the election for a third term, or someone just says the right combination of words that wills him into being president for a third time, regardless of the constitution, that'll be legitimate enough. I have very little faith in both the US and Europe.
Yes, that was my point! Again, the only path to remaining in power is to completely bypass or ignore the Consitution. There is no legal means, not even nominally.
> If people go out to vote for Donald Trump, and he wins the election for a third term
This is explicitly, clearly unconstitutional.
> or someone just says the right combination of words that wills him into being president for a third time
This is just hand-waving.
> regardless of the constitution, that'll be legitimate enough.
How will it be legitimate at all?
> I have very little faith in both the US and Europe.
You also appear to have very little knowledge of the US.
My point isn't really about the US. My point is that Europe will do naught more than what they're doing now unless the US democracy compleatly collapses. Even if the elections are made and choose a candidate that can't legally be elected, him being elected still has a shred of democracy that means it isn't totally gone, and thus probably not gone enough for Europe to actually wake up. It won't be a free and fair election if that's the way things go, but it will be an election, and I believe that will be enough.
This is not entirely accurate. If 5 Supreme Court justices declared that Trump is king, or that Christianity is the official religion of the United States, that doesn't make it Constutional. There are certain actions that are just obviously, blatantly unconstitutional, and everyone would recognize it, regardless of what the justices say. At a certain point, the justices themselves would be deemed to be ignoring the Constitution. The declaration may spawn another civil war, but we're not stupid enough to think, "Oh, hey, a king is actually Constitutional", and I doubt that Europeans are stupid enough to believe that either.
Note that the case is about criminal prosecution. Congress retains the power specified in the Constitution to impeach and remove the President.
At this point, having already misunderstood our electoral system, you don't seem to be in a strong position to lecture US citizens about US law.
https://billkatz.substack.com/p/discourse-on-voluntary-servi...
But if not one thing is yielded to him, if without any violence he is simply not obeyed, he becomes naked and undone and nothing, just as when the root receives no nourishment, the branch withers and dies.
The Constitution says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". It doesn't say no person shall serve as President more than twice.
Gerald Ford was never elected to the office of the President. He was never even elected to the office of Vice President. Yet he served as President.
One scenario: Trump runs as a Vice President on a ticket with someone else as President. 5 minutes after being inaugurated, the President resigns, making Trump President for a third term.
I'm sure clever people can think of other scenarios.
You can conceive of imaginary scenarios, but that's not going to happen. Nobody who wins the Presidency is going to resign. If that's the scenario you're afraid of, it's just silly.
I would note that Republican Senators are reluctant even to bypass the current Democratic filibuster shutting down the government. As much as Republican politicians are deferential to Trump, they still have their own political ambitions. Some of them are biding their time in the hope that they themselves can become the next President.
I dunno, man. People are already putting their name next to a "NAY" vote for the President, specifically when it comes to releasing files regarding the most prolific child sex trafficker of our time; who likely had such connections to the President.
Being masochistic enough for someone to do that, and to resign as president, are less steps away than you think.
9 more comments available on Hacker News