> First, there is the 3.5% rule [1]. Second, if 10%-20% of the general population would go on a general strike

FWIW, when the best case recommendations for a restoration of civil order and the rule of law involve very large scale society-wide civil disobedience...

...then maybe the comparison to Nazi Germany and authoritative dictatorships more generally are perhaps not as far afield as you're implying. Like, once your thinking goes beyond "just win the next election" things are kinda over as far as "democracy" goes.

(And FWIW I don't necessarily disagree: the existing regime's leadership, not just the White House, seem extremely unlikely to just walk out the door if they lose an election. It was tried four years ago and failed, the resulting loyalty tests have produced a very different cabinet this time.)

▲

erikerikson 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Like, once your thinking goes beyond "just win the next election" things are kinda over as far as "democracy" goes.

Elections are not the only form democratic participation can take. We can take local action, coordinated action, talk to our representatives at various levels, and so on.

▲

DrewADesign 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Your suggestions aren't really addressing the things people are actually worried about here.

If leadership-aligned politicians won't dare step out of line, and those opposed are systematically marginalized by the executive, other legislators, and the courts, then what good does that do? Deliberately neutralizing the opposition's power renders the opposition's ideas, efforts, and proposals useless, and the allied politicians will never disobey, so petitioning either of them to make changes is pointless.

I'm not saying any of that is completely true right now, but people are nervous that this is becoming true.

▲

ajross 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> people are nervous that this is becoming true

It seems abundantly clear that there will be no peaceful/rule-of-law transfer of executive power in January 2029 to anyone but a hand-picked Trump successor that wins an election. A democratic victory (or even a Republican primary winner that isn't appropriately selected) will be resisted at all levels of the executive, and... we'll just see. Whatever the result, the losing party will call it a coup and illegitimate, and such an administration will survive only so long as it can hold control of the government by authoritarian means.

It may even happen earlier. A lot of the kerfuffle around redistricting is being presented to right wing audiences in a way that would be very easy to spin as "cheating". What do we do if democrats win the house next year and Johnson simply refuses to seat the California delegation to keep power? Are we prepared?

Basically, the End of the American Experiment may have already occurred.

	▲	DrewADesign 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not so quick to pull the trigger on that assessment. I think we're at point where the rubber band has ostensibly been pulled back nearly as far as it can go, and it may snap, or it might make a surprising move in the opposite direction in response to the tension. I don't think any of us peons has any meaningful control of which of those two things happens, but I think it will hinge a lot on how much big businesses are affected by the economic and political consequences of recent policy moves. No matter how much Trump might bluster about big businesses and such, he'll still fall in line if enough get pushed to the point of having to draw a line in the sand. Too bad it will probably be big business operating in pure self-interest and not some actual principled entity. Maaaaybe if there's enough economic pain among his base, that could point us towards a voter-driven repudiation to some extent. Even if they cement their power significantly, I don't think they could swing it with an outright rejection of their approach. I doubt that will happen though.

▲

microtonal 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

...then maybe the comparison to Nazi Germany and authoritative dictatorships more generally are perhaps not as far afield as you're implying.

Sorry, I was not implying they are far afield. We have seen this playbook in several nearby European/Asian countries in the last two and a half decades (I live in Europe). Of course, not all these countries did have a long democratic history, but they did show the fragility of democracy, you have to actively protect it.

Heck, even in the country where I live, which has quite a healthy democracy, a majority of parliament has just accepted a motion to request declaring antifa a terrorist organization because Trump did it as well (all Dutch experts, including former secret service personnel agree that antifa is neither an organization, nor terrorist). Some of them just to score a few points for the upcoming elections. Only a judge can declare an organization to be a terrorist organization, but it's all small steps in eroding the rule of law.

(Coincidentally, the next day 1500 right wing hooligans rioted in the streets of The Haglue the next day, burning police cars, damaging the office of a center-left political party and the parliament square.)