I totally agree but it feels like these criticisms of democracy are usually lumping the early ethnically homogenous constitutional republicanism in with multicultural "representative democracies." The Founding Fathers understood the dangers of democracy, as well as the tendency of republics to degenerate into oligarchy. This is why they limited suffrage and created a system of checks and balances: a system that worked beautifully for a long while, with a record number of peaceful transitions of power. Just because a system designed in 1788 has become outdated by 2024 doesn't mean the republican project needs to be abandoned. It's quite lazy and uninimaginative to put our hopes in something vulgar like fascism rather than creating an updated constitutional system. The arbitrary and fanatical nature of fascism led to its self destruction almost immediately. The American state has lasted for centuries and continues to project power across the world amidst a paralyzing institutional crisis.
The republican experiment will always lead to degeneracy and decadence because the peasants are inherently dripless retards. Every "solution" to modern bureaucracy makes the poopocratic system increasingly complex and increasingly unstable, further expecting that white land owners won't fool themselves into letting detroit bums vote. A look at Charles III during his coronation is probably the best look as to why constipational repooplicanism is an uglier, lamer & nerdier system of government worshipped by gay autistic nerds! God save the King!
I see your point that current democracy has changed and degraded, the main difference being between early homogenous republics and modern pluralistic democracies. However, you pointed the issue out: America was literally designed as an oligarchy, albeit extended. Early republics were oligarchical by design, they did not “degenerate into oligarchy”. The type of oligarchy and it’s method of rule simply changed. Early America had an aristocratic class that almost every president, senator, and representative belonged to. Power quickly monopolized into the hands of the oligarchs that opposed the runaway general Jackson and his populism. This oligarchy reached it’s peak before the civil war and through to the FDR era, as a select group of men in Boston essentially controlled the whole country. “Checks and balances” did not hamper this oligarchy or it’s formation, nor did extended suffrage. This oligarchy was broken by the Great Depression and FDR’s kingship (hence, the change you mentioned).
Moreover, you mention “peaceful transitions of power” as if this is something only republics can manage. However, even a minor historical investigation proves this false. Many republics, such as Rome, Venice, and take your pick through South/Middle America, have consistently had violent power struggles, while many monarchies, such as Britain, Austria, and the Nordic countries consistently managed peaceful transitions. Even the autocratic countries of the USSR and China did/have not had civil wars. This is not to say that republics cannot have peaceful transitions nor that autocracies cannot have violent transitions, either can occur. Wealth is also irrelevant, to deny a common counterpoint, many of these places have been relatively poor or rich though their history but the fact has not changed. The through line is less so linked to the ruling method and more to the national/cultural/ethnic identity of the country in question. Countries that had violent transitions when autocracies continued to have them as republics.
Apparently it is “lazy and unimaginable” to put your hopes into fascism. I’m not a fascist, but that’s a shit criticism. It’s fair to say that Germany and Italy quickly collapsed under their fascist regimes, but that ignores the geopolitical context of the time. However, my main criticism of your point is that an “updated constitutional system” is supposed to fix our republican crisis. Please, if you would, provide me an airtight way to alter the American government/constitution so that power isn’t monopolized within a generation while maintaining republicanism. The constitution is essentially toilet paper, it’s obvious now, but it has been since the first central bank, and it’s indisputable after the Civil War. It’s a piece of paper. It holds no power other than symbolically, and any man or group of men can violate it with impunity given sufficient power. Power coalesces quickly, and it’s main goal is to crush its opposition. No piece of paper will ever defeat the incentive structure of power.
Sure, America goes on. European democracies too. We still project power. How much of that is actually due to “republicanism”? Did republicanism create the F-35? No, smart people and money (from more smart people) did. Frankly, it just seems like there’s a lot of smart people in the US. You even made my point, that we continue to project power despite our institutional paralyzation. If republicanism is so important, how can we do that?
You seem to cling onto your conception of the early American republic as some perfect creation, with none of the rot that we see now. The rot was always there, and historical investigation reveals it. We were always sliding into oligarchy, but the outward sheen of “republicanism” and our temporal separation obscure that.
TRVKE ALERT! Venice was a very interkeksting country, they were the only republic that let leaders get away with wearing beautiful crowns & robes (if trump or biden wore the doge outfit you'd never hear the end of it). The doge was a lifelong term, but the doges were all old as FUCK so they ruled for effectively 2-8 years. Their flag was beautiful and it was one of the few republics to not soypog over the idea of a secular state, instead serving allegiance to the catholic church. Of course, since it was still just a little city republic, it stopped being relevant after the 1400s and was MLG swagscoped by the french republic (ironic) and afterwards was run over by the austrians and annexed by them. Little such cases!
Oligarchs are essential to organzing civil society and for which purpose they are represented by Congress. Many of the Founding Fathers were oligarchs but they were first and foremost an aristocracy of brigands and ideologues. Aristocracy is not the same thing as oligarchy, and true republicanism is pro aristocracy. The constitution was never meant to crush the incentive structure of power but to divide the levers of power so as to keep them locked in a constant and unwinnable competition. Oligarchy, executive tyranny, and the fickle sentiments of the mob, all have a role in government, wether you want them to or not, and the reason is simple: these are innate and powerful societal forces. As for China, it does not have a coherent division of power, it just has factions. Look into any "peaceful" transition of power in the CCP and you will find a history of successive political coups. Even then, China is in fact, an authoritarian republic, as was the USSR. Obviously, as a natural expression of the plural interests behind nation, a republic is only as strong as the unwritten laws and nobility of a people. If you truly believe in the innate uniqueness and nobility of European Americans then you must necessarily believe in the republic. All that is left to do is to create a new aristocracy on which the future of nobility will be modeled on and to design the new republic according to the lessons of history.
I totally agree but it feels like these criticisms of democracy are usually lumping the early ethnically homogenous constitutional republicanism in with multicultural "representative democracies." The Founding Fathers understood the dangers of democracy, as well as the tendency of republics to degenerate into oligarchy. This is why they limited suffrage and created a system of checks and balances: a system that worked beautifully for a long while, with a record number of peaceful transitions of power. Just because a system designed in 1788 has become outdated by 2024 doesn't mean the republican project needs to be abandoned. It's quite lazy and uninimaginative to put our hopes in something vulgar like fascism rather than creating an updated constitutional system. The arbitrary and fanatical nature of fascism led to its self destruction almost immediately. The American state has lasted for centuries and continues to project power across the world amidst a paralyzing institutional crisis.
The republican experiment will always lead to degeneracy and decadence because the peasants are inherently dripless retards. Every "solution" to modern bureaucracy makes the poopocratic system increasingly complex and increasingly unstable, further expecting that white land owners won't fool themselves into letting detroit bums vote. A look at Charles III during his coronation is probably the best look as to why constipational repooplicanism is an uglier, lamer & nerdier system of government worshipped by gay autistic nerds! God save the King!
I see your point that current democracy has changed and degraded, the main difference being between early homogenous republics and modern pluralistic democracies. However, you pointed the issue out: America was literally designed as an oligarchy, albeit extended. Early republics were oligarchical by design, they did not “degenerate into oligarchy”. The type of oligarchy and it’s method of rule simply changed. Early America had an aristocratic class that almost every president, senator, and representative belonged to. Power quickly monopolized into the hands of the oligarchs that opposed the runaway general Jackson and his populism. This oligarchy reached it’s peak before the civil war and through to the FDR era, as a select group of men in Boston essentially controlled the whole country. “Checks and balances” did not hamper this oligarchy or it’s formation, nor did extended suffrage. This oligarchy was broken by the Great Depression and FDR’s kingship (hence, the change you mentioned).
Moreover, you mention “peaceful transitions of power” as if this is something only republics can manage. However, even a minor historical investigation proves this false. Many republics, such as Rome, Venice, and take your pick through South/Middle America, have consistently had violent power struggles, while many monarchies, such as Britain, Austria, and the Nordic countries consistently managed peaceful transitions. Even the autocratic countries of the USSR and China did/have not had civil wars. This is not to say that republics cannot have peaceful transitions nor that autocracies cannot have violent transitions, either can occur. Wealth is also irrelevant, to deny a common counterpoint, many of these places have been relatively poor or rich though their history but the fact has not changed. The through line is less so linked to the ruling method and more to the national/cultural/ethnic identity of the country in question. Countries that had violent transitions when autocracies continued to have them as republics.
Apparently it is “lazy and unimaginable” to put your hopes into fascism. I’m not a fascist, but that’s a shit criticism. It’s fair to say that Germany and Italy quickly collapsed under their fascist regimes, but that ignores the geopolitical context of the time. However, my main criticism of your point is that an “updated constitutional system” is supposed to fix our republican crisis. Please, if you would, provide me an airtight way to alter the American government/constitution so that power isn’t monopolized within a generation while maintaining republicanism. The constitution is essentially toilet paper, it’s obvious now, but it has been since the first central bank, and it’s indisputable after the Civil War. It’s a piece of paper. It holds no power other than symbolically, and any man or group of men can violate it with impunity given sufficient power. Power coalesces quickly, and it’s main goal is to crush its opposition. No piece of paper will ever defeat the incentive structure of power.
Sure, America goes on. European democracies too. We still project power. How much of that is actually due to “republicanism”? Did republicanism create the F-35? No, smart people and money (from more smart people) did. Frankly, it just seems like there’s a lot of smart people in the US. You even made my point, that we continue to project power despite our institutional paralyzation. If republicanism is so important, how can we do that?
You seem to cling onto your conception of the early American republic as some perfect creation, with none of the rot that we see now. The rot was always there, and historical investigation reveals it. We were always sliding into oligarchy, but the outward sheen of “republicanism” and our temporal separation obscure that.
I think you left out the jewish influence. What would have happened if we never had a parasite class?
TRVKE ALERT! Venice was a very interkeksting country, they were the only republic that let leaders get away with wearing beautiful crowns & robes (if trump or biden wore the doge outfit you'd never hear the end of it). The doge was a lifelong term, but the doges were all old as FUCK so they ruled for effectively 2-8 years. Their flag was beautiful and it was one of the few republics to not soypog over the idea of a secular state, instead serving allegiance to the catholic church. Of course, since it was still just a little city republic, it stopped being relevant after the 1400s and was MLG swagscoped by the french republic (ironic) and afterwards was run over by the austrians and annexed by them. Little such cases!
Oligarchs are essential to organzing civil society and for which purpose they are represented by Congress. Many of the Founding Fathers were oligarchs but they were first and foremost an aristocracy of brigands and ideologues. Aristocracy is not the same thing as oligarchy, and true republicanism is pro aristocracy. The constitution was never meant to crush the incentive structure of power but to divide the levers of power so as to keep them locked in a constant and unwinnable competition. Oligarchy, executive tyranny, and the fickle sentiments of the mob, all have a role in government, wether you want them to or not, and the reason is simple: these are innate and powerful societal forces. As for China, it does not have a coherent division of power, it just has factions. Look into any "peaceful" transition of power in the CCP and you will find a history of successive political coups. Even then, China is in fact, an authoritarian republic, as was the USSR. Obviously, as a natural expression of the plural interests behind nation, a republic is only as strong as the unwritten laws and nobility of a people. If you truly believe in the innate uniqueness and nobility of European Americans then you must necessarily believe in the republic. All that is left to do is to create a new aristocracy on which the future of nobility will be modeled on and to design the new republic according to the lessons of history.