America is not Weimar Germany

The current American administration is causing a tense state of being online and in person, and rightfully so.

On one hand it's true, just because someone says they'll do something, like invade Canada, that doesn't mean they will or even realistically Can. However, even with that knowledge it is normal to feel anxious and paranoid, it's similar to seeing a Tiger from behind a glass, you're safe and you know it, but your survival instinct keeps prodding with "what if the glass breaks?" or "what if they forget to lock the cage?".

These are uncertain and anxious times, nonetheless I feel that some, or rather a lot, of spaces have swung hard on the apocalyptic aspect; some genuinely worried, others simple e-pundits looking to cynically seek engagement by abusing the fear of scared netizens with clickbait, claiming their sources are "reliable and trustworthy" despite never showing them or mentioning them by name.

As a journalist that has been trained in meticulously sourcing their points to the point of being annoying, people saying "I have sources" but provide none beyond "dude, trust me" is a red flag bigger than the one raised above the Reichstag in May 1945.

Unfortunately this is leading to a spread of misinformation and misunderstandings, from the extension of term limits to a return to segregation, but one particularly popular statement makes allusions to the Weimar Republic (Germany) right before it was taken over by the National Socialist (Nazi) Party.

It sounds scary on the surface, but to be blunt, it is also complete rubbish; it is missing the forest for the trees and a distraction from the damage that can actually happen, not to mention it's a defeatist outlook that both demoralises potential opponents to the administration from acting, and ignores the efforts to combat the administration by instead clamining that "nobody is doing anything" jabbing right in the face of the multiple elected officials, judges, journalists and grassroots protesters that are playing their part in opposing the administration as I'm writing this.

America will not become an undemocratic authoritarian state just due to one bad election, and this article will present these reasons based on facts.

A big reason is based on historical context, while it is true that both Trump and Hitler got into power through a democratic system, the US constitution is much more robust than the German constitution at the time, and the sociopolitical precedents that allowed the Weimar constitution to be so weak simply aren’t present in the US.

Winning an election was far from the sole factor in Hitler’s takeover of Germany, one of the biggest ones being taking advantage of a loophole in the Weimar Constitution, being Article 48.

In summary: this was a decree that allowed the head of state to simply ignore the Parliament and basic human rights stated by the constitution and take full control of the country to combat an “emergency” that was never properly explained. This was simply a disaster waiting to happen. (More information on Article 48)

Why was such an article was included in the first place? Germany’s place at the time is the reason why: the country had just lost the first World War and many of their territories both abroad (Namibia, New Guinea and more) and domestically through the Treaty of Versailles, but most importantly, they had transitioned from a Monarchy to a Republic.

Despite Germany having been a "Semi-Constitutional Monarchy" for years, many of the staunchly Monarchist elites were highly sceptical of democracy, particularly the potential chaos of multi-party bickering hindering efficiency, thus Article 48 served as a compromise to keep the Monarchists satisfied knowing the head of state can bypass any legislative deadlock like a good old fashioned Monarchy.

That was the idea at least, and while some Weimar politicians such as Friedrich Ebert and Paul von Hindenburg used the Article as intended, it was a disaster waiting to happen and Hitler was the first figure to abuse that loophole to his own means.

By comparison, the American constitution has a number of Amendments, and not a single one is anything remotely like Weimar’s Article 48. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly are fundamental rights outlined in the constitution, and attempting to remove them would be both difficult and political suicide if successful.

While the sitting President can try to introduce something like Article 48, to say the least, it is much easier said than done. The American constitution is notoriously difficult to amend, there have hardly been any amendments in the past few decades and virtually none in the 21st century.

The primary reason is that an amendment must be ratified by a two-thirds majority in Congress (the Senate and House of Representatives) meaning that just 145 out of 435 Representatives and 34 out of 100 Senators are needed to kill a "MAGA Amendment" in the early stages.

Needless to say, the constitution is in safe hands, while the Republicans have a Majority in both houses, it is extremely razor-thin (3 in both the House and the Senate) a far cry from a needed two thirds majority, even if every single Republican Congressmen were to vote in favour of it, the Democratic opposition/minority would be enough to kill the bill.

The dark line shows the minimum amount of votes needed for a two-thirds-majority; a significant minority of Democratic lawmakers are essential to pass any amendment.

But even in the unlikely scenario of a “Make America a Dictatorship” amendment passing, it still would not be enough, as such an amendment would need to be ratified by at least 38 states, that’s three fourths of all 50 states.

It would only take 12 states to block an authoritarian bill, and currently there are 18 states fully controlled by the Democrats. That’s enough to stop the bill, but it doesn’t even take into account some more bipartisan states like Arizona (Republican house but Democratic governor) or Vermont (governor who’s Republican but much more centrist and liberal than the modern average) so there would likely be even more states in opposition. (https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution)

Furthermore, the Republican Party for all its flexing is still more fragmented and dysfunctional than it would like to admit; Trump is hardly half a year into his term and we’re already seeing infighting spring up over speakers in congress, immigration, and what the end goal of their policies would be.

His recent sparring with the Supreme Court, questioning their authority, has shown that not every GOP congressman is ride-or-die for him, and this opposition has some surprising participants: Josh Hawley stands pretty far to the right, frontlining attempts to prevent Joe Biden from entering office in December 2020, has been described as a Christian Nationalist and Trump Loyalist, pushed for the overturning of Roe v Wade, opposes the BDS movement and Affordable Care Act, made comments on "cosmopolitan elites" considered by some as anti-semitic, was the only Senator to oppose a resolution agreeing to Sweden and Finland's entry into NATO, opposed a Hate Crimes Act aimed to protect Asian Americans during COVID, and blamed human trafficking on premarital sex and contraception.

Despite all of this however, he recently made headlines for coming unequivocaly against the Musk-Trump-Vance administration's open hostility towards the Courts.

“I think you can dislike the court’s opinion and think they’re wrong on the substance, and criticize them for that, and you certainly can vigorously appeal... I think outright, sort of just like, ‘Oh, we’re just going to completely ignore the decision?’ That, I think you can’t do. Andrew Jackson did that, infamously. He was wrong on that. That was the Trail of Tears. That was lawless. That was wrong.”

Rep. Andy Ogles recently proposed an Amendment to the constitution allowing a President to run for a third term, and while it’s possible in theory, in practice it is beyond impossible; such a bill to even get out of Congress would need a substantial amount of Democratic support, and that’s assuming all GOP representatives will support it, a tall order considering even some MAGA supporters and representatives seem hesitant to support such an amendment. The last thing many of these legislators want is for a progressive Democratic President to rule for more than eight years, it works both ways.

So why is Ogles proposing this amendment? There are many theories but all agree that it’s a simple show of loyalty to Trump, he knows the amendment as no chance, but that doesn’t matter, what matters is that Trump knows he can rely on Ogles if he is willing to play this act of political theatre.

This shows how people should think less superficially when it comes to politics, a reason why there is such panic right now is due to the Harris-Walz campaign hyping up the damage Trump can do, to the point of also being called out for disinformation.

Why did they insist that Trump would be a threat to democracy then? Simple: mobilisation of votes, while its effectiveness is up for discussion, it’s a common political tactic to drive up voter turnout that hails back to the Jefferson era, if your constituents aren’t excited about you or your vision, just scare them into voting for you.

Overall, the US Constitution would simply not permit an authoritarian to take full control, any attempt to change that is just as unlikely, and Trump's own party has shown signs of not supporting such a venture. Pointing this out is not ignoring the risk.