By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Trump administration’s second term has witnessed a dramatic erosion of democratic norms and institutions. Checks and balances have been systematically dismantled, with the executive branch ignoring judicial rulings and Congress failing to assert its authority. Simultaneously, scientific research is severely underfunded, the economy is in turmoil, and human rights are being violated through mass deportations and suppression of dissent. This situation represents not merely a crisis, but a collapse of the existing constitutional framework, leaving the future of American governance uncertain.
Read the original article here
We are witnessing a slow constitutional collapse in the US, or at least that’s what many believe. It’s not a sudden, dramatic implosion, more like a gradual dimming of the lights—you only realize the darkness when you fumble for the switch. The feeling is palpable, a sense of creeping erosion, a slow-motion blackout of foundational principles.
Some point to landmark events as pivotal moments in this decline. The Patriot Act, passed in the wake of 9/11, significantly expanded government surveillance powers, raising concerns about the erosion of civil liberties. Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court decision, unleashed a flood of money into politics, further fueling partisan divisions and undermining public trust in government.
The recent presidency of Donald Trump is seen by many as a stress test, a deliberate push against the boundaries of constitutional norms. Trump’s actions, perceived by some as a disregard for the rule of law and established institutions, are considered a pivotal turning point in this ongoing process. His administration’s challenges to the legitimacy of elections, coupled with the January 6th Capitol attack, solidified this view for many.
It’s not just recent events that contribute to this perception. The seeds of this perceived decline are planted decades earlier, with some identifying Nixon’s presidency and the Iraq War as significant turning points. The argument is that these events created a precedent for weakening institutions and undermining faith in the democratic process, gradually eroding the very fabric of the American constitutional order.
However, others vehemently disagree with the “slow” descriptor. For them, the collapse has been anything but gradual. They cite the rapid dismantling of checks and balances, the erosion of democratic norms, and the polarization of the electorate as evidence of a swift and alarming decline. The speed of recent events—the erosion of trust in institutions, the rise of extremism, and the proliferation of misinformation—are seen as accelerating the process exponentially.
The ongoing debate over the pace of this alleged collapse is further complicated by contrasting perspectives on the very nature of the crisis. While some focus on the constitutional aspects, others expand their concerns to include a broader societal decay and a potential civilizational collapse. Some see this as the culmination of decades of growing inequality, political dysfunction, and cultural divisions, leading to a breakdown of the social contract.
For some, the damage is already done, irreparable. They see the very foundation of American democracy as irrevocably compromised, leading to uncertainty about the future of the nation. The question becomes less about the *speed* of the collapse and more about the consequences, and the possibility of a fragmented nation, possibly splitting along state lines.
The perception of a “slow” constitutional collapse versus a rapid descent is subjective. It depends largely on one’s perspective, the timeline they consider, and the metrics used to measure the health of American democracy. Regardless of the characterization – slow or fast – the underlying concern is that the foundations of American governance are under severe strain. The long-term consequences remain to be seen, but the widespread feeling of unease is undeniable.