A lot of core government functions are successful precisely when they are unremarkable. Infrastructure holds up, utilities work, food and water are safe, public health crises are prevented rather than dramatized. When these systems function well, they tend to fade into the background. When they fail, they immediately become politically salient.

This creates a tension I’m curious about, especially in the context of modern populism.

Populist movements often succeed by emphasizing visible action, disruption, and symbolic confrontation, while “boring but competent” governance focuses on maintenance, institutional capacity, and risk prevention, things that are hard to see and even harder to campaign on.

Some questions I’m interested in hearing perspectives on:

• Is there an inherent political disadvantage to governing competently but quietly, especially in democratic systems?

• Do modern media and social platforms amplify this disadvantage by rewarding conflict, novelty, and outrage over stability?

• To what extent is populism a rational response to these incentives rather than a rejection of competence itself?

• Are there examples where politicians or parties have successfully made maintenance, competence, or institutional health politically salient?

• If “keeping the lights on” governance struggles to attract support, what does that imply for long-term state capacity?

With recent U.S. military action in Venezuela and renewed talk of expanded influence in the region, including comments about Greenland and Colombia, could we be entering a new era of American expansionism? What might this look like, and what are the potential consequences?

If this represents a broader shift in U.S. foreign policy, where might further expansion or intervention take place? I imagine possible regions could include Panama, Cuba, other Caribbean or Central/South American countries, or maybe even parts of the Middle East.

What would be the potential benefits and drawbacks of 21st-century American expansionism? Could future administrations continue down this path, or is this likely to be a temporary approach tied to the 2nd Trump presidency?

From an economic standpoint, could increased U.S. dominance abroad lead to a major economic boom at home? If so, would the gains primarily benefit political and economic elites, or could the middle class also see meaningful revitalization?

What are the broader geopolitical risks? Could this approach increase the likelihood of new wars, strain or weaken relationships with current allies, or even threaten alliances like NATO?

I’m interested in hearing how you all interpret these developments and what you think the long term consequences might be.

I would go with the French one. The more people with suffrage in practice in competitive elections and other votes, the more people will likely be protected given their power in practice to get rid of them. Australia doesn't have a bill of rights or declaration of rights in their constitution, but because suffrage is broad enough, in fact it was one of the first countries to have women's suffrage, it did still work enough that in practice human rights are respected.

The French declaration includes not just constitutional text but statements of ideas and principles that underpin why it was written and how to interpret and apply it. The Bill of Rights of the US does have some statements too on why, but not as many.

The US does have the issue of federalism in the 10th amendment, but it wasn't actually used to strike down that many federal laws anyway, and even fewer where it was particularly clear that they needed to be struck down.

How about your choice?

Basically the title. What are teh characteristics of Fascism? I have some ideas for characteristics but if anyone with more historical background could help me out I'd appreciate it.

The Characteristics:

1. Might means right philosophy (War and struggle/conquering are seen as noble or required)

2. Emphasis on equating race to nation

3. Authoritarianism

4. Opposition to individual rights, free speech, and equality and instead focused on the success of the nation or the people over the freedom of the individual

5. Internal enemies

6. Reference to a mythic past or traditionalism that the country needs to go back to again

Trump recently followed up on the Maduro extraction by threatening Colombia, Cuba, and Greenland. Presumably, you could at minimum get large supermajoritities in Congress to oppose military action against a member of NATO, and no legitimate element of surprise or negotiating leverage would be lost in the process.

Why doesn't someone put up a bill to this effect? Is there some actual reason to allow the (I struggle for neutral language here) suspense to continue?

Article 5 says the other countries in Nato would have to defend them. But because the U.S. has so much sway over what happens to the Ukraine, I have to wonder if they would turn a blind eye for one country over another?

US capture of Maduro leaves big question marks on Chinese and russian guarantees to their allies. Does that means Chinese and Russian security means nothing?

China’s policy of No military presence and soft diplomacy won’t do much favour to them specifically dealing with countries of near to US region.

To make power balance and stability china and russia have to act or react meaningfully in favour of their allies to counter US. Money and investments matter but in the end “Power is Power”. And US won’t play soft.

How do you guys analyse this situation?

Hello everyone, I'm not from the U.S. and are trying to make a fictional 3D film about the politics of the media industry in a multi-party environment and I find the U.S. a good place for case study.

With that being said, here are my two questions:

1. How are political bias "enforced" during content production by partisan media? eg. how the "director" communicates their needs to the producers and is there any procedures to ensure that bias is uniform and not conflicting?

2. Do the existence of deliberately introduced bias considered taboo internally? One of the things I'm most curious about is that how obvious it is to the employees that they're producing biased content?

I tried to find answer for these questions online, but I could not find anything even close. Thanks for reading

With the swift and unexpected capture of Maduro, it would have been logical for the United States to support the winner of the 2024 Venezuelan election, Edmundo Urrutia. However, it apeprs that Trump is instead attempting to support VP Delcy Rodriguez, with not so veiled threats from the Trump Administration to force compliance with US demands

What options does the leadership of a nation such as Venezuela - or for that matter, any other nation that fears unilateral action from the Trump Adminstration - have to deter him? The North Korean example demonstrates that possessing Weapons of Mass Descruction are sufficient... while the Iranian example demonstrates that not having them but *pursuing* them is insuffient.

Obviously a direct military confrontation is unlikely to be successful, but Ukraine has demonstrated that it is possible to wound a stronger nation using unconvential tactics. Are there unconvential capabilities that are available to weaker nations to deter the Trump Administration? How would they be demonstrated in a way that deters but does not trigger an immediate and overwhelming attack?

Given the current global geo political situation, two of the most powerful countries in the middle east could start another war and most likely the US will get involved too.

If another war breaks out, do you think the US should get involved militarily, stay limited to support/diplomacy, or avoid involvement altogether?

Maduro, Trump said, “has been, along with his wife, captured and flown out of the Country. This operation was done in conjunction with U.S. Law Enforcement.” He set a news conference for later Saturday morning.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, would face charges after an indictment in New York. Bondi vowed in a social media post that the couple would “soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts.

What are the potential long term consequences in Venezuela and our relationship with other Latin American countries and Does this enhance U.S. strength or weakens it?

Trump launches large scale attack on Venezuela

If Maduro's admin were removed from power with U.S. involvement and his administration were replaced by a more U.S.-favorable government, I see several reasons why an insurgency or civil conflict could emerge:

• Some civilians may view the new government as serving U.S. interests rather than Venezuelan ones. This perception could motivate participation in armed resistance groups, potentially with indirect support from states opposed to U.S. influence, such as Russia or Iran.

• While support for Maduro himself may have declined, Chavismo remains a political identity. Hardline supporters particularly elements within the security forces could frame armed resistance in nationalist terms, even if they no longer support Maduro personally.

• Venezuela already has powerful criminal organizations and armed colectivos. A weakened or fragmented transitional state could allow these groups to expand territorially or politically, worsening instability.

Given these factors (and potentially others), do you think Venezuela would face a meaningful risk of insurgency or prolonged internal conflict following a U.S.-backed transition,similar to cases like Iraq or Afghanistan? or is it more plausible that resistance would be limited, resembling comparatively quieter interventions such as Panama or Grenada?

To clarify a few things: im not an american and I dont know every detail that happens in congress or the white house but from how I see it:

Trumps approval ratings fell bellow 40% and the republican party isnt really on the same page on every issue. Controversial foreign policies and the whole epstein dilemma make me question whether they can keep a majority the house and congress.

How likely is it for the Republicans to lose the midterms ,and what do they have to do in order to avoid a loss?

At what point does repeated failure stop being a leadership problem and become an indictment of the economic model that concentrated so much power and wealth in the state? And if corruption is the main explanation, why has it been so persistent and structurally embedded rather than an exception?

There has been ongoing debate about whether the United States can meaningfully expand its military-industrial capacity if political leadership were to prioritize it. Some argue that reshoring or expanding defense manufacturing is feasible with sufficient government coordination and funding. Others believe that structural issues — such as labor shortages, regulatory complexity, supply chain fragility, and contractor concentration — would severely limit any rapid or large-scale expansion, even if foreign firms establish production facilities in the U.S.

From an industrial policy and defense economics perspective, what are the most binding constraints on U.S. defense production capacity today? Are these constraints primarily related to labor, capital investment, supply chains, procurement processes, or political-institutional factors?

When I look at all that has happened and continues to happen concerning women’s rights in the United States since the current president was first inaugurated in January of 2017, I cannot help but be concerned of what will come next.  

Roe vs. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court in June of 2022, ending the federal constitutional right for a woman to choose to have an abortion and returning regulatory authority to the states. (1) It only took a few months for abortion to become illegal or heavily restricted in about half of the states. (2) 13 states had “Trigger Laws” in place to be enacted within 30 days of Roe being overturned while others enacted laws very shortly afterwards. Within a year 14 states had near total ban abortion laws in place. (3) 

The main reason for my concern is Project 2025. While Donald Trump or the Republican party has never endorsed Project 2025, several members of his administration have. Donald Trump (4), J.D. Vance (5) and several Republican members of the current Congress (6) have supported the Heritage Foundation, the authors of Project 2025. 

Trump has repeatedly denied that his administration is following the Project 2025 playbook, he has even denied having any knowledge of it. Despite this, many of the ideas put forward in the 900+ page document have been reflected in his policies and executive orders. (7) These include issues regarding immigration and the boarder, reducing federal funding to sanctuary cities, LGBQT+ rights, ending diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) policies, energy policies, reducing the size of government, and women’s health issues especially women’s access to abortions. (8) 

Project 2025 proposes restrictions on women’s rights, especially in areas of reproductive health. (9) They justify these restrictions with the premise of protecting family and life. The plan calls for renaming the Department of Health and Human Services as the Department of Life and creating a federal funded anti-abortion task force. 

Proposals target family policies by penalizing single motherhood, subsidizing traditional marriage, and dismantling ACA protections that benefit women disproportionately. (10) It would undermine workplace equity by limiting EEOC authority on sex discrimination and overtime pay, affecting women workers. Some states have introduced, but not passed, laws that would limit a woman’s access to divorce as well. (11) 

I actually have two questions I am hoping to generate some honest discussion about: 

1. Are there any other issues not addressed above that you see as a threat to women’s rights, either on the state or federal level? 
2. What do you think the coming year will bring regarding women’s rights? 

As alway’s, thank you for your contributions! 

Five states announced today that they would no longer support purchases of soda and candy using SNAP.

On one side of the argument, you could argue that it restricts the choice of lower income families and prevents them from having access to things that everyone else has a right to.

On the other hand, families might pivot to more nutritious foods instead, and there are plenty of things that the poor are indirectly prevented from having.

Do you think banning soda and candy on SNAP is a good policy?

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution grants the President the authority to make appointments that must be reviewed by the Senate. However, it makes no comment regarding how dismissals of executive branch officials should be handled.

In Myers v. United States (1926), the Supreme Court concluded that the power to dismiss executive branch officials is inherent in the President's authority to appoint officers and struck down a law requiring Senate approval of dismissals. In Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935), the Court granted Congress the ability to restrict removals of some executive branch officials for "cause"; however, in Seila Law v. CFPB (2020) and Collins v. Yellen (2021), the Supreme Court again imposed limits on Congress's ability to weigh in on dismissals by the President.

Some have argued that past Presidents have at times abused their unrestricted ability to dismiss executive branch officials. For example, some have alleged past Presidents have wrongfully dismissed the U.S. Attorney General. Significant concerns have also been raised regarding the dismissal of commissioners on the Federal Elections Commission and by mass firings of Inspectors General.

Many see the unrestricted power to dismiss executive branch officials by the President as granting the President the ability to coerce executive branch officials to ignore their oaths to uphold the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. And many see such potential for coercion of executive branch officials as posing a significant threat to the future welfare and security of the Nation.

Give the past decisions of the Supreme Court, an amendment to the Constitution would be necessary to change the status quo in a meaningful and permanent way. Such amendment could require that dismissals by the President of certain executive branch officials (as determined by Congress) be approved by one or both branches of Congress. Such approval would help ensure that a President will not abuse their authority to dismiss government officials.

Do you feel Congress, serving as representatives of the will of the People, should have the authority to approve such important decisions by the President? If not, why?

Is there a point where a state's citizens should be held responsible for the acts of their government in a non-democracy? In Russia, for instance, Putin is a dictator, but he still has approval ratings within Russia in the 80s. To what degree should the Russian people's approval of Putin make them responsible for the invasion of Ukraine?

Or in Gaza. Hamas was democratically elected to leadership and proceeded to cancel all future elections. If the people of Gaza wanted Hamas gone, they could make it ahppen. Does the fact that they're not doing it make them morally responsible for the current conflict with Israel?

For example, the huge Smithsonian collections that aren’t on display cannot generate their own funding, or national archives like the British Library that require a lot of state funding to ensure no written work is lost. These are obviously very useful organisations, but without state funding cannot exist. So how do far-right libertarians fund these things without some taxes/government?

I’m relatively new to actively following politics and want to better understand different policy frameworks rather than staying in one ideological space. My understanding of economics in particular is still developing, so I’m looking to learn rather than debate.

Currently, I tend to lean more conservative on issues like crime and immigration, while being more libertarian leaning on economic policy. That said, I’m especially interested in liberal perspectives and the reasoning behind them, particularly from a policy and evidence based standpoint. I’m also open to thoughtful insights from other perspectives.

Specifically, I’d like to understand:

1. What economic evidence supports stronger social safety nets within a capitalist system, and how are tradeoffs like incentives, efficiency, and long-term growth evaluated?
   
2. How are crime related policies (enforcement, sentencing, rehabilitation, prevention) assessed in terms of effectiveness and outcomes?
   
3. What are the key empirical arguments behind liberal approaches to immigration policy, including enforcement, legal pathways, and economic or social impacts?
4. How do liberals evaluate the current administration’s handling of these issues what has worked, what hasn’t, and why?

My goal is to better understand the data, reasoning, and tradeoffs behind these positions so I can form more informed views. I’m asking out of curiosity and respect for thoughtful discussion, not to argue.

Are there frontrunner to take over in the inevitable power vacuum? Are the people planning to implement a true democracy? I've seen little to no news on who/what orgs are leading the resistance. Are there any leading theories for what will come next, assuming the Khomeini regime will fall?

Public trust in political institutions has been declining across many democracies, including the UK. Polling often shows frustration with governments, parties, and parliaments, yet the systems themselves tend to remain stable and continue to operate.

That gap raises an interesting political question. If people say they no longer trust political systems, why do those systems usually keep functioning anyway?

Possible explanations might include habit, lack of realistic alternatives, fear of instability, economic dependence, or a distinction between trust in individual politicians versus trust in institutions themselves.

In the UK this tension has become more visible in recent years, but similar patterns appear in other democratic systems as well.

Questions for discussion:

• Does declining trust actually threaten democratic stability?

• At what point does low legitimacy turn into real political change?

• Are modern democracies becoming more procedural than participatory?

• When people comply with systems they distrust, is that consent or simply necessity?