Democracy - Foundations and Challenges

This is the title of a series of highly topical lectures at Freiburg University during the summer semester of 2024, presented within the framework of the studium generale. 2024 is a super-election year not only in the States but also in Europe (European Parliament) and Germany (three state elections). Will the results of these elections celebrate democracy?

These lectures are also known as Samstags-UNI (Saturday University). This morning, Red Baron went downtown with the aim of getting hold of a printed copy of the full program of the studium generale.

So I came to listen to Professor Rainer Forst from the University of Frankfurt talking about Demokratie in Zeiten der Regression. Normative und zeitdiagnostische Überlegungen (Democracy in times of regression; normative and time-diagnostic considerations).

Everyone knows that democracy is not limited to electing new members of parliament every four or five years, who then pass laws and thus decide the fate of their fellow citizens.

 Parliaments are elected in many countries around the world, but some of these states are not democracies. Here is a map you have seen before showing the status of democracy worldwide.

There are dictatorships with a one-party system that is sold as Popular Democracy. Alleged democratic states are curtailing the powers of the third branch, i.e., the judiciary. Restrictions on freedom of expression go hand in hand with restricted freedom of the press. There are democracies where not every vote cast counts the same.

In a parliamentary, liberal, and representative democracy, all people are equal. However, this also means that the majority's decision must not only consider the minority but must actually protect it. In a true democracy, there must be no exclusion of people. Do parliaments decide in the interest of the people or in the interest of a particular party?

One of the major weaknesses of the current world order is its growing social inequality. According to Professor Forst, the banking crisis of 2008 was one of the biggest disasters in recent years. Here, taxpayers had to bail out the big banks, which have not ensured that the difference between rich and poor has become smaller since.

However, the majority of the poor do not rebel against the minority of the rich. Instead, most people see the problem of immigration as even more severe than global climate change.

The difficulty is that the above problems can no longer be solved at a national level, only at an international level. We are, therefore, particularly called upon to speak with one voice as a European democracy. Wishful thinking?

All efforts are needed, and much remains to be done to defend our democracies against authoritarian, illiberal, and populist attacks.

*

The Call for Freedom

This is the title of an exhibition at the Dreiländermuseum in Lörrach. In 1848, the revolutionary marches of Hecker and Struve started here in the south of Baden, and in 1849, the drama of the Baden Revolution ended.

One of Red Baron's main interests is the European revolutionary efforts of the time, focusing on the Baden Revolution.

I keep returning to this topic in my blogs because there is always something new to discover.

It was the same this time when I took the ÖPNV (public transport) to Lörrach to participate in a guided tour of the exhibition The Call for Freedom.

I had hoped to find an interesting account of the Baden Revolution and was not disappointed. In addition, our history-interested group had a guide who, as it later turned out, was a Wikipedia contributor, i.e., a colleague. Well acquainted with the subject, I enjoyed his professional explanations, and, as usual, I learned something new.

I don't want to stretch the Baden Revolution here. Instead, I refer you to a detailed account in German on my Freiburg history page. Here, I'll share some finds from the exhibition.

The trigger for the revolutionary movements in Europe was the February 24, 1848, uprising in France, which toppled the regime of the Citizen King installed 18 years earlier.

Liberté (Françoise Désirée), the daughter of the people, was born in Paris on July 27, 1830.
The speech bubbles:
So be firm! Some bourgeois circles ask: But why? We're overwhelmed. I lack the strength.
But the clergy is behind: Don't give up; I'll be back soon.

In this allegorical depiction, Liberty (desired by the French), born in Paris on July 27, the day of the 1830 revolution, is strangled by the reactionary forces of Louis Phillipe's regime. So, it was time for a new revolution.

Heart and Hand for God and the Fatherland

The flag of the Lörrach militia of 1848, lovingly embroidered with golden letters by their revolutionary wives, was on display. Its color sequence is gold, red, and black, i.e., reversed. Read this blog.

 

Amalie Struve with Friedrich Hecker

The exhibition also pays tribute to women who did not embroider in the background but participated actively in the revolution. In addition to the well-known Amalie Struve and Emma Herwig, there are also:

Mathilde Franziska Anneke and

Elise Blenker

Even then, historical misinformation existed; today, we would call it fake news. 

History has always been falsified. In a painting from 1850 depicting the Battle on the Scheideck, the painter M. Jacob shows the revolutionaries confronting the government troops under a red flag. "Communist" Hecker stands next to a cannon. The red flag is just as ahistorical as the firing of a cannon, two of which the insurgents were carrying but were unable to fire due to the lack of ammunition.

The fatherland must be saved from lawlessness and a republic.
Charlottenburg, May 16, 1849 (Click to enlarge)

This exhibition was where I first encountered Frederick William IV's call for Prussian troops to intervene in southwestern Germany to defeat the "criminals."

Most impressive: Democracies and dictatorships around the world today. The colors, ranging from dark blue to dark red, are self-explanatory. Is Canada more democratic than the US, and is China more oppressed than Russia?

*

Existential Physics

This is the title of a book Sabine Hossenfelder published in 2022. Red Baron was made aware of it recently during a discussion at a Wikipedia Stammtisch.

I mentioned Sabine in an earlier blog as a great critic of present experimental high-energy physics. She expressed in more vital words than I ever dare use, namely that experiments at the Large Hadron Collider, the giant accelerator at CERN, did not reveal New Physics, are expensive, and should, therefore, be abandoned.

For a retired physicist, Sabine's latest book is not easy to read, but it addresses all of the topics at the forefront of present-day science.

One of her most important statements is that I want scientists to be mindful of the limits of their discipline. Sometimes, the only scientific answer we can give is "We don't know."*
*The many quotations from Sabine's book are in italics

Reading Existential Physics refreshed my knowledge of physics and was a step forward in my understanding.

Having read many physics books after my retirement, Sabine was the first to distinguish clearly between theory and hypothesis.

Mathematics is the tool to describe phenomena in physics.* The formulation of a physics law will not only describe the so-called initial state but also its development in the future. The key tool is differential equations with respect to time.
*Is mathematics just a tool for describing the world, or is it the world?

These equations also allow us to calculate backward, i.e., how a system developed. In particular, we may extrapolate from our present universe to its beginning, developing the theory of the Big Bang.

The further back in time we go, the more we generate models for our understanding, but these are modern creation myths written in the language of mathematics. All these hypotheses about the early universe (...) are pure speculation.

Rapid cooling of the universe and inflation with time.
Note the question marks when approaching the Big Bang singularity.
On the other end of the timescale is data from the James Web Space Telescope.

Still, mathematical extrapolations do not work beyond the initial state of our universe. We simply don't know what happened before the Big Bang. This situation has become the starting point of several hypotheses. We can't test those neither by observation nor by calculation, so they are the purest speculation and tales.

The Standard Model

What can we rely on? Sabine states that The only fundamental theories we currently know of — the currently deepest level — are the standard model of particle physics and Einstein's general relativity, which describes gravitation. Red Baron has written about the standard model in the past.

The mathematical tool for subatomic systems is quantum mechanics, of which the eminent physicist Richard Feynman said:

However, Sabine thinks that much of the supposed weirdness of quantum mechanics just comes from forcing it into everyday language. She is very much a math person and personally doesn't see the need to translate math into everyday language. Once we have the mathematics, and at least someone understands it, it is often possible to communicate it verbally and visually.

 Red Baron once wrote an essay on understanding physics based on Heisenberg's autobiography Der Teil und das Ganze. 100 years ago, Wolfgang Pauli said in a conversation with Werner Heisenberg, "... with the technical means of today's experimental physics, we are penetrating into areas of nature that can no longer be adequately described with the concepts of everyday life. Therefore, we depend on an abstract mathematical language that we can only handle with thorough training in modern mathematics. So, unfortunately, you have to limit yourself and specialize.* I find the abstract mathematical language easy, and I hope to be able to do something with it in physics.“

* This was the beginning of the creation of chairs for theoretical physics. Pauli became a professor at the University of Hamburg in 1923 at the age of 23, and "he did something in physics. "

At the Bohr Festspiele in Göttingen in June 1922, Niels Bohr said to Heisenberg, "Because we are supposed to say something about the structure of the atom, but we have no language with which we could make ourselves understood." 

 As is well known, Einstein never accepted quantum theory. He tolerated it as a temporary clarification of atomic phenomena but not a final one. Einstein was adamant about the principle that "God does not play dice" and would not allow them to be shaken.

Is there a contradiction with Sabine's above statement with the one near the end of the book? Science is severely lacking in (...) social integration. It's something we can and should improve on. Alongside public lectures, we should offer opportunities for lecture attendees to get to know one another. Instead of panel discussions among prominent scientists, we should talk more about how scientific understanding made a difference for non-experts. Instead of letting researchers answer audience questions, we should listen and learn from those who have been helped through difficult times by scientific insights.

Her remark coincides with my experience. Any panel discussion on any subject turns out to be too long* such that questions from the audience are eventually cut short.
*Some people like to listen to themselves, and others use the opportunity to start a whole new lecture.


The Standard Model of Big Bang Cosmology

While the standard model is complete (?), and physicists are desperately looking for New Physics, the situation at the other end of the spectrum doesn't look so bright.

The Lambda*-CDM (cold dark matter) model assumes that general relativity is the correct theory of gravity on cosmological scales. So, ΛCDM is the most accepted mathematical model of the Big Bang theory.
*The cosmological constant is denoted by lambda (Λ)

©Valerie Domcke (CERN)

ΛCDM requires the introduction of dark matter, which helps, among other things, explain why galaxies rotate faster than expected. But that is not all. Astrophysicists also introduced dark energy to explain the accelerated instead of steady expansion of our universe. Dark matter and energy are huge and are no minor corrections.

Both hypothetical constituents of the universe are required to save Einsteins's theory of general relativity. However, neither has ever been directly observed; astrophysicists have merely indirectly inferred their presence from their gravitational effects.


Natural Constants

Red Baron hasn't counted them, but I confidently repeat what Sabine writes, The currently known laws of nature contain twenty-six constants. We can't calculate those constants; we just determine their values by measurement. The fine-structure constant (α) sets the strength of the electromagnetic force. Planck's constant (ħ) tells us when quantum mechanics becomes relevant. Newton's constant (G) quantifies the strength of gravity. The cosmological constant (Λ) determines the expansion rate of the universe. Then, there are the masses of the elementary particles.

Numerous calculations showed that slight variations in those universal constants would not allow life on planet Earth or could even make our universe collapse.

Did a god fine-tune these constants? Claiming that the constants of nature are fine-tuned for life is not a scientifically sound argument because it depends on arbitrary assumptions. While science does not rule out a creator or a multiverse, science does not require their existence either.

Sabine's conclusion: We have no reason to think the universe was made especially for us or for life in general.


String Theories

Richard Feynman's reaction while Sabine sees no strings attached to experimental results at the LHC.

©Sabine Hossenfelder

String theorists originally hoped they'd be able to calculate the constants of nature. That didn't pan out, so now they argue that if they can't calculate the constants, that must mean all possible values exist somewhere in a multiverse.

Do multiverses with other possible combinations of constants exist? The multiverse hypothesis doesn't explain anything. A good scientific hypothesis is one that is useful for calculating the outcomes of measurements. We can't measure what we can't observe.


Free Will

Discussions about whether we have free will are endless. The final physics verdict is: According to the currently established laws of nature, the past determines the future, except for occasional quantum events that we cannot influence. Indeed, in Sabine's book, any argument in favor of free will is followed by this common thread.

She notes: Much of the debate about free will in the philosophical literature concerns not whether it exists in the first place but how it connects to moral responsibility.

She closes the chapter by declaring that she's a hard determinist and that we have no free will in the commonly accepted sense of "libertarian" free will. Whether you take that to mean that free will does not exist depends on your definition of free will.

The Principle of Least Action

Here comes something personal. Red Baron experienced the same eye-opener as Sabine: When, in the first semester of university physics, the principle of least action was introduced, it was a revelation: there was indeed a procedure to arrive at all those equations! Why hadn't anybody told me?

The principle of least action is also known as Fermat's principle, after Pierre de Fermat, who noticed that nature is minimalistic since a ray of light passes through a medium in a minimum amount of time.

Richard Feynman showed that the principle of least action is universal in physics since it applies to quantum mechanical systems, too. When a particle moves from point A to point B, all possible paths are taken into account, not, as in classical mechanics, only the path of the least action. However, the integral over all paths follows the principle of least action again.


Does the Universe Have Consciousness?

Sabine's answer is brief: If you want consciousness to be physical "stuff," then you'll have to explain how its physics works ... Going by the currently established laws of nature, the universe can't think, ending, You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Powerful artificial intelligence (AI)

Sabine limits herself to a few statements from people who would know about AI:

Elon Musk thinks it's the "biggest existential threat."

Stephen Hawking said it could "be the worst event in the history of our civilization."

Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak believes that AIs will "get rid of the slow humans to run companies more efficiently."

And Bill Gates, too, put himself in "the camp that is concerned about super intelligence."

In 2015, the Future of Life Institute formulated an open letter calling for caution and formulating a list of research priorities. It was signed by more than eight thousand people.


Is there a Purpose?

Sabine dares to criticize Stephen Hawking when he states that "there is no possibility of a creator." She points out that religion matters to many people in a way that science doesn't. 

The belief in an omniscient being that can interfere with the laws of nature but that, for some reason, remains hidden from us is a common element of monotheistic religions.

So she finds it likely that, in our ongoing process of knowledge discovery, religion, and science will continue to coexist for a very long time. That's because science itself is limited, and where science ends, we seek other modes of explanation.

Sabine insists that her book is about what we can know or not. I am saying that what's beyond what we can observe is purely a matter of belief. Science doesn't say anything about whether something exists or doesn't exist. Hence, claiming something exists is ascientific, and so is claiming it doesn't exist. If you want to talk about it, fine, but don't pretend it's science. Her argument closely follows that of Professor Urban.


The Benefits of Science

Scientists are often asked what the practical benefits of their research are. On the other hand, Sabine sees that science opens our eyes to possibilities we couldn't previously imagine, much less comprehend. Far from taking away wonder, science gives us more to marvel at. It expands our minds. She continues, saying that we have the desire to make sense of our own existence. We all have our own approach to sense making, and I have illustrated mine through the examples in this book.

Above all, my audience served as a constant reminder that knowledge matters, regardless of whether it has technological applications.

Conclusion

I share Sabine's feelings, which she expressed near the end of her book: I've spent most of this book discussing what physics teaches us about our own existence. I hope you've enjoyed the tour, but maybe you sometimes couldn't avoid the impression that this is heavy stuff that doesn't do much to solve problems in the real world.

Thank you, Sabine. You still got an old man excited.

*

AMOC

stands for Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and is a horror scenario regularly good for a headline. AMOC means that the warming Gulf Stream is "drying up," with devastating consequences for the climate on the European continent.

In a recent article in Science Advances, "Physics-based early warning signal shows that AMOC is on tipping course," René M. van Westen, Michael Kliphuis, and Henk A. Dijkstra try to predict the date of collapse for the AMOC. It is comforting that their simulations show that the tipping point will occur no earlier than 2100. Still, they also warned that their stimulation was incomplete due to the lack of data, and the tipping may occur earlier or later (?).

However, there are reasons to take these predictions with a grain of salt since the Earth system is currently blowing up all models with its incredibly rapid heating.

2023 was a year with air and ocean temperatures far beyond all normal fluctuations, and 2024 "promises" to be even hotter. March of this year in Germany was four full degrees Celsius warmer than the long-term average from 1961 to 1990. 

Highest temperatures on April 6, 2024

Nine days ago, we beat all the temperature records.

The thick grey line is the average temperature of the Atlantic surface over a year
up to 2022. The thick red line is the temperature anomaly observed in 2023
 that is continuing in 2924 (brown line) (©Nahel Belgherze)

The oceans are even hotter than the air. Extreme weather expert Maximiliano Herrera said, "We are entering uncharted territory regarding heat records. Nothing compares to what we've been experiencing since 2023."

There will most likely be even more extreme rainfall events this year than in the catastrophic year of 2023. At the same time, the polar ice is melting much faster and regenerating much more slowly than in the past. This, among other things, makes the seawater in the polar regions less salty.

The Gulf Stream transports warm tropical water into the north.
After cooling, the water streams back into the southern Atlantic.
a)During the last ice age. b) The present situation (©van Westen et al.)

This situation could trigger the massive planetary catastrophe of AMOC much faster than previously estimated. Temperatures in northern Europe would drop dramatically within a very short time.

Scandinavia and the British Isles experience permafrost,
while the average annual temperature in the continental coastal regions
stays below 0 °C. (©van Westen et al.)

Elsewhere on the globe, monsoon regions would shift, and sea levels would rise abruptly, for example, on the US Atlantic coast. As climate expert Stefan Rahmstorf stated, "All in all, there would be devastating consequences for humanity and ecosystems in the sea and on land."

*

God or not-God - is that the question in the first place?

The President of the Museumsgesellschaft, Professor Gerald Urban, did it again. In 2017, he talked about What the Hell is Religion? On April 8, 2024, he discussed only the "God" question in this lecture.

The starting point was the Abrahamic theological God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Do all three major world religions worship the same God? Is the loving Father God of Christians identical to the intolerant God of Jews and Muslims?

This "modern" monotheism with a "personal" God is only shared by 45% of the world's population, not including Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, etc., and, of course, atheists and agnostics.

Although the three world regions have the same progenitor, they consider their God the only true one. Despite all the lip service paid to tolerance,  this "ideological" God has led and will continue to lead to bloody conflicts.

"Scholars" have always tried to prove God. Red Baron has only casually followed these proofs but has realized that the existence of God cannot be proven. Professor Urban devoted much of his lecture to these efforts and showed that circular reasoning is involved in all cases.

For centuries, theologians have tried to understand the concept of God. Is God (he, she (?), it) the highest or the deepest we can think of? Professor Urban's two following slides show the paradoxes that result from such reflections.

Philosophers have been trying to understand God for three millennia. Professor Urban pointed out a line running from Plato, Plotinus, and Dionysus to Meister Eckhart.

 

The above slide, "Never completely describable and definable!" introduced the "scientific" God.

With the development of science, the "Creator" God of the Old Testament has been pushed further and further back in time, and that is not only due to the Darwinian theory of evolution. Now that we have a better understanding of the universe and can mathematically describe its development back to the Big Bang, the question remains: What was before the Big Bang?

To this end, some physical models consider a fluctuation in an energy field*, the "potential quantum mechanical everything," as the trigger for the Big Bang. Such a theory does not rule out several big bangs and, thus, the emergence of several universa. There are no limits to the imagination for daring hypotheses.
*in analogy to the formation of galaxies in the cooling phase of our universe.

Here is Professor Urban's summary of his impressive lecture:

Compatibilities of the "GOD" concepts

- No statements about the "philosophical" God are possible and only compatible with an ontological rape of the "theological" God. The latter arose from the "historical" gods.

Creator beings are conceivable!

- The Abrahamic God is the basis for our "cultural group" God (art) - and "normative ideological" God (the scriptures)

- The "personal" God offers destinations of longing

- Mysticism is global

Here follows one remark by Einstein on a possible creator God:

There is harmony in the cosmos, which I can recognize with my limited human mind, yet some people say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me to support such views ... I am not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist ... but there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.

Many who deal with the question of God tend to find their "personal" rather than an "ecclesiastical" God. But calling their own God a father in the face of a suffering creation is another step, and that Einstein did not take.

*

The Second Appearance of Donald Trump

Every year, Red Baron presents an American-German topic at the Freiburg-Madison Stammtisch. Here are the links for the years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, and 2023. This year, the upcoming presidential election interested me. What I report may be boring for my American friends but should interest Europeans. Still, the number of listeners attending the Stammtisch was small.

This election is unlike any previous one. Two old men, or, as one journalist wrote, two (perceived) incumbents, are running for the high office.

©Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images

Everything indicates that Donald Trump will make his second appearance, a frightening prospect to Europeans.

It is incomprehensible how a sociopath who cannot control his emotions, who is selfish, manipulative, and ruthless towards his fellow human beings, and who is embroiled in 51 court cases is electable for so many Americans.

I will only mention the most critical legal charges here.

Two cases are pending in New York, one for fraud. Trump allegedly overstated the value of his properties to obtain cheaper loans. He has understated the value in the case of tax assessments.

The second indictment is for embezzlement of election funds, illegally used as hush money for Stormy Daniels, a prostitute.

Late Show Host Stephen Colbert's little poem (©Stephen Colbert ).

In this lawsuit, Trump finally found Don Hankey Finance willing to forward him 175 million dollars for a bond.

In Georgia, Trump has been charged with attempting to influence the 2020 election result. He has put massive pressure on Brad Raffensperger, the Secretary of State responsible for running the election, to "find" him 11780 votes.

In the indictment for inciting the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021, his lawyers claim that Trump enjoyed absolute immunity as president and, therefore, cannot be indicted.

Trump lacks any sense of guilt and dismisses all charges as a witch hunt.

When some states struck down Trump from primaries by applying a post-Civil War constitutional article that stripped Southerners of eligibility for state offices because of sedition, the Supreme Court barred the practice as individual actions and postponed a general final ruling.

Because six conservative judges determine the Supreme Court's direction and pace of work, a decision against Trump before the November election is unlikely. 

While the Federal Constitutional Court enjoys the highest reputation of all constitutional bodies in Germany, a survey found that 70% of Americans are dissatisfied with their Supreme Court.

Trump's electorate is absolutely loyal. According to a poll, only 6% of his core voters would not vote for him if he were to be convicted. He could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in New York, as he claimed in the run-up to his first election, and loyal Republicans would still vote for him.

Despite all the European astonishment about the situation, we must not forget that Americans are moved by different things than we are. Putin and the Ukraine war are far from the Midwest, the stronghold of American conservatism. 

In contrast, Republicans are firmly convinced that illegal immigrants from Mexico, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, Trump calls animals, are taking jobs from Americans and flooding the country with drugs. Furthermore, the Chinese are destroying the US economy, and we Europeans are ungrateful because we have six weeks of vacation, spend our tax money on social welfare, and therefore do not pay our NATO contributions. 

For the first time in an election campaign, Clinton's maxim "It's the economy, stupid" no longer holds. Joe Biden may point to a flourishing US economy and increasing employment. Still, the citizens feel that inflation is not over, their standard of living is falling, and they want America great again.

It is evident that Trump appreciates despots, although he referred to Viktor Orban as the president of Turkey. We still remember his têtes-à-têtes with Little Rocket Man, the Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. Trump's admiration for Putin seems unbroken. 

Here's a little story: When a reporter asked Trump, "Would you accept foreign money to fulfill all the financial demands made on you?" he replied, "I think you'd be allowed to, possibly, I don't know." 

©Stephen Colbert

But Stephen Colbert had Trump saying, "Listen, Russia; maybe you know if it's legal. Could you, could you write the answer down on 500 million pieces of paper and put-in to my bank account?"

The former president clearly tells his countrymen and the world what he would do during his second term of office. American journalists have analyzed these statements.

So he called for overriding the Constitution when he demanded that the Supreme Court give POTUS unchecked power. 

He then considers using this power in his personal quest to "retaliate" against his opponents, the vermin, and take revenge for what he sees as politically motivated persecution against him.

When his longtime friend, Fox News host Sean Hannity, asked him at an election rally, "Will you promise America tonight that under no circumstances will you abuse your power to retaliate against anyone?"

Trump replied, "Except for day one," when he would use his presidential powers to close the border with Mexico and boost oil drilling.

Later, Trump said of Hannity at another rally, "I love this guy. He says, 'You're not going to be a dictator, are you?' I said: 'No, no, no, other than day one. We're closing the border, and we're drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I'm not a dictator.'"

Trump promises to dismantle the civil servants in the ministries, only to fill the posts with politically loyal vassals. 

He has indicated that under him, the Department of Justice will not act as an independent arbiter of the rule of law but that he wants to use it as a personal political enforcement machine.

Here is the original quote by Donald Trump: "That means if I win and somebody wants to run against me, I'll call my attorney general. I say, 'Listen, indict him'." There were murmurs in the audience, so Trump continued, "'But he hasn't done anything wrong. I don't know. Indict him on income tax evasion. Figure it out. 

After undocumented immigrants "poison" the country, Trump promises mass deportations and detention camps. He refers to political opponents as crooked, corrupt, or, as we have already heard, in the style of the Nazis, as "vermin."

But even without dictatorship for one day, Trump's first action immediately after taking office will be signing an Executive Order to grant all hostages and martyrs who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, amnesty celebrating them not just as patriots but as heroes.

In a highlight so far, the putschist ex-president warned his supporters at an election rally that "if I don't win in November, there will be a bloodbath."

But if he wins, will the stale but time-tested American democracy with its checks and balances weather the storm?

At a fund-raising dinner in New York on Maundy Thursday evening, President Biden stated, "I think that democracy is literally* at stake.”
*according to the letter?
*