The Left has always looked down on America. They want to tear up the Constitution, overturn it and rewrite it. If they had the power, they would. They don't want equal justice, God-given rights, free speech. They want to radically change our national fundamentals. Pick it, pack the Court, national popular vote, abolish the filibuster, you name it, all in the name of "democracy." It's their favorite word.
It has been for progressives for over 100 years. They thought we were a democracy. We've always been a constitutional republic. Before Obama was elected in 2008, he said that we were just days away from "fundamentally transforming the United States of America." Did Obama think America was broken? A puzzle that was in a million pieces and had to be put together?
I just love when reactionaries go on about how "wE'Re a ConStiTuTiONaL rEpUbLic!!!" as if we're not allowed to change how we do things if people think it's a bad way to run things. And no, saying "just pass a constitutional amendment if you want change" isn't valid because Wyoming and North Dakota and like 20 other little states sure as hell aren't gonna vote to curtail their own massively outsized power.
The US constitution is just absolute dogshit, worst constitution in the world objectively.
By all means, I approve of the "republic, not democracy" rhetoric that comes from the right. Colloquially, to most Americans, the two words mean functionally the same thing but that's far from the truth. A "Republic" is simply a state which, in theory, represents the people or nation rather than a royal family (in practice, that just means the head of state position isn't heritable). Some of the American founding fathers made it quite clear that the two weren't the same, and that the institutions and constitutions were meant to empower their class over the mass of people, above of all else.
This is just something the Right is (mostly) aware of and alludes to (as they support heirarchies which place those more "worthy" at the top), while the "Left" insists that no, the FFs made a wholesome 100 big chungus constitutional democracy meant to represent "all people". However, as the situation deteriorates for more working Americans and it becomes more obvious who the state was intended to serve, the appeal to legitimacy by Dems to a time when rich white guys in powdered wigs made all the important decisions further loses its luster.
Removed by mod
I feel like this oversimplifies the class collaborationist aspect. While it's true that the financial "heavy-weights" were facilitating the vast land grab and genocide which allowed poor whites to benefit and become smallholders/yeomen/homesteaders, this ran in conjunction to the overall goal of expanding their wealth and power. It was the two-pronged benefit of the expansion of what would become capitalism into "untamed" lands, combined with having a sizeable segment of the population become loyal servants to the ruling class with promises of their own land, to make taming the "Great Beast" easier (which is a recurring concept since the Roman times). Of course, this doesn't preclude the idea of the ruling class also believing in what they were selling to the white masses, but this was all originally informed and shaped by the westward ambitions of the colonial merchant elite since the days of the Thirteen Colonies. Mind you, none of this contradicts the fact that the poor white American population was complicit at large, even if they were disenfranchised (initially not even being allowed to vote by default).
Removed by mod