When I studied political science as an undergraduate I recall learning about the empirically unstable history of presidential systems. If I'm not mistaken, barring the US, the system failed in every country it was exported to (memory may have exaggerated this). This obviously bolstered ideas of American exceptionalism, but also highlighted the precarious position of its democracy. It's therefore interesting, but meaningful, that a publication like FP is publishing something like this: https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/18/we-are-the-last-defense-against-trump-institutions/
What makes America vulnerable to being blindsided by such a threat is our unwavering — and outdated — belief in the famed strength of our institutions. Of course, the United States has much better institutional foundations and a unique brand of checks and balances, which were entirely absent in Venezuela, Russia, and Turkey. But many of these still won’t be much help against the present threat. Not only are America’s institutions particularly ill-equipped, in this moment, to stand up against Trump; in some cases they may actually enable him.
Foreign Policy isn't Foreign Affairs - FP is like Quartz for people interested in international relations, it's not an institution like Foreign Affairs.
Foreign Affairs has published some great stuff on the Trump question, though.
When I studied political science as an undergraduate I recall learning about the empirically unstable history of presidential systems. If I'm not mistaken, barring the US, the system failed in every country it was exported to (memory may have exaggerated this). This obviously bolstered ideas of American exceptionalism, but also highlighted the precarious position of its democracy. It's therefore interesting, but meaningful, that a publication like FP is publishing something like this: https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/18/we-are-the-last-defense-against-trump-institutions/