Are there compelling reasons to believe certain values of democracy are threatened by what is happening in our politics today? have to write a 2 page history paper, this is on the prompt. any ideas?

If we consider the speech of Barack Obama, when he leaves the presidency of the United States of America, we will believe that there is reason to believe that democracy is threatened.

According to Obama, there are currently 3 threats to democracy, the first of which are forces such as terrorism, increased inequality and demographic changes that threaten the country's security, solidarity and prosperity, but these same forces also threaten democracy . if opportunities are not created for all people in the country, division and dissatisfaction will only become clearer in the coming years, threatening democracy.

Obama also highlighted a second threat, which is the racial issue.  "So if we're going to be serious about the racial issue, then we need to maintain anti-discrimination laws - in hiring, housing, education, and the criminal justice system."  Said the former president who pointed out  that only laws will not suffice to resolve the racial issue. "Hearts must change. It will not be a change overnight." Social attitudes sometimes take generations to change".

Obama also mentioned a third threat to democracy, which is when a group of similar people joins a bubble, be it a community, a church, a social network or a college, and that group brings together similar people with the same political vision. One person never questions the other's hypotheses.

explanation:

an oligopoly is a term used to clarify the structure of a particular market, industry, or organization. a market is considered oligopolistic or amazingly focused when it is shared between a few companies.

the united states constitution defines the structure of the national government and dictates the scope and limitation of its powers. the constitution is known as “the supreme law of the land” and all other laws are measured against it. the application of the articles and amendments of the constitution comprise constitutional law.

in addition to the united states constitution, each state has its own constitution and therefore, its own body of constitutional law as well. state constitutions resemble the federal constitution in that they outline the state government’s structure of legislative, executive and judicial branches as well as contain a bill of rights.

but there are various ways state constitutions differ from the federal constitution. often, state constitutions are much longer and more detailed than the federal constitution. state constitutions focus more on limiting rather than granting power since its general authority has already been established. as a result, the constitution of alabama is six hundred pages long whereas the federal constitution can be easily read in one sitting front to back.

the details in state constitutions are not particularly “constitutional” in nature. they often address topics unique to the state. the federal constitution can only be amended through a lengthy process designed to limit changes to this fundamental document. as a result, it has only been amended seventeen times since the adoption of the bill of rights in 1791.

state constitutions are more open to amendments. amendments can be proposed by legislature, a constitutional commission or citizens’ petition and can be accepted by referendum.   for example. the constitution of massachusetts has been amended one hundred and twenty times. the constitution of georgia has even been replaced altogether as many as ten times.