The US seems to be behaving more like a parliamentary system than the Republic intended by the founders. Prime ministers in parliaments usually have control of the (effectively single) legislative branch, as well as the executive branch, so they can operate almost like short-term dictatorships (albeit they can be toppled on most given Fridays).
You have a very uninformed view of parliamentary systems if you think the US is in any way close to that.
- in parliamentary systems, minister posts are assigned to elected representatives. There is no prime minister that can just gift their buddies a ministerial post if they weren't elected into parliament.
- most parliaments have an upper and lower house, and prime ministers usually only control the lower.
- the prime minister itself is not directly elected into that post, which means they have no greater authority than any other member of parliament save for the authority granted by their peers. That puts a big damper on many dictatorial aspirations.
You’re the one who is uninformed; in most (Anglo-sphere) parliamentary systems, the ministers do not need to be in the house of commons (elected), and often do not even have to be parliamentarians. Lord Halifax was eligible to be prime minister of England, despite being unelected, and Canadian prime ministers who lose their riding usually remain prime minister.
Not sure what you mean for parliaments. Coalition governments are possible and sometimes almost the default in a lot of countries in recent history. If an opposition party in the coaltion withdraws its support, the government can collapse.
Strongmen in (initially) parlimentary systems did the same thing Trump is doing. Expand executive power, reduce the legislative branch to a rubberstamping function and stack the courts with yesmen.
Many parliamentary governments tend only to be stable when there is a majority, see Canada and the UK (arguably) for examples of this. There are definitely counter-examples, but they're generally less similar to the US (culturally and legally).
When there are majority governments, there is essentially no difference between executive and legislative power.
I assume you're replying in good faith, but it's difficult to not be incredulous when you're ignoring the highest GDP country in the world after China -- i.e Germany -- which has had coaltion governments since in the 60s. Sweden since the 70s, Netherlands since the 1800s.
You're needlessly conflating the topic of stability and democracy, which muddles the discussion. Autocrats have come into power by championing "stability" at the expense of democracy since time immemorial. This is texbook by now.
My point was simply just that the USA was behaving democratically, but more like a parliamentary democracy (with a majority) than a republic. I agree that parliamentary coalitions are possible, they just don't seem very popular or stable in the anglo-sphere.
Italy and Israel also manage relatively stable minority parliaments! It's not impossible, but for some reason, the common-law countries seem to struggle with it. Autocrats often do champion stability (Putin/Xi) or change (Pinochet/Castro), but so do many democratic leaders (like prime ministers in Canada/UK).
