> You can't really think that some politicians are knowingly and deliberating proposing an existential threat to "free society and democracy."

Why not? Many people oppose free society, and democracy has never been popular among elites.

OK I should have changed 'some politicians' to 'most of those politicians proposing this law'

If you mean to say that the ones who aren't knowingly doing this to weaken democracy are simply useful idiots, yeah, you're right.

Most of them probably aren't malicious, they're likely just entirely ignorant and easily manipulated, making them just as bad as the malicious ones, given their job is supposed to be to make informed decisions for the benefit of their constituents.

There are politicians that support the overthrow of US democracy and the instatement of a dictator. A really obvious example: Michael Flynn, the former national security advisor. He's said the US military should overthrow the government. Literally.. those are the words from his mouth.

Im not going to list a bunch of politicians... but Flynn will say it outright. So your assumption is clearly wrong.

Citation please

edit: Found this. He meant the opposite. Of course.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/01/us/politics/flynn-coup-go...

No, they're not knowingly and deliberately proposing an existential threat to "free society and democracy." That would be political suicide in the US. They're knowingly and deliberately proposing an existential threat to free society and democracy. That's not a paranoid view, just stating the obvious.

Interesting. How would you describe the situation?

Why not?