• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democracy in Retreat

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
93,564
Reaction score
81,644
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Freedom House | Freedom in the World 2019" Democracy in Retreat

170722-venezuela-violinist-459p-rs_d0581c2acb327b7d50b37727bf41ca56.fit-760w.JPG


In 2018, Freedom in the World recorded the 13th consecutive year of decline in global freedom. The reversal has spanned a variety of countries in every region, from long-standing democracies like the United States to consolidated authoritarian regimes like China and Russia. The overall losses are still shallow compared with the gains of the late 20th century, but the pattern is consistent and ominous. Democracy is in retreat.

continued @ the link above

The annual Freedom House analysis of the state of democracy and freedom. The global decline continues.
 
Unfortunately, fewer and fewer of us seem willing to pay the price of freedom, which is eternal vigilance. Even here in the US, liberty is under attack and has been for a while, and few of us are speaking out about it. From the OP article:

The great challenges facing US democracy did not commence with the inauguration of President Donald Trump. Intensifying political polarization, declining economic mobility, the outsized influence of special interests, and the diminished influence of fact-based reporting in favor of bellicose partisan media were all problems afflicting the health of American democracy well before 2017. Previous presidents have contributed to the pressure on our system by infringing on the rights of American citizens. Surveillance programs such as the bulk collection of communications metadata, initially undertaken by the George W. Bush administration, and the Obama administration’s overzealous crackdown on press leaks are two cases in point.

At the midpoint of his term, however, there remains little question that President Trump exerts an influence on American politics that is straining our core values and testing the stability of our constitutional system. No president in living memory has shown less respect for its tenets, norms, and principles.
 
So...the jist of this article is this: Being populist and "antiliberal" is being against democracy.

Nonsense.
 
So...the jist of this article is this: Being populist and "antiliberal" is being against democracy.

Nonsense.

By very definition, yes. Do you just believe that everything with the word liberal in it is bad? Liberal democracy is the foundation of the free world.
 
So...the jist of this article is this: Being populist and "antiliberal" is being against democracy.

Nonsense.

Let me guess, you'll also take a front row seat to a lynching to prove your point.
 
Unfortunately, fewer and fewer of us seem willing to pay the price of freedom, which is eternal vigilance. Even here in the US, liberty is under attack and has been for a while, and few of us are speaking out about it. From the OP article:


"...the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure."-

Thomas Jefferson in letter to William Stephens Smith ...........Paris Nov. 13. 1787


http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrE...tter/100/RK=2/RS=M3MnhfDtOwEkMuntPPl20k3aXyY-
 
By very definition, yes. Do you just believe that everything with the word liberal in it is bad? Liberal democracy is the foundation of the free world.

Why would you ask me that question?

I wasn't talking about what I believe. I was talking about what the article is saying.

So tell me...without using liberal talking point nonsense, as that article does...why being populist or antiliberal means that one is against democracy.
 
Let me guess, you'll also take a front row seat to a lynching to prove your point.

Here you go again, bongsaway.

You know...you haven't been here all that long, but you've firmly established your tendency to speak nonsense...especially when you have no reasoned response to a post that you don't like.

You are dismissed.
 
Here you go again, bongsaway.

You know...you haven't been here all that long, but you've firmly established your tendency to speak nonsense...especially when you have no reasoned response to a post that you don't like.

You are dismissed.

Wonderful! If that means you aren't going to respond to anything I post. How long I've been here has no bearing on anything, unless of course you feel entitled for some reason or other. And lastly, I don't post bullcrap, I use facts. If it's an opinion I'll say it's my opinion. I assemble my opinions from what I read from other posters.
 
Wonderful! If that means you aren't going to respond to anything I post. How long I've been here has no bearing on anything, unless of course you feel entitled for some reason or other. And lastly, I don't post bullcrap, I use facts. If it's an opinion I'll say it's my opinion. I assemble my opinions from what I read from other posters.
Then back up this following chunk of bullcrap with facts then or retract it and apologize.
Let me guess, you'll also take a front row seat to a lynching to prove your point.
 
Yes. This is bad news and continues a trend which has being going on in various parts of the world since the collapse of monarchies and the collapse of colonial empires which occurred after WWI.

The problem is two-fold. The first dimension of the problem is political impatience and the desire to fix things quickly and efficiently. Quickness and efficiency are the hallmarks of authoritarian hierarchies, because democracies are slower to arrive at political solutions and because they use political compromise which often produces imperfect solutions and thus reduces the pace and efficiency of the agreed-upon solutions arrived at in the short and medium terms. Impatient people and electorates are thus often seduced by the quickness and seeming efficiency of authoritarian regimes and only later realise that these regimes are worse threats to them than the problems they solve.

The demand for quickness and efficiency has also led to the rise of militarism in democracies as people and states are no longer willing to wait for the imperfect and slower solutions offered by diplomacy between states. Instead democracies are turning to martial solutions, which while quicker often produce very poor results as problem solutions. This rise of militarism and the interpretation that we are always at war with something, states, non-state actors, drugs, poverty, and even ideas/ideologies or religions has led to the desire in many democracies to regiment the state and its people more; which reduces or removes rights and freedoms and leads to the growth of militarised security and surveillance states which further undermine liberal democracy in pursuit of protecting the intensively managed status quo.

The second dimension of this problem is the drift of many liberal democracies towards plutocracy and oligarchy, which quietly undermines liberal democracy through the effects of concentrated wealth and power/influence. These concentrations distort and corrupt a democracy. As the distortions accrete and accumulate on the nominally democratic institutions, these institution become more devoted to preserving a favourable status quo for the oligarchy rather than solving the real problems facing the wider interests of the whole electorate. The desire to maintain a loaded and increasing preferential status quo increases the tolerance among the oligarchy's elites for a top-down decision making which eventually crosses a threshold into oligarchic authoritarianism through intensively managed, top-down democracy. Likewise this top-down, intensively managed democracy which is preoccupied with maintaining a preferential status quo for the oligarchs, alienates more and more of the wider electorate. Voters either become apathetic and cease to participate in the democracy, making the fringe political parties and movements stronger due to the apathetic voters absence in the political process (acting as a political keel and inertial ballast to stabilise the ship of state) or the voters become disillusioned by the process of democracy itself, making such people easier pickings for the siren-songs of populist movements led by charismatic and authoritarian demagogues promising quick and efficient solutions if just a little of their freedom is set aside for now.

Those two currents are causing the "retreat" of liberal democracy in the world today. The historical and long-view explanation for this drift is as follows. The rural farmer-gentry and the independent-minded small business folk who birthed this ideology of liberal democracy and individual freedom/responsibility in the 17th and 18th centuries have been largely displaced and replaced by hierarchical corporations and institutions which in their own operations eschew democracy and prefer authoritarian rule internally. Meanwhile urbanisation has packed so many human beings into close proximity that collective concerns and collective solutions/rights and responsibilities are challenging individualism and the primacy of individual rights and responsibilities thus undermining the foundational principles of classical liberal democracy. We are moving towards a hive mindset with kings and queens emerging from the drones to lead the "sheeple" using intensively managed top-down democracy and the "sheeple" don't like it and so are walking away and into the arms of would-be tyrants and dictators.

The times, they are a chang'in.

Cheers?
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Then back up this following chunk of bullcrap with facts then or retract it and apologize.

Well sir as I noted earlier I assemble my opinions from what I read from other people. So, when someone says nationalist it kind of rings my racist bell. Correct me if I'm wrong, nationalist equals white. Not nationalist for america. I don't recall the torch carriers chanting/screaming, jews will not replace us as being a bunch of black folks. Does that help?
 
Well sir as I noted earlier I assemble my opinions from what I read from other people. So, when someone says nationalist it kind of rings my racist bell. Correct me if I'm wrong, nationalist equals white. Not nationalist for america. I don't recall the torch carriers chanting/screaming, jews will not replace us as being a bunch of black folks. Does that help?

No, it doesnt help one bit. NATIONALIST =/= WHITE. And a few dozen torch carriers speak only for themselves and their own fringe radicalism.
 
No, it doesnt help one bit. NATIONALIST =/= WHITE. And a few dozen torch carriers speak only for themselves and their own fringe radicalism.

A few dozen torch carriers sure did arouse a lot of feelings in america. So you see my comment wasn't bs as you claimed. There ya' go, I backed up my comment.
 
A few dozen torch carriers sure did arouse a lot of feelings in america. So you see my comment wasn't bs as you claimed. There ya' go, I backed up my comment.

You didnt back up squat.
 
Here you go again, bongsaway.

You know...you haven't been here all that long, but you've firmly established your tendency to speak nonsense...especially when you have no reasoned response to a post that you don't like.

You are dismissed.

Agree with your post but you are a bit late. I put him on ignore about a week ago!
 
Actually it doesn't. And that isn't true either. You liberals need to invest in dictionaries.

Are you sure? Here's one for you...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/patriotism-vs-nationalism

we define patriotism as “love for or devotion to one’s country” and nationalism in part as “loyalty and devotion to a nation.” But the definition of nationalism also includes “exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.” This exclusionary aspect is not shared by patriotism.

In U.S. usage nationalism is now perhaps most frequently associated with white nationalism, and has considerably negative connotations.

Patriot is to Proud Parent of a child athlete as Nationalist is to Parent that punches the coach if their kid doesn't get the most playing time.

You see the patriot is like the parent who encourages their child to be the best and does whatever they can to help their child be their best. The nationalist however just assumes their child is the best because he's their child and attacks anybody that says otherwise.

The patriot is like the good parent who encourages their child to get good grades, understands if they tried and came up short, but is disappointed in them if they didn't try hard enough. The nationalist is like the ****ty parent who expects their child to get good grades, and when they don't they blame the teacher for not being fair to their child.

It's very easy for the nationalist to convince themselves that they're the patriot just like it is for the ****ty parent to convince themselves they're the good parent for going to bat for their child. But when you ignore your child's own faults and mistakes and push the blame on everyone else you are very clearly a ****ty parent. In the same way when you ignore the weaknesses and failures of your own countrymen and try to blame Mexicans and Muslims for your problems you go from being a good patriot to a ****ty nationalist.
 
Why would you ask me that question?

I wasn't talking about what I believe. I was talking about what the article is saying.

So tell me...without using liberal talking point nonsense, as that article does...why being populist or antiliberal means that one is against democracy.

Like I said liberal democracy is the foundation of the free world. Populism and right-wing forces as we have seen in Eastern Europe and places like Singapore seek to undermine electoral integrity, limit rights and freedoms, undermine an independent judiciary, remove checks and balances, etc. As someone who I have seen rail against the tyranny of the majority you should know as much.
 
Like I said liberal democracy is the foundation of the free world. Populism and right-wing forces as we have seen in Eastern Europe and places like Singapore seek to undermine electoral integrity, limit rights and freedoms, undermine an independent judiciary, remove checks and balances, etc. As someone who I have seen rail against the tyranny of the majority you should know as much.


What is 'populism'?


In its broadest sense, populism is simply a reflection of popular opinion. This is entirely consistent with democracy.


What has happened in 'liberal democracies' is more that the ruling elites have defined populism as being anti systemic, when often populism is simply an expression of opinion against those elites.

Thus, in their twisted, self interested and malign way, ruling elites have sought to turn logic on its head. They define an expression of democratic opinion which is in favor of change as being a negative, as being anti-democratic. Thus ruling elites seek to appropriate virtue to themselves, whilst disparaging popular opinion and populists (often a euphemism for the working class and the least fortunate in society) as ill informed, less worthy etc.

Liberal democracy has been hijacked by illiberal forces of the status quo.
 
What is 'populism'?


In its broadest sense, populism is simply a reflection of popular opinion. This is entirely consistent with democracy.


What has happened in 'liberal democracies' is more that the ruling elites have defined populism as being anti systemic, when often populism is simply an expression of opinion against those elites.

Thus, in their twisted, self interested and malign way, ruling elites have sought to turn logic on its head. They define an expression of democratic opinion which is in favor of change as being a negative, as being anti-democratic. Thus ruling elites seek to appropriate virtue to themselves, whilst disparaging popular opinion and populists (often a euphemism for the working class and the least fortunate in society) as ill informed, less worthy etc.

Liberal democracy has been hijacked by illiberal forces of the status quo.

The problem is that populism seeks to implement popular opinion no matter what and often leads to strong-man dictators who use the claim they "represent the will of the people" to implement discriminatory policies and remove checks and balances, undermining liberal democracy. This is what we have seen in Poland and Hungary.
 
The problem is that populism seeks to implement popular opinion no matter what and often leads to strong-man dictators who use the claim they "represent the will of the people" to implement discriminatory policies and remove checks and balances, undermining liberal democracy. This is what we have seen in Poland and Hungary.


Why is that a problem? If people want a strong leader rather than the weak, ineffectual and un-responsive decision making of 'liberal democracy', then that's the point of democracy isn't it?

Otherwise your 'liberal democracy' becomes restricted to allowing people to choose whoever they want provided they are approved by the established elite? Which is of course less a democracy and more a sham choice between competing brands of the same thing, all of which perpetuate the interests of the broad establishment.


Far too many people assume that the preservation of 'liberal democracy' is an end in itself, which discounts the fact that millions of people do not benefit from the status quo, from the broad globalist corporate consensus which goes hand in hand with 'liberal democracy'.
 
Why is that a problem? If people want a strong leader rather than the weak, ineffectual and un-responsive decision making of 'liberal democracy', then that's the point of democracy isn't it?

Otherwise your 'liberal democracy' becomes restricted to allowing people to choose whoever they want provided they are approved by the established elite? Which is of course less a democracy and more a sham choice between competing brands of the same thing, all of which perpetuate the interests of the broad establishment.


Far too many people assume that the preservation of 'liberal democracy' is an end in itself, which discounts the fact that millions of people do not benefit from the status quo, from the broad globalist corporate consensus which goes hand in hand with 'liberal democracy'.

Bolding added to the above quotation by me.

Westphalian:

Why is that a problem? It is a problem because democracies can self-correct if they make collective errors of judgement in future elections but strongmen and dictators tend to want to hang on to power and thus delay, cancel, forbid or badly coopt future elections in order to remain in power. Strongmen and dictators are only answerable to themselves but a democratically elected government is accountable to the electorate every election. That is one of the pillars of responsible government.

You are right to point out that democracies can drift into elite controlled oligarchies preoccupied with maintaining an unfair and preferential status quo if the democratic electorate becomes easily manipulated or self-destructively apathetic. But as long as the oligarchs are not permitted to abolish the process of democracy, a democratic re-awakening among the electorate can toss out the oligarchs and their agents from power in the next election and undo any preferential status quo peacefully. Democracies are prone to errors like any other political system, but they are able to peacefully self-correct themselves when things go wrong. That is why liberal democracies are healthy in the long-run even if they appear flawed at any given moment in time.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Back
Top Bottom