THE BAD GUYS ARE WINNING

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

If the 20th century was the story of slow, uneven progress toward the victory of liberal democracy over other ideologies—communism, fascism, virulent nationalism—the 21st century is, so far, a story of the reverse.

By Anne Applebaum

Illustrations by Michael Houtz

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/12/the-autocrats-are-winning/620526/

.....But in the 21st century, that cartoon bears little resemblance to reality. Nowadays, autocracies are run not by one bad guy, but by sophisticated networks composed of kleptocratic financial structures, security services (military, police, paramilitary groups, surveillance), and professional propagandists. The members of these networks are connected not only within a given country, but among many countries. The corrupt, state-controlled companies in one dictatorship do business with corrupt, state-controlled companies in another. The police in one country can arm, equip, and train the police in another. The propagandists share resources—the troll farms that promote one dictator’s propaganda can also be used to promote the propaganda of another—and themes, pounding home the same messages about the weakness of democracy and the evil of America.

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by Crtcl Rice Theory

[jg121783 3,909]

1 hour ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

If the 20th century was the story of slow, uneven progress toward the victory of liberal democracy over other ideologies—communism, fascism, virulent nationalism—the 21st century is, so far, a story of the reverse.

So much wrong with that statement. Where do I even start? First of all we were never meant to have a democracy (liberal or not). We were meant to have a constitutional republic. Second there is nothing "liberal" about today's democrats when compared to someone like Thomas Jefferson who was a real liberal. Third the Democrats are embracing communism not rejecting it. I could go on.

[Mike E 11,739]

I’m an old man.  
 

In the 20th century I recall that most of Ibero-America was run by dictators.  These days I count just 3 dictatorships there.    A similar story for the Caribbean.  
 

I remember the iron curtain in Europe, and Spain and Portugal under dictatorships.  Same with South Korea.  
 

I remember Congress in the USA was intractably   under control of one party. Mexico and India were one party countries. 
 

The USA has been successful selling or imposing democracy around the world even as (by design and intent) it doesn’t use that product. 
 

Doomers and downers will always be among us. 

[Dashinka 24,420]

Didn't they forget to include Brandon's picture in the article?

[TBoneTX 45,075]

13 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Didn't they forget to include Brandon's picture in the article?

He forgot to show up at his photo-shoot.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

23 hours ago, jg121783 said:

So much wrong with that statement. Where do I even start? First of all we were never meant to have a democracy (liberal or not). We were meant to have a constitutional republic. Second there is nothing "liberal" about today's democrats when compared to someone like Thomas Jefferson who was a real liberal. Third the Democrats are embracing communism not rejecting it. I could go on.

 

 

"Liberal democracy emphasises the separation of powers, an independent judiciary and a system of checks and balances between branches of government. ... Governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedure."

Last time I looked,  this country  was a liberal  democracy.

 

[jg121783 3,909]

14 minutes ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

 

 

"Liberal democracy emphasises the separation of powers, an independent judiciary and a system of checks and balances between branches of government. ... Governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedure."

Last time I looked,  this country  was a liberal  democracy.

 

That's basically the definition of a constitutional republic. There are numerous documents and historical accounts showing the founders were very much opposed to a system of democracy (two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner) and favored a constitutional republic where yes there are elements of democracy (voting for elected officials for example) but the rights of the minority can't be voted away by the majority. Also the word "liberal" doesn't have the same meaning today as it did when this country was founded or even a few decades ago. The true liberals (people who believe in minimal government intervention) of the past are rolling in their graves because of what liberalism has turned into today (an authoritarian nanny state that resembles communism). I consider myself a liberal if we are using the original definition of the term. By that I mean on social issues. I consider myself socially liberal fiscally conservative unlike today's democrats who are socially authoritarian fiscally liberal. That is why I tend to refer to democrats as leftists rather than liberals.

Edited November 20, 2021 by jg121783

[Mike E 11,739]

16 minutes ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

 

 

"Liberal democracy emphasises the separation of powers, an independent judiciary and a system of checks and balances between branches of government. ... Governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedure."

Last time I looked,  this country  was a liberal  democracy.

 

We are not.  
 

Indeed this was taught to me in a U.S. university by a left wing political science professor who used a text book written by a more extreme left wing political scientist.  I have to admit as an 18 year old naive Canadian I was shocked.

 

But the truth is in the text book:

 

https://archive.org/details/democracyforfew00pare
 

The senate doesn’t give each citizen an equal vote.  The limit on the size of the house does give each citizen an equal vote.  That only a third of the Senate is up for election every two years limits the will of the people.  2/3s majority to override a veto. 60 Senator rule to end a filibuster.  The electoral college. 
 

The USA, at the federal level is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic (one with superlative civil rights and liberty) that gives its citizens marginal control over its government. 
 

This was all by design and intent. 
 

It’s a fine thing to wish it be otherwise and if you can get 38 states to agree, go for it.  
 

We have less democracy in the USA compared to Canada and far more liberty and civil rights. I prefer the USA system. I don’t want democracy because it would infringe on my liberty.   
 

In Canada, KR’s acquittal would be appealed and overturned and he would be sentenced.  In the USA it is over.  

Edited November 20, 2021 by Mike E

[jg121783 3,909]

2 minutes ago, Mike E said:

We are not.  
 

Indeed this was taught to me in a U.S. university by a left wing political science professor who used a text book written by a more extreme left wing political scientist.  I have to admit as an 18 year old naive Canadian I was shocked.

 

But the truth is in the text book:

 

https://archive.org/details/democracyforfew00pare
 

The senate doesn’t give each citizen an equal vote.  The limit on the size of the house does give each citizen an equal vote.  That only a third of the Senate is up for election every two years limits the will of the people.  2/3s majority to override a veto. 60 Senator rule to end a filibuster.  The electoral college. 
 

The USA, at the federal level is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic (one with superlative civil rights and liberty) that gives its citizens marginal control over its government. 
 

This was all by design and intent. 
 

It’s a fine thing to wish it be otherwise and if you can get 38 states to agree, go for it.  

The founders designed the system intentionally to have gridlock so massive amounts of authoritarian legislation couldn't be passed. Originally the house and senate only met a couple times a year and they all had separate full time jobs. Now it has become a paying full time job. Originally senators and congressmen were only paid basically for travel expenses. Also until the early 1900s senators were elected by state legislators not the people of the state. This was a good thing because if they did something wrong they could immediately be replaced by the state legislator instead of having to wait until the next election.

[Dashinka 24,420]

45 minutes ago, Mike E said:

We are not.  
 

Indeed this was taught to me in a U.S. university by a left wing political science professor who used a text book written by a more extreme left wing political scientist.  I have to admit as an 18 year old naive Canadian I was shocked.

 

But the truth is in the text book:

 

https://archive.org/details/democracyforfew00pare
 

The senate doesn’t give each citizen an equal vote.  The limit on the size of the house does give each citizen an equal vote.  That only a third of the Senate is up for election every two years limits the will of the people.  2/3s majority to override a veto. 60 Senator rule to end a filibuster.  The electoral college. 
 

The USA, at the federal level is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic (one with superlative civil rights and liberty) that gives its citizens marginal control over its government. 
 

This was all by design and intent. 
 

It’s a fine thing to wish it be otherwise and if you can get 38 states to agree, go for it.  
 

We have less democracy in the USA compared to Canada and far more liberty and civil rights. I prefer the USA system. I don’t want democracy because it would infringe on my liberty.   
 

In Canada, KR’s acquittal would be appealed and overturned and he would be sentenced.  In the USA it is over.  

The biggest issue with the US Constitutional Republic is the limit on the direct representation of the people.  The US is something like 730,000 people per House member, only India is worse.  When they passed the law to limit the size of the House, that started the ball rolling.  Now I am not suggesting going back to the Constitutional limit of 30k people per House member, rather something like 200-250k.  Since the people feel they are not truly represented, then we get all this talk about the Senate or Electoral College.

Edited November 20, 2021 by Dashinka

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

48 minutes ago, Mike E said:

We are not.  
 

Indeed this was taught to me in a U.S. university by a left wing political science professor who used a text book written by a more extreme left wing political scientist.  I have to admit as an 18 year old naive Canadian I was shocked.

 

But the truth is in the text book:

 

https://archive.org/details/democracyforfew00pare
 

The senate doesn’t give each citizen an equal vote.  The limit on the size of the house does give each citizen an equal vote.  That only a third of the Senate is up for election every two years limits the will of the people.  2/3s majority to override a veto. 60 Senator rule to end a filibuster.  The electoral college. 
 

The USA, at the federal level is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic (one with superlative civil rights and liberty) that gives its citizens marginal control over its government. 
 

This was all by design and intent. 
 

It’s a fine thing to wish it be otherwise and if you can get 38 states to agree, go for it.  
 

We have less democracy in the USA compared to Canada and far more liberty and civil rights. I prefer the USA system. I don’t want democracy because it would infringe on my liberty.   
 

In Canada, KR’s acquittal would be appealed and overturned and he would be sentenced.  In the USA it is over.  

I couldn't get to your book and I don’t  fully understand your comparing Canada and the US.

 

The question  is not more or less effective  or more or less freedom.  The question  is the definition  of liberal democracy which is agreed to in political  science  academia.

Representative  democracy is a form of democracy. It is not direct democracy like ancient  Athens. Even a constitutional  monarchy is a Representative democracy. We can agree  or disagree with the structure and constitution.  

 

The term liberal also seems to be a hangup for some. Despite some claiming to be "truly liberal" (as opposed to their opponents) or "too liberal" or a member of the Liberal Party, this does not match the term  "liberal" in a political  science  sense and they are likely talking  about "social liberalism" 

 

I hope most of us are politically liberal in the sense that we believe  in Representative form of government,  checks and balances between wings of government, universal suffrage, preservation of individual and property rights. 

 

The point of the article is that their is alarming number of countries are not heading in that direction. 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2021 by Crtcl Rice Theory

[Dashinka 24,420]

3 minutes ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

I couldn't get to your book and I don’t  fully understand your comparing Canada and the US.

 

The question  is not more or less effective  or more or less freedom.  The question  is the definition  of liberal democracy which is agreed to in political  science  academia.

Representative  democracy is a form of democracy. It is not direct democracy like ancient  Athens. Even a constitutional  monarchy is a Representative democracy. We can agree  or disagree with the structure and constitution.  

 

The term liberal also seems to be a hangup for some. Despite some claiming to be "truly liberal" (as opposed to their opponents) or "too liberal" or a member of the Liberal Party, this does not match the term  "liberal" in a political  science  sense and they are likely talking  about "social liberalism" 

 

I hope most of us are politically liberal in the sense that we believe  in Representative form of government,  checks and balances between wings of government, universal suffrage, preservation of individual and property rights. 

 

The point of the article is that their is alarming number of countries are not heading in that direction. 

 

 

Including the US.

[Mike E 11,739]

1 hour ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

I couldn't get to your book and

Democracy for the Few

 

by Michael Parenti 

 

 

1 hour ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

 

I don’t  fully understand your comparing Canada and the US.

Canada is a democracy.  For the most part each  citizen of each province has the same voting power.  
 

1 hour ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

 

The question  is not more or less effective  or more or less freedom.

Thanks for minimizing my priorities.  

1 hour ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

The question  is the definition  of liberal democracy which is agreed to in political  science  academia.

Is this what of those “settled science” things?

 

1 hour ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

Representative  democracy is a form of democracy.

I’m not talking about Representative vs direct democracy.  I’m talking about a system where each representative represents the same number of residents.  
 

If a representative of district A represents more people than a representative of district B then this isn’t democracy.  And that issue was brought to scotus and decided.  

 

Each state is require to have each representative of a chamber of its legislature represent the same number of people. Despite what settled political science says.  
 

 

1 hour ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

.  

 

The term liberal also seems to be a hangup for some. Despite some claiming to be "truly liberal" (as opposed to their opponents) or "too liberal" or a member of the Liberal Party, this does not match the term  "liberal" in a political  science  sense and they are likely talking  about "social liberalism" 

 

I hope most of us are politically liberal in the sense that we believe  in Representative form of government,  checks and balances between wings of government, universal suffrage, preservation of individual and property rights. 

Yes the left has misappropriated the term liberal.  
 

1 hour ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

 

The point of the article is that their is alarming number of countries are not heading in that direction. 

Yes and the article is wrong.  It lacks perspective and doesn’t take the longer term view.  Democracy and liberty are flourishing, but younger people lack the context to see it.  

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

30 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Democracy for the Few

 

by Michael Parenti 

From the description "This is no ordinary textbook on American Government. DEMOCRACY FOR THE FEW is a provocative interpretation of American Government that you have likely not been exposed to in elementary school, high school, or other college courses, and certainly not in the mass media. This textbook shows how democracy is repeatedly violated by corporate oligopolies, but how popular forces have fought back and occasionally made gains in spite of the system. By focusing on the relationship between economic power and political power, discussing actual government practices and policies, conspiracies, propaganda, fraud, secrecy and other ploys of government and politics, this book stands apart in its analysis of how US Government works."  

I have no argument with any of those concepts and I am sure I would agree with a lot the author has to say.   

 

 

Quote

 

Canada is a democracy.  For the most part each  citizen of each province has the same voting power.  
 

Canada and the US are representative democracies and liberal democracies.  

 

Quote

Thanks for minimizing my priorities.  

I am not minimizing anyone's priorities.  "the question" that was taken up was the definition of "liberal democracy"  I feel no need to rathole on this definition, it isn't something I invented, feel free to argue with academia.

 

Quote

Is this what of those “settled science” things?

 

????

 

Quote

I’m not talking about Representative vs direct democracy.  I’m talking about a system where each representative represents the same number of residents.  

 

I am not defending the idea of the Electoral College, or Montana having a stronger voice per capita than New York, but it is still a democracy. 

 

 

Quote

 

 

If a representative of district A represents more people than a representative of district B then this isn’t democracy.  And that issue was brought to scotus and decided.  

Okay, I believe that you believe that the US is not a democracy. I dont know of any Supreme Court ruling on the definition of democracy per se.  

 

 

Quote

Each state is require to have each representative of a chamber of its legislature represent the same number of people. Despite what settled political science says.  
 

 

 

Quote

 

 

Yes the left has misappropriated the term liberal.  

And yet,  reactionary folks tell me I am too liberal, whatever that means.

 

Quote

 

Yes and the article is wrong.  It lacks perspective and doesn’t take the longer term view.  Democracy and liberty are flourishing, but younger people lack the context to see it.  

The article makes some key points how authoritarian threat in the 21st century is structured differently that the challenges in the 20th century.  That is my reason for posting the article.   If we are struggling to recognize authoritarian actions and governments at this point, it might be underscoring the authors point.

Edited November 20, 2021 by Crtcl Rice Theory

[Dashinka 24,420]

The US form of government was already reviewed in this thread started by @LIBrty4all.

 

 

 

https://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/769451-the-american-form-of-government/