I sometimes worry that liberal democracy may turn out to be a temporary fad. The rise of uninformed populism and strongmen is everywhere. Right-wing extremism, often with little love for the free press or due process, has been on the rise all over Europe. The Brexit campaign was dominated by lies and took a seriously xenophobic turn, and now the US has elected a president who is openly racist and lies more often than he tells the truth. In in increasing number of countries, strongmen seem to have more staying power than informed democracy.
It may be attractive to spin this as merely being anti-globalist, but in every instance, racism is a big part of it. After the Brexit vote, people of colour got shouted at by people who claimed they voted for foreigners to leave.
Maybe the problem is that we have allowed right-wing extremism to take hold of the anti-globalist agenda. That used to be a left-wing thing, though anti-globalism never really became mainstream with the left as its champions, but now that the extreme right is championing the cause, suddenly it wins. Does anti-globalism do better when combined with racism? Do they need each other to get a majority?
Or is the problem with democracy itself? Is it possible that the world is too complex for the average citizen to make an informed decision about it? Or do we need a regular lesson in the consequences of our choices? After WW2, everybody (in western Europe at least) was united in their desire for freedom and opposition to racism and totalitarianism, but we've seem to have forgotten that lesson. Or maybe the lesson has been poisoned by becoming too rigid and part of establishment dogma?
Democracy started off as an oligarchy of the nobles, then extended to free white men/citizens, then to women and then to every citizen. While it was idealistic, I suspect the people who designed the system did not expect large participation; usually the only participants would be city folk/wealthy landowners etc. who probably more or less held similar worldviews. Now, technology/media has made it very easy for many more people to participate in a democracy, and we have to deal with the uncomfortable situation that this gives a lot of power to people who may not be well educated; in fact, who might be rather shallow/easily influenced...
Anyways, I don't think democracy itself is the problem; it is the Establishment that has mostly lost touch with some of the things that Americans respect. A common criticism of Hillary was that she wasn't a straight shooter like Trump. Let's think about that: Hillary was a career politician, a First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, all diplomatic positions that require her to be, well, diplomatic. Obama did well because he could actually pull off both: be a straight-shooter in public, yet diplomatic when talking to other politicians. Hillary unfortunately did not have that skill, of public oration. That is probably what hurt her most.
Now I agree its rather unfair to discount Hillary for that reason. But the reality is: that is how US politics seem to work. And politicians need to understand that fact.
I'm not sure if I've ever read anything that could construe Trump as an orator of any skill whatsoever, but this may be the closest. Clearly, there's much more factors involved than speaking and diplomatic abilities that decided the outcome of this election.
It's also hilarious to think of an ultra-wealthy racial / ethnic majority person as being in touch with anyone regardless of your country. What he seems to be in touch with that's been clear in terms of platform is anger. And he's not speaking like Malcolm X or Louis Farrakhan either except for body language.
I don't understand claims about Trump's charisma either. I find Clinton far more convincing, and don't believe a single word that comes out of Trump's mouth. But very clearly a lot of people see this very differently. Somehow his badly mangled sentences appeal to them. But I think he says a lot of things that are vague enough to invite people to project themselves onto him.
Polybius [1] would share with this point of view. He believed that governments iterated through a cycle of basic forms: democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy and their degenerate forms.
That is a very interesting concept! The American politician system seems to have resisted change remarkably though; I do hope this recent change won't trigger that cycle.
"Or is the problem with democracy itself? Is it possible that the world is too complex for the average citizen to make an informed decision about it? "
I believe, that democracy lost it when started to serve minorities instead of majority. Of course people are getting angry, when majority of them elect government which then won't care about their problems, but about immigrants, sexual minorities, big business, elites etc. Democracy, by definition, is the government of majority, and when it stops serving majority, it loses its purpose. I don't have a solution to this problem, but hopefully somebody will find it sooner rather than later, because I'm afraid some very dark times might otherwise be ahead.
But that government was elected by those people. Clearly a majority does, or at least did, care about minorities. If they really don't anymore, then that's a very sad development.
The problem is that people like you dismiss legitimate concerns as racism. If there's one thing you should take from this election, it's that we're tired of that.
* Fear of large, primarily-Muslim immigration leading to less safety within our borders
* Political correctness leading to unwillingness to address certain problems for what they are
Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. It's also tedious how voting for Trump is itself implied to be racist (because of the borderline-racist and racist things he's said), but that leaves out the context that the alternative was Hillary Clinton.
The lack of safety within your borders is not coming from Muslim immigration. The vast majority of domestic terrorism in the US comes from right-wing white people. If you honestly want to address the real problems, you've got to address that one. That, and the extreme carelessness with guns. More people get shot by toddlers than by Muslim extremists in the US.
It varies from person to person. Probably one of the biggest ones is the Obama administration's unwillingness to use the label "Radical Islamic Terror." I understand the argument that it emboldens our enemies and doesn't help us get allies, but it's difficult to have a lot of faith in the problem being solved when the ones in charge can't even state it.
Another I'd probably say is the ambiguity you see on the left when it comes to accepting others' cultures and values on one hand, but not feeling comfortable admonishing certain cultures for a lack of women's rights, their treatment of apostates of Islam, etc. If you're unwilling to take a stand about it being objectively wrong that certain cultures celebrate burning gays at the stake, it's unlikely you're fairly assessing those cultures. Which allies are we choosing? What cultures are we supporting?
The redefining of words is a big one for me. Global climate change, sustainability, social justice, even rape. When you take things you like or don't like and broaden their definitions to the point where they're universally agreeable / hated, it gives the appearance that you're trying to trick people into your point of view rather than actually win them over. Ten years ago, these words meant different things. Of course the climate is changing. It always has. But now, if you're an opponent of the left on the issue, you're "against global climate change," which isn't accurate--it's just the term has been redefined. It makes it tougher to discuss and come up with actual solutions when people's views are being arbitrarily grouped into inaccurate terms. Nobody likes rape, but that doesn't mean anyone having sex without a notorized consent form should fear being called a rapist. Yet it's not politically correct to stand up for anyone on the spectrum, so the problem remains unresolved.
Also, we tire of conclusions being reached about diversity in certain areas based on the assumption that all races are 100% the same, full stop. Somehow we can look at the racial makeup of the NBA or NFL and see no issues, yet in many other places, if different races are represented at different proportions than the general public, it's immediately deemed to be the result of racism. It's not politically correct to say, "Maybe X race/culture has different values or other factors that result in a disproportionate representation in this industry / organization / club." Many of us are totally open to the idea that we (subconsciously) contribute some to it and that white privilege is a real thing that calls for some adjustment, but the unwillingness to accept that some things might not be our fault (due to political correctness) can be tiring and lead to bad decisions.
> Probably one of the biggest ones is the Obama administration's unwillingness to use the label "Radical Islamic Terror."
Using that phrase doesn't magically solve the problem, and in fact runs the risk of legitimizing the terrorists from an Islamic point of view. Stopping the problem means stopping their recruitment. The more persecuted Muslims feel, the easier they are to radicalize and recruit by extremist groups. Severing that link is vital to solving the problem. It is absolutely essential that moderate Muslims are welcomed and embraced by society, and not attacked for having the same religion as terrorists.
Given Trump's recent election, would you say "Radical Old White Irresponsibility and Racism" (ROWIR) is as accurate a statement as "Radical Islamic Terror"?
Yep. Right as soon as they start blowing things up, killing people who disagree with them, and their supposed leaders don't take hard stances against it.
Until then, I'd just call them "people with ideas different from yours."
It may be attractive to spin this as merely being anti-globalist, but in every instance, racism is a big part of it. After the Brexit vote, people of colour got shouted at by people who claimed they voted for foreigners to leave.
Maybe the problem is that we have allowed right-wing extremism to take hold of the anti-globalist agenda. That used to be a left-wing thing, though anti-globalism never really became mainstream with the left as its champions, but now that the extreme right is championing the cause, suddenly it wins. Does anti-globalism do better when combined with racism? Do they need each other to get a majority?
Or is the problem with democracy itself? Is it possible that the world is too complex for the average citizen to make an informed decision about it? Or do we need a regular lesson in the consequences of our choices? After WW2, everybody (in western Europe at least) was united in their desire for freedom and opposition to racism and totalitarianism, but we've seem to have forgotten that lesson. Or maybe the lesson has been poisoned by becoming too rigid and part of establishment dogma?