Interesting though brief discussion on how there has been a waning of support for liberal democracy in the West and the causes.

https://www.vox.com/2018/3/5/17035848/d ... ump-europe

Not a very insightful discussion, though.

Democracy has its limitations. We have to recognize and accept those limitations.

The article just sounds like Leftist make believe, as of late. The oft repeated suggestion that populism is a threat to democracy is absurd, by definition. There's a backlash to elected representatives imposing major policies that citizens didn't consent to and clearly (as shown by polling) didn't want.

Pointing to Brexit and Donald Trump as a failure of democracy is refusing to be chastised by the electorate in favor of your own utopian vision that is hindered by seeking consent.

Neal Anderth wrote:The article just sounds like Leftist make believe, as of late. The oft repeated suggestion that populism is a threat to democracy is absurd, by definition. There's a backlash to elected representatives imposing major policies that citizens didn't consent to and clearly (as shown by polling) didn't want.

Pointing to Brexit and Donald Trump as a failure of democracy is refusing to be chastised by the electorate in favor of your own utopian vision that is hinder by seeking consent.

Did you read the interview?

danivon wrote:Did you read the interview?

Apparently not.

hacker

Democracy has its limitations. We have to recognize and accept those limitations.

There are various systems that are democratic in nature, in varying degrees. Mounk is criticizing many of the systems for failing to be responsive to the real needs of voters... he is specific about the US system.

Our system has failed at one of the core ambitions of a democracy, which is to translate popular views into public policies. That’s because of the role of money in our politics, because of the revolving door between legislators and lobbyists, and because the political class has become separated from the bulk of the population.

There is no need to accept a democratic system that is unresponsive any more than a need to accept a failing or inefficiency in any institution.

Neal

The oft repeated suggestion that populism is a threat to democracy is absurd, by definition.

Populism is a political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against a privileged elite.
So, yes, on its face you would expect that populists are offering a response to the masses.
The problem is that historically rarely is populism more than a tool . Example: By using populist platitudes You can fool people into believing that a tax bill will work in their favor, whilst benefiting primarily the elites you have vilified.
Example: You can pit the "masses" against any minority (Ethnic, racial, class), in order to move your agenda forward, benefiting those you favor. But seldom offering much genuine improvement to the mass of people.

There are various systems that are democratic in nature, in varying degrees. Mounk is criticizing many of the systems for failing to be responsive to the real needs of voters... he is specific about the US system.

And it's likely that, once a Democrat is elected, he will do a 180 and praise the U.S. system instead. You've never been able to adequately explain why the U.S. system is somehow any worse than yours, or any other democratic system on Earth. The election of Donald Trump, or Brexit, is insufficient evidence for the U.S. system being worse, or even teetering on the brink.

When you realize what the limitations of anything are, you are in a better position to improve those limitations. But you still can't make something better than it's possible to make it. That includes a form of government in which anyone can vote, regardless of how much research they did before they picked up the pen and checked the little box.

Populism is a political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against a privileged elite.
So, yes, on its face you would expect that populists are offering a response to the masses.
The problem is that historically rarely is populism more than a tool . Example: By using populist platitudes You can fool people into believing that a tax bill will work in their favor, whilst benefiting primarily the elites you have vilified.
Example: You can pit the "masses" against any minority (Ethnic, racial, class), in order to move your agenda forward, benefiting those you favor. But seldom offering much genuine improvement to the mass of people.

You see ricky? The masses can be seduced by a supposed populist with an elitist agenda. It always seems to be the ones selling you Utopia who screw you the most.

You see ricky?

Well, your quoting my quotation ...soo..

Hacker

It always seems to be the ones selling you Utopia who screw you the most.

Your populist was worse than mine? Is that your line of argumentation?

Right now, the USA and the west are dealing with a serious threat to the institutions which built the economies and societies of the west since WWII.
That threat is the leader of the nation which has benefited most from those institutions.
I think confronting this populist's dangerous notions is important now. Not worrying about whether someone from the past was worse.

Ricky, can you clarify that last remark? I think we're talking at cross purposes again.