What would be interesting and perhaps useful would be determining the percentage of the US electorate committed to living in a democratic republic. I suspect that there are those on the left and the right who would prefer an autocracy or oligarchy under the assumption that they would then be in charge. As history tells us, that assumption is usually flawed. Revolutions do tend to devour their young (not an original thought).
We enjoy talking about about people who disagree with us as having misperceptions. Can we accept that people disagree with us for the right reasons? That does not make us wrong but does recognize an alternate viewpoint. Further, there are those who may agree with us for the wrong reasons and who do have misperceptions. Those folks also can be dangerous.
Your offhand comment about Israel, where I could make a good case that it's the protestors, not the government, who are at odds with liberal democracy, makes me wonder about your offhand statements regarding Hungary and India (about Turkey I have some knowledge of my own).
Forget China and dams. Consider a title of an article in the NYT "The Most Expensive Mile of Subway Track on Earth". You would think such an article would trigger major reforms. You would be wrong.
"populist incumbents were turned out of office. And it's hard to beat incumbents. And so, in some sense, the last couple of years have brought some very good news."
So the popular candidate is defeated by the massive money and power of the globalist corporatist establishment and this is evidence that democracy is working? Not at all. It is evidence that the establishment ownership and control of the mainstream media has corrupted democracy.
What would be interesting and perhaps useful would be determining the percentage of the US electorate committed to living in a democratic republic. I suspect that there are those on the left and the right who would prefer an autocracy or oligarchy under the assumption that they would then be in charge. As history tells us, that assumption is usually flawed. Revolutions do tend to devour their young (not an original thought).
We enjoy talking about about people who disagree with us as having misperceptions. Can we accept that people disagree with us for the right reasons? That does not make us wrong but does recognize an alternate viewpoint. Further, there are those who may agree with us for the wrong reasons and who do have misperceptions. Those folks also can be dangerous.
Your offhand comment about Israel, where I could make a good case that it's the protestors, not the government, who are at odds with liberal democracy, makes me wonder about your offhand statements regarding Hungary and India (about Turkey I have some knowledge of my own).
Forget China and dams. Consider a title of an article in the NYT "The Most Expensive Mile of Subway Track on Earth". You would think such an article would trigger major reforms. You would be wrong.
"populist incumbents were turned out of office. And it's hard to beat incumbents. And so, in some sense, the last couple of years have brought some very good news."
So the popular candidate is defeated by the massive money and power of the globalist corporatist establishment and this is evidence that democracy is working? Not at all. It is evidence that the establishment ownership and control of the mainstream media has corrupted democracy.
The reality is that 'liberal democracy' is dying. My comment on this is
"China is very good at building dams, the US is very good at enforcing PC. Which system will prevail in the 21st century?"