While executive tyranny may be a greater problem presently, given the predilection for executive orders and unrepresentative administrative state, the US Constitution was design to restrain legislative rather than executive authority. This is a theme in the Federalist Papers.
In 1970, the U.S. was a highly effective nation that could and did promote ‘liberal’ (using the European definition of ‘liberal’) values around the world. In the same year, China was a model (the Cultural Revolution) of insanity and highly ineffective (to say the least). Times change. The U.S. is now a model of ineffectiveness and China is a model of effectiveness.
China is very good at building dams. The U.S. is very good at enforcing PC. As long as this remains true, China's political system will win over America's political system. If only tyrannies can make the trains run on time, the world will move inexorably towards tyrannies.
The thing is that USA could at lest institutionally still promote liberal values globally. However, it is harder to due Biden's administrations lack of optimism, visions and a long-term will to fight against nationalism and populism through globalist and cosmopolitan actions. Instead, politics are as usual short-sighted and opportunistic.
China is also quite inefficient as regarding its internal governance and systems that are slow to change.
"... the Republican Party began a concerted effort to introduce laws to restrict voting access...", while their main opponent did *nothing* to provoke this?
And, the Brennan Center (to which this claim is linked) is any more credible than are its critics?
Seriously, Evo Morales is one of your examples? The democratically elected president of Bolivia who was deposed in a CIA-engineered coup because he was too worker-friendly? You must have a strange definition of democracy.
What is the problem? Morales is a left-wing populist and he used anti-democratic methods. What do you mean with "worker-friendly" when many workers around Bolivia did not benefit from his collectivist behaviours
My experience regarding discussion about democracy is that some people can say things as "liberal democracy is not the only alternative, there are other alternatives as electoral democracy". And my answer to that is "liberal democracy is the best type of democracy so far and other alternatives are in principle equal to degradation of democracy in general, step by step"
While executive tyranny may be a greater problem presently, given the predilection for executive orders and unrepresentative administrative state, the US Constitution was design to restrain legislative rather than executive authority. This is a theme in the Federalist Papers.
Yes, very true. So have can the USA achieve better constitutionalism, federalism and decentralisation?
In 1970, the U.S. was a highly effective nation that could and did promote ‘liberal’ (using the European definition of ‘liberal’) values around the world. In the same year, China was a model (the Cultural Revolution) of insanity and highly ineffective (to say the least). Times change. The U.S. is now a model of ineffectiveness and China is a model of effectiveness.
China is very good at building dams. The U.S. is very good at enforcing PC. As long as this remains true, China's political system will win over America's political system. If only tyrannies can make the trains run on time, the world will move inexorably towards tyrannies.
The thing is that USA could at lest institutionally still promote liberal values globally. However, it is harder to due Biden's administrations lack of optimism, visions and a long-term will to fight against nationalism and populism through globalist and cosmopolitan actions. Instead, politics are as usual short-sighted and opportunistic.
China is also quite inefficient as regarding its internal governance and systems that are slow to change.
"... the Republican Party began a concerted effort to introduce laws to restrict voting access...", while their main opponent did *nothing* to provoke this?
And, the Brennan Center (to which this claim is linked) is any more credible than are its critics?
Seriously, Evo Morales is one of your examples? The democratically elected president of Bolivia who was deposed in a CIA-engineered coup because he was too worker-friendly? You must have a strange definition of democracy.
What is the problem? Morales is a left-wing populist and he used anti-democratic methods. What do you mean with "worker-friendly" when many workers around Bolivia did not benefit from his collectivist behaviours
My experience regarding discussion about democracy is that some people can say things as "liberal democracy is not the only alternative, there are other alternatives as electoral democracy". And my answer to that is "liberal democracy is the best type of democracy so far and other alternatives are in principle equal to degradation of democracy in general, step by step"