I find this article somewhat strange. It seems to begrudgingly acknowledge that the election was won fair and square, while nonetheless characterizes the winners as "authoritarians." It mentions in passing that they have widespread appeal to citizens of the Phillipines, but chalks it up only to, err, people's fond memories of infrastructure, or something.
This weird subtext is present in many Persuasion articles, that somehow it is only "democracy" when the people we like win and we approve of the electorate's preferences.
Yah whenever a population decides to do something not in accord with the politics of the authors, it is populism and authoritarianism. And when a minority faction does something in accord with the politics of the authors but in opposition to majority sentiment, it is the defense of democracy from populism and authoritarians.
It seems to be the standard outlook of “journalists” who support the “Democratic” Party, which also has the same problem with the concept of democracy, in such that it argued in court it had no moral or legal obligation to run a fair democratic primary. Notice how just about no journalist seems to care about that, but so many seem to care about a new daily attacks on “democracy” by rivals of the Democratic Party.
Back when Rodrigo Duterte was in power, I noticed something notable in the US articles about him. Essentially every comment that came from the US was negative. Essentially every comment that came from the Philippines was positive.
I find this article somewhat strange. It seems to begrudgingly acknowledge that the election was won fair and square, while nonetheless characterizes the winners as "authoritarians." It mentions in passing that they have widespread appeal to citizens of the Phillipines, but chalks it up only to, err, people's fond memories of infrastructure, or something.
This weird subtext is present in many Persuasion articles, that somehow it is only "democracy" when the people we like win and we approve of the electorate's preferences.
Yah whenever a population decides to do something not in accord with the politics of the authors, it is populism and authoritarianism. And when a minority faction does something in accord with the politics of the authors but in opposition to majority sentiment, it is the defense of democracy from populism and authoritarians.
It seems to be the standard outlook of “journalists” who support the “Democratic” Party, which also has the same problem with the concept of democracy, in such that it argued in court it had no moral or legal obligation to run a fair democratic primary. Notice how just about no journalist seems to care about that, but so many seem to care about a new daily attacks on “democracy” by rivals of the Democratic Party.
Back when Rodrigo Duterte was in power, I noticed something notable in the US articles about him. Essentially every comment that came from the US was negative. Essentially every comment that came from the Philippines was positive.