COMMENT POSTED TO AN ESSAY BY YASCHA MOUNK IN THE GUARDIAN
Liberal democracy is
at a critical point. Authoritarians are on the rise, and electorates are
seduced by extremes. To fight back, mainstream politicians need to grasp the
causes of popular discontent and rebuild democracy’s moral foundations
I have no idea where this author sees "liberal
democracy' in the West.
It does not exist in Britain, nor does it exist in France,
and it has never existed in the United states.
You want proof? A Prime Minister in Britain, like David
Cameron, can rule with the support of about 35% of voters.
And a man like the very much-disliked Tony Blair can lie his
whole time in office and take the country to a war the people do not want, a
war with no legality at all, and a war killing a million people.
So, we start with a theme of "fighting back" for
something which does not exist.
And what is the author really pursuing here?
"Authoritarians are on the rise, and electorates are
seduced by extremes."
Well, that "on the rise" stuff is pretty vague, to
say the least. Sounds like a 1930s movie-theater newsreel narrated by a baritone-voiced announcer and complete with sound effects of boots tromping in the
background.
It pretty much boils down to a few leaders or parties of
which the author - and this newspaper - doesn't approve.
Does that in any way sound democratic?
I very much think not.
As for authoritarians, if we do indeed have democracy, how
do they have power? How did Tony Blair gain power?
Is there anything a government can do more authoritarian
than taking a people to an unnecessary and unwanted war?
In the United States, the entire post-WWII period has been
spent doing so. Millions killed in a list of countries invaded.
The American toll abroad over the last half century is
pretty much indistinguishable from some dictators we all hate.
And that "electorates are seduced by extremes"
reflects a pretty arrogant attitude towards voters, as much as saying they are
fools. Is that a democratic attitude?
If you study history, you know that fascistic governments
are not voted in almost ever, but a remarkable number of people writing columns
seem unaware of the fact. Many times, I've seen the foolish claim that Hitler
was elected.
Despite Germany's terrible economic conditions in the early
1930s and the terrible burdens of the punitive Treaty of Versailles, Hitler was
never able to get more than 37% of the vote.
He ended up being appointed by an elderly and exhausted von
Hindenburg, who represented exactly the kind of elites that a Cameron or a
Macron represented. It was not the peoples' work.
So, then in fairly quick order we get the death of
Hindenburg, the fire at the Reichstag, terror, terrible new laws and an
absolute dictatorship. None of it the work of the people.
Polls after that naturally gave Hitler big vote numbers, but
that's like giving credibility to an election total in Stalin's USSR.
Ridiculous, but it is not uncommon with writers making this kind of inaccurate
case.
Maybe, what we really need in the West is reform that would
finally bless us with "liberal democracy."
Right now, we don't have it, and the author's red herring
argument is just part of the inaccuracies here.
