This Is How Democracies Die

[hollodero]

(01-25-2018, 07:22 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Are you young? I only ask, because I've not seen any differenc ein the support Trump gets from other politicians than any of the other presidents before him got (since I've paid attention to politics anyway - about the middle of Clinton's 2nd term).

Maybe there isn't any difference, but none of the other presidents have sent their supporters through such extraordinary lengths. Trump is distinctly different (or "worse", like I would put it).

(01-25-2018, 07:22 PM)PhilHos Wrote: You never heard of Bill or Hillary Clinton? 

When Bill was president, he walked the line for sure. But he "only" had the women stuff against him, not the authoritarian sayings, not the relentless attacks and so on. I don't want to defend that either, but this is not about the Clintons right now.
Also, I'm not young.

(01-25-2018, 07:22 PM)PhilHos Wrote: And the "other side do it more" argument is a HUGE problem. The fact that BOTH sides do it and to a significant degree is a problem. Just because one side is like 10 or 20% more corrupt doesn't make it better for the other side if both sides are hugely (or bigly ) corrupt.

Oh, I feel it does. 20% less still go a long way, the lesser evil is less evil after all. That being said, I don't argue on behalf of the Democratic party and have no particular sympathies for them.
In the end, the real problem to me is that there are only two sides to begin with.

(01-25-2018, 07:22 PM)PhilHos Wrote: All I'm going to say is that while it's true that Trump shouldn't call all news 'Fake', the fact remains that there are a LOT of 'fake news' stories from supposedly reputable news organizations. If news agencies would go back to making sure their sources were vetted, that their claims were based on merit, stopped rushing to be the 'first', and basically went back to being highly ethical, Trump would have no basis to call ANY news fake. Not that that would stop him, I'm sure, but it'd certainly take away from whatever credibility he might have left.

US media looks sensationalistic, sure, and make quite some mistakes. i'm perfectly fine with calling them out, promoting counter-narratives and that. But Trump doesn't just call them fake, he also calls them the most dishonest people and enemy of the American people and threatens with new libel laws and such. He suggested this morning Joe killed a woman. There's more to that than just the constant "fake news" narrative (which is troubling as it is).
And the discrediting of the (unfriendly) media is just one aspect here.

[Dill]

(01-25-2018, 07:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is not all Trumps fault but I see three major threats to democracy.

1.  De-legitimizing the press.  I feel that a robust free press is essential to a democracy.  If the press has no power then that allows the government to run roughshod over citizens.

2.  Elevating corporations over government.  One of the biggest roles of government is to protect the people from the power of corporations.  The individual players may not be evil in their hearts, but capitalism at its very core values profit over human lives.  Unchecked corporate power can produce the same fascist results as unchecked government power.  The people just get exploited by corporations instead of dictators.

3.  De-legitimizing all government agencies other than the executive branch.  Our system of checks and balances does not work if the the executive branch has all of the power.  If the Department of Justice can not investigate the President then who will? 

Well said. That is why electing Trump doesn't signal a healthy democracy, but one heading for authoritarian decline, as Levitsky describes.

[SunsetBengal]

(01-25-2018, 07:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is not all Trumps fault but I see three major threats to democracy.

1.  De-legitimizing the press.  I feel that a robust free press is essential to a democracy.  If the press has no power then that allows the government to run roughshod over citizens.  

Sure, when Americans can get back to a free, unbiased press it will be better for all.  Should we bust up the media conglomerates?

2.  Elevating corporations over government.  One of the biggest roles of government is to protect the people from the power of corporations.  The individual players may not be evil in their hearts, but capitalism at its very core values profit over human lives.  Unchecked corporate power can produce the same fascist results as unchecked government power.  The people just get exploited by corporations instead of dictators.

Corporations also employ a lot of people, as well as sustain the tax base that contributes to the government.  Are you sure that you want to get rid of them?  Where will government get the money to support the people, without companies that profit?

3.  De-legitimizing all government agencies other than the executive branch.  Our system of checks and balances does not work if the the executive branch has all of the power.  If the Department of Justice can not investigate the President then who will? 

What??  We have an FBI that is appearing to have been biased and politically motivated, by the party that you support.  Not sure that your point has much merit.

..

[fredtoast]

(01-25-2018, 08:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope, but free elections are the hallmark of democracies, would you not agree?

Nope. Ekecting a leader does not mean there is no threat to democracy

From the article you still have not read.


Like Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, elected leaders have subverted democratic institutions in Georgia, Hungary, Nicaragua, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Ukraine.

[Dill]

(01-25-2018, 03:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I read a book recently called On Tyranny which is about lessons learned from the rise and fall of democracies in the twentieth century. These primarily have happened at the hand of fascism and communism in central and eastern Europe, but a lot of the information rings true for others, as well. It's a good book, and the author is a well known scholar on the history of eastern Europe. Anyway, because of this book, this opinion piece caught my eye.


This is only an excerpt of a book by two Harvard professors of government (one European, one Latin American, both with focuses on democratization as well). I think it is rather thought provoking, though.

Of course, I know some will dismiss this at liberal, elitist, anti-Trump hate from academia and so it isn't worth anything. I just know that I am seeing norms being torn down, norms that existed to keep our institutions upright. This is concerning to me, and I feel we need to pay close attention to what is done.

Thanks for posting this. Levitsky was on C-Span a couple weeks ago talking about the four danger signs.  Hope I get around to reading On Tyranny sometime (I overloaded with other stuff at the moment).

One of the critical points he made concerned how much of the demogogue's power is derived from supporters who have turned away from democracy to prefer authoritarian values and norms--like "strong" leaders who will talk tough on the international stage and harsh laws to punish or expel those defined as "losers" at home.

[*bfine32*]

(01-25-2018, 09:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Nope. Ekecting a leader does not mean there is no threat to democracy

From the article you still have not read.


Like Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, elected leaders have subverted democratic institutions in Georgia, Hungary, Nicaragua, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Ukraine.

I read the article and saw the part you keep quoting; hell you even quit quoting before the author does not compare us to those countries.

WTS, I acknowledge that you do not consider free elections the hallmark of a democracy , I just happen to disagree with your assertion. 

[fredtoast]

(01-25-2018, 09:00 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: 1.  De-legitimizing the press.  I feel that a robust free press is essential to a democracy.  If the press has no power then that allows the government to run roughshod over citizens.  

Sure, when Americans can get back to a free, unbiased press it will be better for all.  Should we bust up the media conglomerates?

There will always be bias in the press.  But as long as we have competing news sources with different biases we will be okay.  The trouble begins when the President claims that any news that criticizes him is "fake news".  Since Trump is a champion of large corporations why would huge news corporations want to destroy him?  If your theory was correct and ALL media was biased then we would be hearing nothing but praise for our Supreme Leader.  So how do you explain all of the criticism he is receiving if all media is biased in favor of large corporations?

(01-25-2018, 09:00 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: 2.  Elevating corporations over government.  One of the biggest roles of government is to protect the people from the power of corporations.  The individual players may not be evil in their hearts, but capitalism at its very core values profit over human lives.  Unchecked corporate power can produce the same fascist results as unchecked government power.  The people just get exploited by corporations instead of dictators.

Corporations also employ a lot of people, as well as sustain the tax base that contributes to the government.  Are you sure that you want to get rid of them?  Where will government get the money to support the people, without companies that profit?

No one ever said that we should get rid of corporations.  We absolutely have to have a capitalist system to motivate and drive innovation.  But we also have to have a government that is strong enough to protect the citizens from exploitation at the hands of large corporations.  If you don't know what i am talking about I suggest you do a little study of the history of the industrial revolution and how workers were treated before government regulations and unions brought reform.  you will learn a lot more truth that way than just swallowing everything the right wing echo chamber feeds you.

(01-25-2018, 09:00 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: 3.  De-legitimizing all government agencies other than the executive branch.  Our system of checks and balances does not work if the the executive branch has all of the power.  If the Department of Justice can not investigate the President then who will? 

What??  We have an FBI that is appearing to have been biased and politically motivated, by the party that you support.  Not sure that your point has much merit.

If my point has no merit then answer the question I asked.  If the DOJ can not investigate the president and hold him accountable then who can?  No matter who criticizes him (Media, DOJ, FBI) Trump will just claim that they are all crooked and politically motivated.  and once he has convinced enough rubes to believe hi it will be the beginning of the end for democracy.  If he loses the election in 2020 he will just claim it was "fixed" and his followers will believe him and refuse to recognize the elected President as legitimate.  Trump himself even confirmed this when he bragged about how he could shoot a person in the middle of the street and his followers would still support him.  That makes him a threat to democracy.

[fredtoast]

(01-25-2018, 09:03 PM)Dill Wrote: One of the critical points he made concerned how much of the demogogue's power is derived from supporters who have turned away from democracy to prefer authoritarian values and norms--like "strong" leaders who will talk tough on the international stage and harsh laws to punish or expel those defined as "losers" at home.

Excellent point.  Just look at how many Trump supporters swoon over Putin.  They don't really want democracy.  They want an authoritarian autocrat who is "strong like bear"...........But only if he is the same color as them and shares their values. 

They have no problem with the oppression of the minority.

[*Nately120*]

(01-25-2018, 09:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Excellent point.  Just look at how many Trump supporters swoon over Putin.  They don't really want democracy.  They want an authoritarian autocrat who is "strong like bear"...........But only if he is the same color as them and shares their values. 

They have no problem with the oppression of the minority.

Or the oppression of the majority, where Trump is concerned. 

[*michaelsean*]

(01-25-2018, 07:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's hard to say. I mean, we probably each have our own thresholds. You would first have to ask what the defining characteristics are of a democratic government, and then assess how well we meet those standards.

I tend to agree with Dahl's framework for a polyarchy (what some call a representative democracy). His standards are effective participation, voting equality, enlightened understanding, control of the agenda, and inclusion of adults. These standards should then result in consequences such as political equality, guarantee of essential rights, moral autonomy, economic prosperity, and human development (progression of society/education).

How effective is our participation? How equal are our votes? Does the citizenry understand things in government? Do we control the agenda? Are all adults included?

Also, these aren't perfect standards, just some of the best ones I have seen that are widely used.

Ok then let me ask. Since they laid this at the feet of Trump and Republicans, let’s say 3 years from now Trump is gone, and a middle of the road traditional person replaces him. Presumably s Democrat. And also by then the Dems have at least one house. Are we good? If not why?

[Dill]

(01-25-2018, 08:43 PM)hollodero Wrote: Maybe there isn't any difference, but none of the other presidents have sent their supporters through such extraordinary lengths. Trump is distinctly different (or "worse", like I would put it).

When Bill was president, he walked the line for sure. But he "only" had the women stuff against him, not the authoritarian sayings, not the relentless attacks and so on. I don't want to defend that either, but this is not about the Clintons right now.
Also, I'm not young.

And the discrediting of the (unfriendly) media is just one aspect here.

You are young.  But that is not a problem.  

No other president since the Civil War era has publicly encouraged supporters at rallies to beat protestors--to resounding cheers--as Trump has.

Also, no other president has continued to relive the election by continuing to compare himself to his opponent, as Trump does almost daily. Nor has any other president set out to simply undo, step by step, everything his predecessor did in foreign and domestic policy--the rest of the world be damned.

One of the most troubling aspects of Trump rule is his continued efforts to shut down the investigation into his campaign collusion with the country that attacked our election.  I guess one other president has obstructed justice in this fashion, but not so publicly and incompetently, and with the full-throated support of a major news outlet. 

Another aspect of the "both sides do it" argument is how that is applied to news organizations. When the patent bias of FOX and fellow travelers is up for discussion, the counter is that the MSM is no different, simply an organ of the Democratic party.  The inability to recognize authoritarian, anti-democratic behavior in Trump is matched by the inability to recognize/evaluate journalistic standards, or lack thereof.

Defenses of Trump continue to drive standards downward.  His defenders dispute legal definitions of sexual assault and claim racism is in the eye of the beholder. The CIA and FBI are placed on the same level of credibility as Sean Hannity and Judge Jeanine, or lower.  There have always been fringe voters in the US who believed crazy things and throve on conspiracy theories, but never organized into a party voting block and expanded in numbers to follow a single, authoritarian leader, as is currently the case.  In the early 70s, one could still count on Nixon's own party to eventually reject his criminality. It is not clear that is the case at present, given that so many in Congress owe their seats to that now expanded fringe.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Democracy dies because Democracy is nothing more than "Mob Rule" and thank God we don't live in a Democracy but instead we live in a Constitutional Republic where the rule of law stands supreme.

I know everyone here knows this and the Opinion Piece in the OP is nothing but wishful thinking and fear mongering...that seems to be working, lol.

[CKwi88]

(01-25-2018, 11:05 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Ok then let me ask.  Since they laid this at the feet of Trump and Republicans, let’s say 3 years from now Trump is gone, and a middle of the road traditional person replaces him. Presumably s Democrat. And also by then the Dems have at least one house. Are we good?  If not why?

Not to respond for Bels or anything.

I don't believe that the issue, unlike what we always here in today's intra polarized environment, is D vs. R. A Democrat is just as able to be beholden to corporations or private donors. Democrats are just as culpable in bogus gerrymandering.

We'll be good when more (read:all) of the population has equal access to participate in the electoral system, and when the elected officials are beholden to their constituents, rather than private corporations.

[Belsnickel]

(01-25-2018, 11:05 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Ok then let me ask. Since they laid this at the feet of Trump and Republicans, let’s say 3 years from now Trump is gone, and a middle of the road traditional person replaces him. Presumably s Democrat. And also by then the Dems have at least one house. Are we good? If not why?

While they were heavy on the current situation because it is pretty egregious, they do point out that this polarization is a problem, that this is long going. To answer your question, though, no, we would not be good.

Let's look at the standards of Dahl for my reasons:

1. Effective participation - At all levels of government, we fall behind in this. Not only are voting turnouts, the primary avenue of our participation abysmally low, but how effective are our votes? How much do we participate by going to town halls, speaking with our officials, etc.? The answer is that we are terrible at it with the exception of some major reason. We don't participate much and it doesn't do much good. Been this way for decades.

2. Voting equality - Between gerrymandering the districts and the electoral college, votes are not counted equally. Period. The first-past-the-post system, where plurality rules, and districts with only one possible winner results in votes being discounted much more than people realize. There are much more free and fair ways to do elections.

3. Control of the agenda - Only partially do we have any of this. But we all know that the politicians we elect ignore us completely after they get our votes. Look at what they have done just this past year, the unpopular legislation they have passed.

4. Inclusion of adults - Is every adult able to participate? Is even every citizen? There are people being disenfranchised all over this country that should be allowed to vote.

So, my answer is no because the problems with our democracy are systemic, and they are long term. Democrats have not shown any motivation to make real strides in resolving these issues.

(01-26-2018, 08:42 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Democracy dies because Democracy is nothing more than "Mob Rule" and thank God we don't live in a Democracy but instead we live in a Constitutional Republic where the rule of law stands supreme.

I know everyone here knows this and the Opinion Piece in the OP is nothing but wishful thinking and fear mongering...that seems to be working, lol.

Do you have any evidence to support a contrary claim, or should we just take your word over two experts on democratization who have been studying the rise and fall of democracies around the world?

Also, it is generally accepted in common language that the United States, and other representative democracies, are considered to be democracies or democratic societies. Being pedantic like this is juvenile.

[fredtoast]

(01-25-2018, 11:05 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Ok then let me ask.  Since they laid this at the feet of Trump and Republicans, let’s say 3 years from now Trump is gone, and a middle of the road traditional person replaces him. Presumably s Democrat. And also by then the Dems have at least one house. Are we good?  If not why?

Stop being so sensitive.  Here is what the article said


Trump may have accelerated this process, but he didn’t cause it. The challenges facing American democracy run deeper. The weakening of our democratic norms is rooted in extreme partisan polarization – one that extends beyond policy differences into an existential conflict over race and culture.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-26-2018, 12:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Stop being so sensitive.  Here is what the article said


Trump may have accelerated this process, but he didn’t cause it. The challenges facing American democracy run deeper. The weakening of our democratic norms is rooted in extreme partisan polarization – one that extends beyond policy differences into an existential conflict over race and culture.

Matt and I are having a conversation. If you have something constructive feel free otherwise go annoy someone else.

[fredtoast]

(01-26-2018, 12:26 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Wtf are you talking about now?  Matt and I are having a conversation. If you have something constructive feel free otherwise go annoy someone else.

You mean something as "constructive" as this post you just contributed?

Like I said, stop being so sensitive.

To expound on the quote from the article the key words are "culture" and "policy".  Political parties have become more "tribal" which means they are defined by cultural issues like race and religion more than actual policy issues.  Once a person joins a tribe he supports their culture and does not care so much about policy issues.  A good example is how well educated Republicans will reject the consensus of the scientific community regarding mans effect on global warming, but I could come up with examples from both sides.

Democrats reject "genetic" arguments when discussing racial issues but embrace them when discussing sexual orientation.  Republicans do the exact opposite.  They do this because they are supporting the cultural norms of their tribes.

Democracies are in trouble when there are only two parties and they become defined by cultural issues instead of policy.

[Dill]

(01-26-2018, 11:05 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: Not to respond for Bels or anything.

I don't believe that the issue, unlike what we always here in today's intra polarized environment, is D vs. R. A Democrat is just as able to be beholden to corporations or private donors. Democrats are just as culpable in bogus gerrymandering.

We'll be good when more (read:all) of the population has equal access to participate in the electoral system, and when the elected officials are beholden to their constituents, rather than private corporations.

The 19th century is long gone. At the moment, gerrymandering heavily favors Republicans. Democrats are only "culpable" insofar as they have been unable to prevent it.  At least they are trying to do something about it now.  

[GMDino]

(01-26-2018, 01:34 PM)Dill Wrote: The 19th century is long gone. At the moment, gerrymandering heavily favors Republicans. Democrats are only "culpable" insofar as they have been unable to prevent it.  At least they are trying to do something about it now.  

I think the people of MD would argue with you.

[Dill]

(01-26-2018, 12:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You mean something as "constructive" as this post you just contributed?

Democrats reject "genetic" arguments when discussing racial issues but embrace them when discussing sexual orientation.  Republicans do the exact opposite.  They do this because they are supporting the cultural norms of their tribes.

Sounds like one "tribe" twists science to oppose bigotry and the other twist since to support bigotry.

Different cultural norms.