3 ms·

We can all look at the data. The graph I linked ends in 2003 (like indicated in the graph itself), and jpollock posted the value for 2016, which is 70, so even

by Darthy 9y ago

We can all look at the data. The graph I linked ends in 2003 (like indicated in the graph itself), and jpollock posted the value for 2016, which is 70, so even higher than 2003. In other words, you are telling incorrect things and when called out, instead of giving in to reality, you are doubling down telling even more incorrect things. Not good. And it's quite saddening that in this forum dedicated to rational discourse, your flawed reasoning is being rewarded with so much attention, currently sitting at fifth place among all root comments.

sseth 9y ago
Sorry for being out of the loop - it was night time in India, and i had gone to sleep. You are right that the title says 2003 - i looked at the scale below which ended at 1998. I was not so much doubling down, but rather talking of a slightly different point that the ones you and jpollock were making. When I said democracies were in retreat, there are two or three different phenomena. First - the western democracies seem to be internally weaker, and unable to arrive at consensus even for important national priorities. This may be because of the rise of social media echo chambers. In Europe there is a growth of right-wing parties in all countries, even Germany. As an Indian this worries me, because for all their warts, the liberal democracies of US and the European countries are the model of governance I would like to have succeed across the world. Second - there seems to be no answer to the salami-slicing tactics of the autocratic regimes in Africa and Asia. You have to see the bullying of countries like Mauritius, Sri Lanka, Phillipines, even Vietnam and wonder. As the western democracies look to be in retreat, countries are surrendering their interests to the regional bullies. This will ultimately hurt all democracies in the long run. Thirdly - there is the increasingly blatant and surprisingly successful interference in open societies from the closed ones. The US election is only the most advertised one. But similar interference has happened in Australia, in UK, in various part of Europe. There are at last signs of response to this - Australia has passed a law against foreign interference, and the Skripal episode has led to (some) concerted effort. But the response still seems much weaker than the provocation. In summary, by "retreat of democracies" my focus was on their will and ability to stand up to autocratic forces, not a retreat of democracy itself (which i think is what jpollock and your responses were about). That may be why we were talking at cross purposes. I fervently wish i am wrong - and I hope i never try to avoid rational discourse.

by Darthy 9y ago

sseth 9y ago

Sorry for being out of the loop - it was night time in India, and i had gone to sleep. You are right that the title says 2003 - i looked at the scale below which ended at 1998. I was not so much doubling down, but rather talking of a slightly different point that the ones you and jpollock were making. When I said democracies were in retreat, there are two or three different phenomena. First - the western democracies seem to be internally weaker, and unable to arrive at consensus even for important national priorities. This may be because of the rise of social media echo chambers. In Europe there is a growth of right-wing parties in all countries, even Germany. As an Indian this worries me, because for all their warts, the liberal democracies of US and the European countries are the model of governance I would like to have succeed across the world. Second - there seems to be no answer to the salami-slicing tactics of the autocratic regimes in Africa and Asia. You have to see the bullying of countries like Mauritius, Sri Lanka, Phillipines, even Vietnam and wonder. As the western democracies look to be in retreat, countries are surrendering their interests to the regional bullies. This will ultimately hurt all democracies in the long run. Thirdly - there is the increasingly blatant and surprisingly successful interference in open societies from the closed ones. The US election is only the most advertised one. But similar interference has happened in Australia, in UK, in various part of Europe. There are at last signs of response to this - Australia has passed a law against foreign interference, and the Skripal episode has led to (some) concerted effort. But the response still seems much weaker than the provocation. In summary, by "retreat of democracies" my focus was on their will and ability to stand up to autocratic forces, not a retreat of democracy itself (which i think is what jpollock and your responses were about). That may be why we were talking at cross purposes. I fervently wish i am wrong - and I hope i never try to avoid rational discourse.