16 ms·

Democratic regression in comparative perspective: scope, methods, and causes

123 points by mataug 6y ago

raxxorrax 6y ago
I think the main cause is actually democratic leadership, or the lack thereof. Even 20 years ago it was unimaginable for people to give away rights and freedom, but the reaction of the US on the WTC attack and subsequent focus on terrorism and security were main factors in the regression we can now see more clearly. Fear is most often the reason with added inexperience of people not knowing what a dictatorship entails.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- psychometry 6y ago
  Only the profoundly ignorant are supporting these wannabe autocrats. We can look to our failures in public education over the past century for explanation, but what to do about it now? Americans want the right to vote and participate in democracy, but are generally unwilling to take the responsibility to be informed. You can't forcibly educate adults, of course, so I don't know what the solution is.
  - draw_down 6y ago
    Ah yes, the deplorables have ruined everything.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - losteric 6y ago
    More effective public discourse between private citizens, particularly when in disagreement... instead of the taboo and fear of confronting opposing views, seek it out and approach all with an open Socratic mindset. If every moderate deradicalized one person per month, the problem would be manageable by the next midterms. Restore regulations on “news” mass media, and regulate their political advertising. Including social media. Reform campaign financing. Apply the fixes recommended by SCOTUS in Citizens United. State-level voting reform, including universal and automatic mail-in ballots, and ranked choice voting.
    - raxxorrax 6y ago
      Perhaps throw in a reform of security agencies that have been misused to interfere in domestic elections. You won't get rid of them ever again otherwise.
  - rbecker 6y ago
    > Only the profoundly ignorant are supporting these wannabe autocrats. Passing and extending the Patriot Act was bipartisan.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >Americans want the right to vote and participate in democracy, but are generally unwilling to take the responsibility to be informed. I'm not so sure about that. Especially given that only ~42% of eligible voters cast votes in the 2016 US elections[0]. What's most troubling about that statistic is that more eligible voters did not vote than voted for any of the presidential candidates. Without ascribing motives or intentions, it's not clear that your statement is supported by the facts. I don't know what the motives/intentions of those non-voters might be. Given that I always vote in every election, because I see it as my duty and responsibility as a citizen, and because that's how we choose the path our government (and, more broadly our society) will take. Especially in local and state elections, where my vote (given the smaller size of electorates in such elections) is more consequential. In any case, while voter suppression and disenfranchisement are all too common in the US, such activity doesn't explain why nearly half of eligible voters abdicated their responsibility and gave away their opportunity to create the government they want to have. [0] https://guides.libraries.psu.edu/post-election-2016/voter-turnout https://guides.libraries.psu.edu/post-election-2016/voter-tu...
    - vonmoltke 6y ago
      > Especially given that only ~42% of eligible voters cast votes in the 2016 US elections[0]. You have that backwards. 42% did not vote; 58% did. Still way too low, though.
      - nobody9999 6y ago
        >> Especially given that only ~42% of eligible voters cast votes in the 2016 US elections[0]. >You have that backwards. 42% did not vote; 58% did. >Still way too low, though. Yes, you're absolutely correct, and I got it backwards. I need to proofread better. Thanks for calling me out on this.
  - abootstrapper 6y ago
    Ugh. Those adults watch a few conspiracy YouTube videos and Fox News and consider themselves educated and informed.
    - mistermann 6y ago
      Other adults watch the news, read the paper, read forum posts by other adults who have also consumed similar information, and also think they are informed. There is reality, and then there is each individual's perception of reality. Each person believes with near-absolute certainty that their personal model (based on a tiny slice of actual events, the majority of which are first run through third parties for ~interpretation and adjustment) of reality is accurate, and often enjoy chuckling at other people's models, but the unfortunate fact is that no person has an accurate model - and perhaps more importantly: hardly anyone seems to realize this (in depth, and on a continuous basis).
      - abootstrapper 6y ago
        I understand what you’re saying, but I will not be gaslit. Some sources are better in quality than others, considering multiple sources is better, critically considering the information in those sources and discussing it is the best. It is entirely possible to still get at the truth. The propaganda is the USA is bordering absurdity in its believability. The president says exactly what he means, and his words are interpreted by others like a horoscope to mean whatever they want. This is the reality of the situation. Unless you’re traveling at the speed of light or some bullshit.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        mistermann 6y ago
        > I understand what you’re saying... I suspect you actually don't, due to the underlying complexity and ineffable, counterintuitive nature of the subject matter. > but I will not be gaslit. Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or group, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment, often evoking in them cognitive dissonance and other changes, including low self-esteem. There is gaslighting, and then there is psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy - and then there is each individual's knowledge (actual and perceived) in each field, all of which is implemented by the human mind, which is not well understood at all, but understood well enough that it is known to be very imperceptibly deceiving. > Some sources are better in quality than others, considering multiple sources is better, critically considering the information in those sources and discussing it is the best. I completely agree, and nothing I said suggested the contrary. Although, you may have the intuition that it implicitly communicated it, just as you seem to have the intuition that I am gaslighting you. > It is entirely possible to still get at the truth. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not - it depends. And sometimes, that which is considered to be true, is not actually true. > The propaganda is the USA is bordering absurdity in its believability. 100% agree - to me, it passed surreal levels years ago. Even more surreal is the percentage of intelligent people who seem to believe that they have a firm lock on "the truth" about a system this complex, despite often having extensive background knowledge in the complexity that lies within far simpler systems. > The president says exactly what he means, and his words are interpreted by others like a horoscope to mean whatever they want. Serious question: how is it that you came to know the beliefs of other people? Trace the lineage of that belief in your own mind, and see what you come up with. This is not conspiracy theory or trolling, it is the result of scientific investigations performed over decades by specialists in various overlapping fields, who are doing their best to understand the mysteries of the human mind. And scientists aren't the only source of substantiation - not that long ago philosophy and literature were very seriously by a lot of serious people, and may have a thing or two worth learning. https://thundergodblog.com/2015/07/26/a-brief-history-of-the-philosophy-of-mind/ https://thundergodblog.com/2015/07/26/a-brief-history-of-the... https://www.azquotes.com/author/6592-Frank_Herbert https://www.azquotes.com/author/6592-Frank_Herbert It's hard to resist picking a side and getting down into object level mudslinging in the information war currently playing out in the media (mainstream and social), I'm very often guilty of it myself. But I propose that there is another alternative available: that of a disinterested (as possible) 3rd person observer who engages his/her mind with the abstract perspective of the battle, observing with playful curiosity the rhetorical strategies, strange supernatural beliefs, and various other absurd behavior that until recently only the human mind was capable of producing. Not only is this perspective far more interesting, but once you do it for a while some interesting new thoughts might come to mind, like "Just what exactly is going on on this planet? These humans have the ability to have a realtime video conversation with someone half way around the world, or deliver a package there by the next day, yet at the same time millions of their offspring die every year due to a lack of the basic essentials required to sustain their lives, and all they seem to do is post short "tweets" to each other lamenting that "nothing can be done". What mysterious force underlies this madness?"
- WillDaSilva 6y ago
  Your comment is rather US centric. I doubt the attack on the WTC is a main factor in the decline of democracies across the world.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    The reaction to it certainly was. You can see the paranoia on every airport or public place. Having security in every corner of the public sphere nurtures distrust and distrust is one of the worst poisons for democracy.
    - indigochill 6y ago
      >distrust is one of the worst poisons for democracy I'm gonna challenge this assertion. I would actually assert the opposite: that trust is one of the worst poisons. Why? Because trust breeds weak restrictions (checks/balances), and weak restrictions are easy for dictators to exploit, thus undermining democracy. Rather, I say you want those in a democracy to assume everyone (including everyone within their own party) is a potential tyrant and to structure (and enforce) the restrictions accordingly. Where the US in particular has really fallen down, in my opinion, has been the enforcement of those rules upon those in office because of partisan favoritism. Perhaps those showing favoritism haven't realized that in the bigger picture, although favoritism is convenient, it undermines the whole system in the long run.
      - raxxorrax 6y ago
        You are correct. I meant trust in a sense that there is an understanding between political opponents that there is a common goal to work for the benefit of society. Not that you can skip checks and balances. It is indeed a problem that control mechanisms don't seem to work for executive organs. I am not located in the US and there is no law that declares it mandatory in my country, but there is a political culture that a successor administration doesn't reverse the policies the predecessor has enacted in the previous term. That is to give it a chance to have an effect. There can be exceptions of course but there is a general understanding and it is regarded as good conduct to adhere to it. Honor amongst thieves perhaps, but it doesn't have to always end in nepotism.
- nabla9 6y ago
  Political leadership grows from below. People have started consume politics as an entertainment. You can't get good leaders in that kind of environment. Spending hours per day following and discussing politics for emotional and intellectual reasons, instead of power-seeking organized action destroys democracy. >"For most people who are political junkies, their news consumption is not really geared toward information that is going to help them be active citizens in the community. And even if it is, they’re not being active in the community. Most people who are daily news consumers belong to zero organizations and have worked zero times in the past year with other people on a community problem. So, most people are not doing anything." https://www.vox.com/2020/3/11/21172064/politics-is-for-power-eitan-hersh-the-ezra-klein-show https://www.vox.com/2020/3/11/21172064/politics-is-for-power... I suspect social conservatives have so much power in the US because they attend church and that forms a nexus of political organization.
  - dx87 6y ago
    > I suspect social conservatives have so much power in the US because they attend church and that forms a nexus of political organization. I think it's more that it's easier to agree on things as a conservative. "I don't want rapid social changes" is pretty much the defining trait of someone being conservative, and since it's based on the past or present, there isn't much room for interpretation or different viewpoints. For progressive voters, they want things to change, but there are a ton of different ideas for how they want things to change, so you see a lot of "snake eating it's own tail" as groups don't agree on how things should change. Conservative politicians can just sit back and go "look at the crazy libs tearing themselves apart" and get people to vote for them.
    - 121789 6y ago
      If you’re lumping in economic change with social change, I think that’s broadly true. What’s also easier is the fact that progressives generally have to 1. Pick things to change and 2. Give some indication of how they’ll change it. Often it’s pretty easy for conservatives to point out flaws in prioritization for #1 or flaws in unrealistic plans for #2.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rjknight 6y ago
If the only thing that you knew was that there would be a massive recession starting in 2007, and that 13 years later there would be no meaningful return to the pre-2007 growth trend, this would not be hard to predict.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Whut 6y ago
I can't speak for any other countries, but from the American perspective, civics education in this country is really lacking. If citizens don't understand the basics of the American government works, it's very easy for people like Trump to lie to them. Media literacy classes would also be helpful. A lot of citizens are not capable of separating fact from fiction.
- mellavora 6y ago
  Second this. Posts prior to yours have stated other causes (lack of leadership, economic issues). But a strong and widely shared/held understanding of civics would have provided a framework for discussing these issues and potential resolutions. civics to include both the what (how government works) and the why (power arising from the people, leviation so life is worth living, government to secure rights (which includes economic provisions such as a social safety net to ensure delivery of those rights), ...), leading to the responsibility/expectations on all of society, from the individual on up. We today (as a culture) are so advanced in terms of STEM that we think we know it all, and are completely blind to how much we don't know. The founding fathers had much greater wisdom/understanding on how politics and society work and how to make them work, we've lost that. Finally, ALL of the above is completely neutral to "conservative" or "progressive" politics. The founding fathers debated these just as strongly as we do today, on all aspects of every point I raised above.
- mdorazio 6y ago
  Civics is definitely lacking, but I feel like the bigger issue is that information sources in general have become highly biased and prone to misinformation (especially if you consider social media an information source). And at the same time we aren't teaching kids to seek truth, question what they hear, and think critically. In fact, a lot of times it seems like the opposite is being taught - "believe me because I'm in a position of authority".
- snake_plissken 6y ago
  I'm not sure why you're getting down voted; this is an accurate comment on the condition of things, especially about the media literacy. I'll add one more point that for some people, it's a badge of honor to actively remain uninformed on certain topics. Not sure what you can do about that.
CoffeeDregs 6y ago
From TFA: "Democratic regression is particularly visible among the G-20 countries". This is the money-shot. I went back after I speculated that the big deal would be if existing, strongly "democratic" countries were sliding and found this quote. Strong democracies are sliding which is a much bigger deal than young, weak democracies doing so. I'm in the US (so this comment is US-centric). As with so much else over the past 6 months, the tension between federal powers and state powers is being thrown into relief. In particular, the popular idea that democracy is good/right has long been suspect: https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fath... . This is the effect of the Internet and of the "Long Tail": the monetization/politicization of the "long tail" is in segmenting and then aggregating bits of the long tail into larger and larger groups of marginalized members of the population. With poor communication, "the fringe" is only a fringe locally; with near-infinite communication, the fringe is everyone: FB and the various tailored news feeds drape a comfortable bubble over us and cause us to see our view as (manifestly) the only view (since it's our only view, it must be the only view). As a "Republican", I point the finger at Republicans, a political group which has been a 10x political operation. Wedge issues have come home to roost and we're much worse off for it. And Republicans have played the state/local-politics game very, very well. As others have noted, democracy is a game best played locally but our pervasive communications systems are forcing it to be played globally and this is happening quickly enough that our political systems haven't come to grips with it yet.
- atomi 6y ago
  You are so on the nose. Politics is now global and constituencies that were never exposed to other political realities and were protected by local politicking are now facing a political shock. The chickens are certainly coming home to roost.
  - api 6y ago
    I recall having this kind of thought when the whole Russian election meddling thing started to get talked about. This is a phase of globalization. Politics is now global. If you're a large country and especially a superpower, everyone in the world has a stake in the outcome of your elections and political process. This means we should expect more and more foreign "meddling" in elections as well as direct meddling in the political process through foreign lobbying/bribery and covert methods. Maybe what we're seeing is the beginning of the accretion process of a true global government. Eventually the people will realize that since politics is global political awareness must be as well. Campaigns could globalize. Then we're a few steps away from global political parties and then global government.
fileyfood500 6y ago
The study is suspect. The transition of a country from non-democratic to single party democracy to multi-party democracy can be tracked reasonably well. Scoring multi-party democracies is more problematic. For example, the study uses data claiming the US is down 7 points, which is quite significant given that the entire global decrease cited in the study is only a few points. The US continues to be a multi-party democracy where rights and freedoms have actually expanded over the last decade, for example adding by additional rights for gay marriage. Universal health care in the US could be viewed as a loss of freedom, but I perhaps incorrectly assume the article is “left-wing” from a US standpoint and is viewing the Trump presidency as the loss in rights. On the contrary, the large protests over discrimination that has existed for 300 years are helping increase freedoms, and the deportation/lack of rights for immigrants is open for debate in the context of a democracy score, where those born in the country are given the rights. Election turnout and voting system technology had continued to improve, and scrutiny of fraud continues to hone in at more and more granular levels (national news about inconsistent practices at a town level). Overall, the conclusions of the study merit skepticism given the arbitrariness of democratic scoring. The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is clear, and those metrics are clear/transparent.
- Juliate 6y ago
  "single party democracy"? seriously?
  - fileyfood500 6y ago
    Countries where regular elections are held with a single party/major candidate. Minor opposition candidates may be present but may not capture a large share of the votes. A positive indicator for a democratic system is regular transition of power, and a system in which a single person is consistently re-elected, or a single party. If the voter has only 1 choice in an election, the election is less democratic than one with multiple choices
  - brainwad 6y ago
    This means countries like Japan or Singapore, where while technically multi-party, in practice the opposition parties never win. Obviously a country where other parties are outlawed (e.g. communist countries) is not a single party democracy, it's just a single party dictatorship.
AlexandrB 6y ago
I have my own pet theory - based on nothing - that we're seeing the political consequences of massive income inequality. If you're at the bottom of the heap watching massively wealthy individuals controlling a large portion of your daily life while accumulating more and more wealth for themselves, populism is really appealing! You get to watch people who think they're better than you (see comments in this very thread about how this is about "education" and "ignorance") squirm and sweat because things aren't going the way they think they should.
- charlesu 6y ago
  I think you’re right. But what people don’t realize is the the rich and the even the upper class aren’t stuck with this country and generally don’t feel much allegiance to it. They can benefit from lax regulation and low taxes and political turbulence and simply leave when things get out of control. It’s fun watching elites squirm but they have an exit plan. Most Americans can’t. They don’t have the skills or the money to go anywhere else. Using your politics to troll the elites is very much an example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. I wonder how long it’ll take for people to realize that.
  - germinalphrase 6y ago
    While they certainly would have the resources “to go anywhere else” - where would all these very rich people actually want to go? Where can they maintain a high status lifestyle while also enjoying low taxes? Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems like a mighty short list and, hence, an empty threat.
    - charlesu 6y ago
      It depends on the threat. If the United States actually descends into any real chaos they can and will bail. For now, they can just move to their second home in Montana. But if gets bad, they’ll leave. They always do.
      - germinalphrase 6y ago
bjourne 6y ago
The problem is that it has become acceptable to treat ideas as dangerous. For example, if I want to deny the Holocaust, that is my right. No one has the moral, and no one should have the legal, right to try and prevent me from doing that. But that is not the view of those who control the discourse. They have accepted that certain views are inherently dangerous. The slope is slippery. It begun with Nazism and pedophilia advocacy but already includes Corona "misinformation", r/The_Donald, r/ChapoTrapHouse, Hamas' Twitter account, WikiLeaks, Mila Yanniopolis, and a whole host of stuff I just don't know about because some powerful fucks decided it was too dangerous for me (please don't read so much into my examples - these are the ones I know about. I think both the left and the right is guilty of trying to censor the other side). If you don't believe this creeping censorship will eventually reach you, you either have very vanilla opinions or are very naive. Furthermore, more and more power over expression online is concentrated in a handful of American mega corporations, making it practically impossible to escape it. You can't "just start your own site" if Google blacklists it and refuses to index it because no one will find it. They effectively control the online discourse. Just yesterday, Leila Khaled was supposed to participate in an discussion panel online sponsored by an American university. Zionist lobby groups got her booted from Zoom, YouTube, and Facebook, preventing the meeting from taking place. Reportedly, the university had a backup if one platform would boot her, but not all three! To the best of my knowledge, there are no alternative to these platforms. If they won't allow you to stream to an international audience, you just can't do it. At least not if you are not a techie who knows how to setup your own video streaming server. I think there is a huge need for software for censorship resistant online platforms. Something that is distributed so that it can't be taken down, but not so complicated that only a few can use it.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  Given that you can give a laundry list that includes Nazi advocacy, ChapoTrapHouse Hamas' Twitter account, And Mila Yanniopolis, it seems the attempts to censor aren't really working. Hypothesis: it's the opposite. The era of bidirectional mass communication is allowing geographically-dispersed fringe interests to consolidate into political blocs. Interest groups that previously would have been censored implicitly (by being a small, isolated group in a larger community) or explicitly (by the authority-controlled media, such as cable, television, and radio, having standards and practices that excluded giving pedophiles a half hour to plead the pro-side of their case on the air) now have the tools to communicate with each other and the public outside of gatekeepers.
jdlyga 6y ago
This is a lot like the Gilded Age in the US back in the late 1800s, early 1900s. You had massive political polarization, like today, massive income inequality, and industry that was controlled by a few large companies. It eventually boiled over and led to a large progressive movement.
- Server6 6y ago
  Yeah. And a great depression and two world wars. We need to avoid this if at all possible.
  - ffggvv 6y ago
    to be fair both wars were started in europe
- teorema 6y ago
  Those progressive movements are critical to emphasize, underlying the renaissance of the current era, but they also came with violent upheaval. In many ways, the world wars were one long conflict over those movements and their competitors, followed by a long period of residual conflicts in the form of the Cold War, Korean War and conflicts, Mideast politics, and many other things. What that portends for the future is difficult to say, as this could all swing the other way very rapidly. However, it's hard not to see data like what's presented in this paper, combined with things like inequality and the global displaced persons crisis, and not conclude that something significant is coming worldwide.
speeder 6y ago
Although I understand the worry, I am getting more and more annoying with people painting all populist leaders as anti-democratic, even when they are trying to make institutions more democratic. I am from Brazil, and media (both local and international) loves to portray him as some sort of conservative dictator. Except he been trying to do the opposite for a while now, for example people called him "genocidal" because he opposed cities issuing lockdown orders. Thing is, in our constitution only the president can issue lockdown, and only after being reviewed by three different oversight groups, because we had a nasty dicatorship during cold war, our new constituion was written deliberately to make really hard to create a new dictatorship, yet our supreme court is happily ignoring a lot of parts of our constitution to give the government dicatorship powers, and the president is opposing it, but every time he does so, people say he, is the dictator. Another case: population voted against arms control in a country-wide vote around 2003, government back then issued arms control anyway (they made it legal to have weapons if you had a license, and then stopped giving licenses, thus effectively banning weapons against the wishes of the population), Bolsonaro more than once talked about it, and tried to undo the ban and follow what was voted for, again people kept saying that this was him being a dictator. Our supreme court been under heavy criticism lately for various reasons, and they reacted badly (for example one judge called police on a guy that criticized him in person on an airplane and got him arrested), the media is portraying this as the president trying to get rid of the supreme court and have more power for himself, and the supreme court as democratic heroes, but that is obviously not what is going on, the supreme court for example breached a fundamental principle of democracy recently when they started a case themselves, becoming court+pŕosecutors at same time, something that is NOT supposed to ever happen, they also are trying to institute a "Fake News" law, something that obviously goes against our constitution that guarantees free speech.
- notional 6y ago
  “But we can’t let this place become known as a gay tourism paradise. Brazil can’t be a country of the gay world, of gay tourism. We have families,” Bolsonaro added Bolsonaro, a former army captain, has long been notorious for his homophobic comments, once declaring: “Yes, I’m homophobic – and very proud of it.” Bolsonaro claimed “homosexual fundamentalists” were brainwashing heterosexual children to “become gays and lesbians to satisfy them sexually in the future”. He doesn't sound very democratic to me. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/26/bolsonaro-accused-of-inciting-hatred-with-gay-paradise-comment https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/26/bolsonaro-accu...
whoevercares 6y ago
I wonder if the marriage between China & US for the past 30 years have played a role in this. Generally manufacturing are moved out of US which could cause a bigger wealth gap between the the rich and working class. Rich people become richer because they are the first receiver of the benefit from exploiting China, while working class don’t have much better alternatives. Democratic system IMO is more fragile when the gap is widen
- hangonhn 6y ago
  I've had the same questions myself. America has this dual system of capitalism and democracy. We are greatly affected by both. When the two exists in our borders, we are able to sort of use one to effect the other, etc. but globalization expanded our markets (supply, labor, and demand) while leaving all the democratic restraints and "feedback" at home.
the_arun 6y ago
I have these questions about Democracy & Politics. I am no expert & not intending to be sarcastic. 1. Do we have defined policies for clean Politics? I mean ethical/fair. 2. I believe, we teach democracy in college. Do we teach rules of politics (1)? 3. When a political party takes the office (white house in US), aren't they expected to represent people instead of their political party? 4. When people take oath in office wouldn't (3) come into play? 5. Shouldn't white house employees (Federal) work for ruling party - but they are govt officials instead of party workers? 6. When ruling party/govt breaks above rules what is the penalty/punishment? Sorry, if this is out of context for the main topic, but these keep bugging me.
- whoevercares 6y ago
  It looks like you are asking people to have a lot of “good intentions”/hold high moral standard. What are the mechanisms given we are all greedy human?
  - the_arun 6y ago
    Imagine 100% human are greedy - there will be hunger games & we get extinct in no time. Hence, don't we need some moral standard to survive in peace?
    - airstrike 6y ago
      Imagine you've coded a little game played by bots in which all of them are greedy and they compete aggressively. How do you set up incentives so that they willingly cooperate, without changing their definitions in the code? Pointing the bots to a higher "moral standard" will not work unless they are programmed to follow it. But you can't refactor humans, sadly
      - the_arun 6y ago
        Yep, humans are not bots (no emotional properties). Moral standard applies to humans because of their EQ.
api 6y ago
Democratic regression began beneath the surface long before it became obvious through overt anti-democratic movements. Democratic regression started when the majority of people in countries like the USA started to feel as if they had no viable choice that actually represented their own interests or ideas. This is why most people don't vote. They see it as a choice between "the puppet on the left" and "the puppet on the right." I mean take 2012. Obama had clearly demonstrated himself to be Bush's third term, at least when it comes to quite a few issues such as banking reform and remaining entangled in Iraq. For all his "change" rhetoric Obama didn't change much. His opposition was Mitt Romney, a literal member of the financial elite who signaled nothing beyond an intention to represent that elite. Nobody signaled an intent to represent the actual interests of the middle or working class in the US. Nobody talked about pushing back on unfair trade policies or taking any other steps to return good jobs (a.k.a. not service jobs) to the US. Nobody even really acknowledged that there was a problem. Then in 2016 you had Hillary Clinton who clearly would continue Obama's policies and seemed to be working on trade pacts to further accelerate outsourcing to China, and you had a wildcard self-styled populist upstart. I can't stand Trump, consider him dangerous, and did not vote for him, but I can totally understand people who did. He was the first candidate in at least a generation to even acknowledge the economic collapse of the American center. The Democratic Party and the left continue to think Trump's victory was about race, and I still think they are wrong. Yes there are racists and yes they like Trump, but those people were never going to vote for Hillary Clinton anyway. Maybe a few of them voted when they otherwise would have stayed home, but I don't buy the idea that some tide of closet neo-Nazis and 4chan incels swept him into office. Do they ever ask people in these polls if they actually voted or intend to vote? Trump won because historically blue "rust belt" states tipped, and that was because of his economic rhetoric... which was ironically liberal in some ways. He ran as a social conservative but as an economic liberal, and that overlaps quite well with working class America. He may be lying and just saying what he needs to say to get elected, but that's what he said and that's what people voted for. Another major ingredient was the collapse of trust. The Bush administration lied us into a war, and then in 2008 we bailed out the banking interests that created the crisis while leaving the actual economy to rot. Those two events did more to undermine American democracy than a thousand Russian troll farms could ever achieve. People no longer believe in our system. We've been a very dysfunctional democracy for decades. What we are seeing is the final collapse of the facade revealing the rotten structure underneath.
haltingproblem 6y ago
Democratic regression measured by the methodology of one NGO - the Freedom House and the Economist. Their methodologies do not have ground truth - so like school rankings they are completely made up. I can have a measurement, equally plausible to many, that democracy has gone up. These are also left-leaning organizations and there facts almost always target countries with governments of the opposite ideological bent - "And then are the states that remain democratic but have been deteriorating in quality, including the world’s four largest democracies – the United States, India, Indonesia, and Brazil – and the largest democracy in Central and Eastern Europe, Poland. 12 In 2019, India suffered one of the steepest declines on the 100-point Freedom House scale (4 points). Since 2012, India has declined by 5 points, Indonesia by 7, Brazil by 6, Poland 9, and the U.S. 7 points." There is no scientific basis to assert that Freedom has actually gone down in these countries. Just like more coverage of murders and crime on the evening news makes us think that crime has gone up, greater coverage of so-called illiberal events makes us think that democracy is in danger. Lacking data, I would go with the earlier in the graph of Democracy trending up and not down (null hypothesis).
- AftHurrahWinch 6y ago
  You're not disagreeing with the conclusion, you're disagreeing with the premise. If someone accepts the premise then they should also accept the conclusion. Personally, I agree with the Freedom House and the Economist hallmarks of democracy. Therefore, the conclusion is significant to me.
- pierrebai 6y ago
  Quote: > In fact, 2006 was the high water mark for democracy in the world, with the percentage of democracies peaking that year at 57% among states over one million population (Figure 1), and 61% of all states. 9 Since then the proportion of democracies in the world has gradually declined, to 55% of all states and 48% of states above one million population. So you are in opposition to even the simplest provable fact provided in the article. And you wish to replace a statistic you don't approve of with... made up measurement? You then bring up that somehow, measurement of liberties would have a scientific basis? Liberties are not a physical quantities. They choose indicators and measured them. You chose to no indicators and simply stated your political bias. I will choose to appreciate the more rigorous of the two.
modzu 6y ago
these conclusions seem to depend almost entirely on the freedom house scale -- who can explain more about what that is? it seems to be a ranking, so is it objective and robust enough to fit this analysis, espscially over time? a cursory look at wikipedia makes it look like an arms length extension of the CIA...
haltingproblem 6y ago
I decided to dig into the raw data. What I could find was the country by country narrative for 2018 which has each country ranked on a bunch of metrics out of a total score and then those scores are combined via some weighting into an aggregate scores. These component scores are entirely subjective and have no ground truth - worse than college or hospital rankings. College rankings have some quantitative basis - average starting offer for college graduates and hospitals have risk of death or readmittance for hospitals. Freedom house metrics have no quantitative basis (see below). The country narratives are not available for 2019 or 2020. I can assure you that if you dig into the raw data you will most certainly find it rife with ad-hoc assumptions to justify their conclusions. The fact that they have a magical threshold of 1 million for a country and that country get a weight of 1 and India with a population of 1.4 billion gets a a weight of 1 which leads to this gem: "From 2006 to 2020, the number of democracies contracted to 108 and the percentage of democracies to 55%. Among states over one million population, the decline in the number of democracies was more dramatic, from 86 to 75, a drop from 57% to 48% (Table 4)." I can tell from a fairly informed perspective that the quality of the process of voting in elections in India over the past decade has gone up significantly due to tamper-proof EVMs and the fact that India's voting commission is an independent constitutional body. Just that gain alone should make India's ranking move up in the Democracy index. India has added ~100 million people over that time. So the sheer number of people being able to exercise that vote freely and have it be counted dwarfs the population of countries who have become undemocratic. To quote Charlie Munger, incentives matter and to quote Taleb - always always ask what they are selling. Freedom house is selling their rankings to Donors. Press like this gives them the ability to show donors the PR and raise more dollars. Freedom House rankings are optimized to raise the $30,000,000 they need every year from Donors. They are incentivized to say - Democracy is in Danger - for it raises more dollars. Dem are there incentives. Even better when you can demonize the countries whose governments are of the opposite ideological strain than that of the donors. India's rating has cratered since 2014 since Modi got elected. Incentives matter and always always ask what they are selling and why.

123 points by mataug 6y ago

I think the main cause is actually democratic leadership, or the lack thereof. Even 20 years ago it was unimaginable for people to give away rights and freedom, but the reaction of the US on the WTC attack and subsequent focus on terrorism and security were main factors in the regression we can now see more clearly. Fear is most often the reason with added inexperience of people not knowing what a dictatorship entails.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
psychometry 6y ago
Only the profoundly ignorant are supporting these wannabe autocrats. We can look to our failures in public education over the past century for explanation, but what to do about it now? Americans want the right to vote and participate in democracy, but are generally unwilling to take the responsibility to be informed. You can't forcibly educate adults, of course, so I don't know what the solution is.
- draw_down 6y ago
  Ah yes, the deplorables have ruined everything.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- losteric 6y ago
  More effective public discourse between private citizens, particularly when in disagreement... instead of the taboo and fear of confronting opposing views, seek it out and approach all with an open Socratic mindset. If every moderate deradicalized one person per month, the problem would be manageable by the next midterms. Restore regulations on “news” mass media, and regulate their political advertising. Including social media. Reform campaign financing. Apply the fixes recommended by SCOTUS in Citizens United. State-level voting reform, including universal and automatic mail-in ballots, and ranked choice voting.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    Perhaps throw in a reform of security agencies that have been misused to interfere in domestic elections. You won't get rid of them ever again otherwise.
- rbecker 6y ago
  > Only the profoundly ignorant are supporting these wannabe autocrats. Passing and extending the Patriot Act was bipartisan.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Americans want the right to vote and participate in democracy, but are generally unwilling to take the responsibility to be informed. I'm not so sure about that. Especially given that only ~42% of eligible voters cast votes in the 2016 US elections[0]. What's most troubling about that statistic is that more eligible voters did not vote than voted for any of the presidential candidates. Without ascribing motives or intentions, it's not clear that your statement is supported by the facts. I don't know what the motives/intentions of those non-voters might be. Given that I always vote in every election, because I see it as my duty and responsibility as a citizen, and because that's how we choose the path our government (and, more broadly our society) will take. Especially in local and state elections, where my vote (given the smaller size of electorates in such elections) is more consequential. In any case, while voter suppression and disenfranchisement are all too common in the US, such activity doesn't explain why nearly half of eligible voters abdicated their responsibility and gave away their opportunity to create the government they want to have. [0] https://guides.libraries.psu.edu/post-election-2016/voter-turnout https://guides.libraries.psu.edu/post-election-2016/voter-tu...
  - vonmoltke 6y ago
    > Especially given that only ~42% of eligible voters cast votes in the 2016 US elections[0]. You have that backwards. 42% did not vote; 58% did. Still way too low, though.
    - nobody9999 6y ago
      >> Especially given that only ~42% of eligible voters cast votes in the 2016 US elections[0]. >You have that backwards. 42% did not vote; 58% did. >Still way too low, though. Yes, you're absolutely correct, and I got it backwards. I need to proofread better. Thanks for calling me out on this.
- abootstrapper 6y ago
  Ugh. Those adults watch a few conspiracy YouTube videos and Fox News and consider themselves educated and informed.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    Other adults watch the news, read the paper, read forum posts by other adults who have also consumed similar information, and also think they are informed. There is reality, and then there is each individual's perception of reality. Each person believes with near-absolute certainty that their personal model (based on a tiny slice of actual events, the majority of which are first run through third parties for ~interpretation and adjustment) of reality is accurate, and often enjoy chuckling at other people's models, but the unfortunate fact is that no person has an accurate model - and perhaps more importantly: hardly anyone seems to realize this (in depth, and on a continuous basis).
    - abootstrapper 6y ago
      I understand what you’re saying, but I will not be gaslit. Some sources are better in quality than others, considering multiple sources is better, critically considering the information in those sources and discussing it is the best. It is entirely possible to still get at the truth. The propaganda is the USA is bordering absurdity in its believability. The president says exactly what he means, and his words are interpreted by others like a horoscope to mean whatever they want. This is the reality of the situation. Unless you’re traveling at the speed of light or some bullshit.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - mistermann 6y ago
        > I understand what you’re saying... I suspect you actually don't, due to the underlying complexity and ineffable, counterintuitive nature of the subject matter. > but I will not be gaslit. Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or group, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment, often evoking in them cognitive dissonance and other changes, including low self-esteem. There is gaslighting, and then there is psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy - and then there is each individual's knowledge (actual and perceived) in each field, all of which is implemented by the human mind, which is not well understood at all, but understood well enough that it is known to be very imperceptibly deceiving. > Some sources are better in quality than others, considering multiple sources is better, critically considering the information in those sources and discussing it is the best. I completely agree, and nothing I said suggested the contrary. Although, you may have the intuition that it implicitly communicated it, just as you seem to have the intuition that I am gaslighting you. > It is entirely possible to still get at the truth. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not - it depends. And sometimes, that which is considered to be true, is not actually true. > The propaganda is the USA is bordering absurdity in its believability. 100% agree - to me, it passed surreal levels years ago. Even more surreal is the percentage of intelligent people who seem to believe that they have a firm lock on "the truth" about a system this complex, despite often having extensive background knowledge in the complexity that lies within far simpler systems. > The president says exactly what he means, and his words are interpreted by others like a horoscope to mean whatever they want. Serious question: how is it that you came to know the beliefs of other people? Trace the lineage of that belief in your own mind, and see what you come up with. This is not conspiracy theory or trolling, it is the result of scientific investigations performed over decades by specialists in various overlapping fields, who are doing their best to understand the mysteries of the human mind. And scientists aren't the only source of substantiation - not that long ago philosophy and literature were very seriously by a lot of serious people, and may have a thing or two worth learning. https://thundergodblog.com/2015/07/26/a-brief-history-of-the-philosophy-of-mind/ https://thundergodblog.com/2015/07/26/a-brief-history-of-the... https://www.azquotes.com/author/6592-Frank_Herbert https://www.azquotes.com/author/6592-Frank_Herbert It's hard to resist picking a side and getting down into object level mudslinging in the information war currently playing out in the media (mainstream and social), I'm very often guilty of it myself. But I propose that there is another alternative available: that of a disinterested (as possible) 3rd person observer who engages his/her mind with the abstract perspective of the battle, observing with playful curiosity the rhetorical strategies, strange supernatural beliefs, and various other absurd behavior that until recently only the human mind was capable of producing. Not only is this perspective far more interesting, but once you do it for a while some interesting new thoughts might come to mind, like "Just what exactly is going on on this planet? These humans have the ability to have a realtime video conversation with someone half way around the world, or deliver a package there by the next day, yet at the same time millions of their offspring die every year due to a lack of the basic essentials required to sustain their lives, and all they seem to do is post short "tweets" to each other lamenting that "nothing can be done". What mysterious force underlies this madness?"
WillDaSilva 6y ago
Your comment is rather US centric. I doubt the attack on the WTC is a main factor in the decline of democracies across the world.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  The reaction to it certainly was. You can see the paranoia on every airport or public place. Having security in every corner of the public sphere nurtures distrust and distrust is one of the worst poisons for democracy.
  - indigochill 6y ago
    >distrust is one of the worst poisons for democracy I'm gonna challenge this assertion. I would actually assert the opposite: that trust is one of the worst poisons. Why? Because trust breeds weak restrictions (checks/balances), and weak restrictions are easy for dictators to exploit, thus undermining democracy. Rather, I say you want those in a democracy to assume everyone (including everyone within their own party) is a potential tyrant and to structure (and enforce) the restrictions accordingly. Where the US in particular has really fallen down, in my opinion, has been the enforcement of those rules upon those in office because of partisan favoritism. Perhaps those showing favoritism haven't realized that in the bigger picture, although favoritism is convenient, it undermines the whole system in the long run.
    - raxxorrax 6y ago
      You are correct. I meant trust in a sense that there is an understanding between political opponents that there is a common goal to work for the benefit of society. Not that you can skip checks and balances. It is indeed a problem that control mechanisms don't seem to work for executive organs. I am not located in the US and there is no law that declares it mandatory in my country, but there is a political culture that a successor administration doesn't reverse the policies the predecessor has enacted in the previous term. That is to give it a chance to have an effect. There can be exceptions of course but there is a general understanding and it is regarded as good conduct to adhere to it. Honor amongst thieves perhaps, but it doesn't have to always end in nepotism.
nabla9 6y ago
Political leadership grows from below. People have started consume politics as an entertainment. You can't get good leaders in that kind of environment. Spending hours per day following and discussing politics for emotional and intellectual reasons, instead of power-seeking organized action destroys democracy. >"For most people who are political junkies, their news consumption is not really geared toward information that is going to help them be active citizens in the community. And even if it is, they’re not being active in the community. Most people who are daily news consumers belong to zero organizations and have worked zero times in the past year with other people on a community problem. So, most people are not doing anything." https://www.vox.com/2020/3/11/21172064/politics-is-for-power-eitan-hersh-the-ezra-klein-show https://www.vox.com/2020/3/11/21172064/politics-is-for-power... I suspect social conservatives have so much power in the US because they attend church and that forms a nexus of political organization.
- dx87 6y ago
  > I suspect social conservatives have so much power in the US because they attend church and that forms a nexus of political organization. I think it's more that it's easier to agree on things as a conservative. "I don't want rapid social changes" is pretty much the defining trait of someone being conservative, and since it's based on the past or present, there isn't much room for interpretation or different viewpoints. For progressive voters, they want things to change, but there are a ton of different ideas for how they want things to change, so you see a lot of "snake eating it's own tail" as groups don't agree on how things should change. Conservative politicians can just sit back and go "look at the crazy libs tearing themselves apart" and get people to vote for them.
  - 121789 6y ago
    If you’re lumping in economic change with social change, I think that’s broadly true. What’s also easier is the fact that progressives generally have to 1. Pick things to change and 2. Give some indication of how they’ll change it. Often it’s pretty easy for conservatives to point out flaws in prioritization for #1 or flaws in unrealistic plans for #2.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

rjknight 6y ago

If the only thing that you knew was that there would be a massive recession starting in 2007, and that 13 years later there would be no meaningful return to the pre-2007 growth trend, this would not be hard to predict.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Whut 6y ago

I can't speak for any other countries, but from the American perspective, civics education in this country is really lacking. If citizens don't understand the basics of the American government works, it's very easy for people like Trump to lie to them. Media literacy classes would also be helpful. A lot of citizens are not capable of separating fact from fiction.

mellavora 6y ago
Second this. Posts prior to yours have stated other causes (lack of leadership, economic issues). But a strong and widely shared/held understanding of civics would have provided a framework for discussing these issues and potential resolutions. civics to include both the what (how government works) and the why (power arising from the people, leviation so life is worth living, government to secure rights (which includes economic provisions such as a social safety net to ensure delivery of those rights), ...), leading to the responsibility/expectations on all of society, from the individual on up. We today (as a culture) are so advanced in terms of STEM that we think we know it all, and are completely blind to how much we don't know. The founding fathers had much greater wisdom/understanding on how politics and society work and how to make them work, we've lost that. Finally, ALL of the above is completely neutral to "conservative" or "progressive" politics. The founding fathers debated these just as strongly as we do today, on all aspects of every point I raised above.
mdorazio 6y ago
Civics is definitely lacking, but I feel like the bigger issue is that information sources in general have become highly biased and prone to misinformation (especially if you consider social media an information source). And at the same time we aren't teaching kids to seek truth, question what they hear, and think critically. In fact, a lot of times it seems like the opposite is being taught - "believe me because I'm in a position of authority".
snake_plissken 6y ago
I'm not sure why you're getting down voted; this is an accurate comment on the condition of things, especially about the media literacy. I'll add one more point that for some people, it's a badge of honor to actively remain uninformed on certain topics. Not sure what you can do about that.

CoffeeDregs 6y ago

From TFA: "Democratic regression is particularly visible among the G-20 countries". This is the money-shot. I went back after I speculated that the big deal would be if existing, strongly "democratic" countries were sliding and found this quote. Strong democracies are sliding which is a much bigger deal than young, weak democracies doing so. I'm in the US (so this comment is US-centric). As with so much else over the past 6 months, the tension between federal powers and state powers is being thrown into relief. In particular, the popular idea that democracy is good/right has long been suspect: https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fath... . This is the effect of the Internet and of the "Long Tail": the monetization/politicization of the "long tail" is in segmenting and then aggregating bits of the long tail into larger and larger groups of marginalized members of the population. With poor communication, "the fringe" is only a fringe locally; with near-infinite communication, the fringe is everyone: FB and the various tailored news feeds drape a comfortable bubble over us and cause us to see our view as (manifestly) the only view (since it's our only view, it must be the only view). As a "Republican", I point the finger at Republicans, a political group which has been a 10x political operation. Wedge issues have come home to roost and we're much worse off for it. And Republicans have played the state/local-politics game very, very well. As others have noted, democracy is a game best played locally but our pervasive communications systems are forcing it to be played globally and this is happening quickly enough that our political systems haven't come to grips with it yet.

atomi 6y ago
You are so on the nose. Politics is now global and constituencies that were never exposed to other political realities and were protected by local politicking are now facing a political shock. The chickens are certainly coming home to roost.
- api 6y ago
  I recall having this kind of thought when the whole Russian election meddling thing started to get talked about. This is a phase of globalization. Politics is now global. If you're a large country and especially a superpower, everyone in the world has a stake in the outcome of your elections and political process. This means we should expect more and more foreign "meddling" in elections as well as direct meddling in the political process through foreign lobbying/bribery and covert methods. Maybe what we're seeing is the beginning of the accretion process of a true global government. Eventually the people will realize that since politics is global political awareness must be as well. Campaigns could globalize. Then we're a few steps away from global political parties and then global government.

fileyfood500 6y ago

The study is suspect. The transition of a country from non-democratic to single party democracy to multi-party democracy can be tracked reasonably well. Scoring multi-party democracies is more problematic. For example, the study uses data claiming the US is down 7 points, which is quite significant given that the entire global decrease cited in the study is only a few points. The US continues to be a multi-party democracy where rights and freedoms have actually expanded over the last decade, for example adding by additional rights for gay marriage. Universal health care in the US could be viewed as a loss of freedom, but I perhaps incorrectly assume the article is “left-wing” from a US standpoint and is viewing the Trump presidency as the loss in rights. On the contrary, the large protests over discrimination that has existed for 300 years are helping increase freedoms, and the deportation/lack of rights for immigrants is open for debate in the context of a democracy score, where those born in the country are given the rights. Election turnout and voting system technology had continued to improve, and scrutiny of fraud continues to hone in at more and more granular levels (national news about inconsistent practices at a town level). Overall, the conclusions of the study merit skepticism given the arbitrariness of democratic scoring. The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is clear, and those metrics are clear/transparent.

Juliate 6y ago
"single party democracy"? seriously?
- fileyfood500 6y ago
  Countries where regular elections are held with a single party/major candidate. Minor opposition candidates may be present but may not capture a large share of the votes. A positive indicator for a democratic system is regular transition of power, and a system in which a single person is consistently re-elected, or a single party. If the voter has only 1 choice in an election, the election is less democratic than one with multiple choices
- brainwad 6y ago
  This means countries like Japan or Singapore, where while technically multi-party, in practice the opposition parties never win. Obviously a country where other parties are outlawed (e.g. communist countries) is not a single party democracy, it's just a single party dictatorship.

AlexandrB 6y ago

I have my own pet theory - based on nothing - that we're seeing the political consequences of massive income inequality. If you're at the bottom of the heap watching massively wealthy individuals controlling a large portion of your daily life while accumulating more and more wealth for themselves, populism is really appealing! You get to watch people who think they're better than you (see comments in this very thread about how this is about "education" and "ignorance") squirm and sweat because things aren't going the way they think they should.

charlesu 6y ago
I think you’re right. But what people don’t realize is the the rich and the even the upper class aren’t stuck with this country and generally don’t feel much allegiance to it. They can benefit from lax regulation and low taxes and political turbulence and simply leave when things get out of control. It’s fun watching elites squirm but they have an exit plan. Most Americans can’t. They don’t have the skills or the money to go anywhere else. Using your politics to troll the elites is very much an example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. I wonder how long it’ll take for people to realize that.
- germinalphrase 6y ago
  While they certainly would have the resources “to go anywhere else” - where would all these very rich people actually want to go? Where can they maintain a high status lifestyle while also enjoying low taxes? Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems like a mighty short list and, hence, an empty threat.
  - charlesu 6y ago
    It depends on the threat. If the United States actually descends into any real chaos they can and will bail. For now, they can just move to their second home in Montana. But if gets bad, they’ll leave. They always do.
    - germinalphrase 6y ago

bjourne 6y ago

The problem is that it has become acceptable to treat ideas as dangerous. For example, if I want to deny the Holocaust, that is my right. No one has the moral, and no one should have the legal, right to try and prevent me from doing that. But that is not the view of those who control the discourse. They have accepted that certain views are inherently dangerous. The slope is slippery. It begun with Nazism and pedophilia advocacy but already includes Corona "misinformation", r/The_Donald, r/ChapoTrapHouse, Hamas' Twitter account, WikiLeaks, Mila Yanniopolis, and a whole host of stuff I just don't know about because some powerful fucks decided it was too dangerous for me (please don't read so much into my examples - these are the ones I know about. I think both the left and the right is guilty of trying to censor the other side). If you don't believe this creeping censorship will eventually reach you, you either have very vanilla opinions or are very naive. Furthermore, more and more power over expression online is concentrated in a handful of American mega corporations, making it practically impossible to escape it. You can't "just start your own site" if Google blacklists it and refuses to index it because no one will find it. They effectively control the online discourse. Just yesterday, Leila Khaled was supposed to participate in an discussion panel online sponsored by an American university. Zionist lobby groups got her booted from Zoom, YouTube, and Facebook, preventing the meeting from taking place. Reportedly, the university had a backup if one platform would boot her, but not all three! To the best of my knowledge, there are no alternative to these platforms. If they won't allow you to stream to an international audience, you just can't do it. At least not if you are not a techie who knows how to setup your own video streaming server. I think there is a huge need for software for censorship resistant online platforms. Something that is distributed so that it can't be taken down, but not so complicated that only a few can use it.

shadowgovt 6y ago
Given that you can give a laundry list that includes Nazi advocacy, ChapoTrapHouse Hamas' Twitter account, And Mila Yanniopolis, it seems the attempts to censor aren't really working. Hypothesis: it's the opposite. The era of bidirectional mass communication is allowing geographically-dispersed fringe interests to consolidate into political blocs. Interest groups that previously would have been censored implicitly (by being a small, isolated group in a larger community) or explicitly (by the authority-controlled media, such as cable, television, and radio, having standards and practices that excluded giving pedophiles a half hour to plead the pro-side of their case on the air) now have the tools to communicate with each other and the public outside of gatekeepers.

jdlyga 6y ago

This is a lot like the Gilded Age in the US back in the late 1800s, early 1900s. You had massive political polarization, like today, massive income inequality, and industry that was controlled by a few large companies. It eventually boiled over and led to a large progressive movement.

Server6 6y ago
Yeah. And a great depression and two world wars. We need to avoid this if at all possible.
- ffggvv 6y ago
  to be fair both wars were started in europe
teorema 6y ago
Those progressive movements are critical to emphasize, underlying the renaissance of the current era, but they also came with violent upheaval. In many ways, the world wars were one long conflict over those movements and their competitors, followed by a long period of residual conflicts in the form of the Cold War, Korean War and conflicts, Mideast politics, and many other things. What that portends for the future is difficult to say, as this could all swing the other way very rapidly. However, it's hard not to see data like what's presented in this paper, combined with things like inequality and the global displaced persons crisis, and not conclude that something significant is coming worldwide.

speeder 6y ago

Although I understand the worry, I am getting more and more annoying with people painting all populist leaders as anti-democratic, even when they are trying to make institutions more democratic. I am from Brazil, and media (both local and international) loves to portray him as some sort of conservative dictator. Except he been trying to do the opposite for a while now, for example people called him "genocidal" because he opposed cities issuing lockdown orders. Thing is, in our constitution only the president can issue lockdown, and only after being reviewed by three different oversight groups, because we had a nasty dicatorship during cold war, our new constituion was written deliberately to make really hard to create a new dictatorship, yet our supreme court is happily ignoring a lot of parts of our constitution to give the government dicatorship powers, and the president is opposing it, but every time he does so, people say he, is the dictator. Another case: population voted against arms control in a country-wide vote around 2003, government back then issued arms control anyway (they made it legal to have weapons if you had a license, and then stopped giving licenses, thus effectively banning weapons against the wishes of the population), Bolsonaro more than once talked about it, and tried to undo the ban and follow what was voted for, again people kept saying that this was him being a dictator. Our supreme court been under heavy criticism lately for various reasons, and they reacted badly (for example one judge called police on a guy that criticized him in person on an airplane and got him arrested), the media is portraying this as the president trying to get rid of the supreme court and have more power for himself, and the supreme court as democratic heroes, but that is obviously not what is going on, the supreme court for example breached a fundamental principle of democracy recently when they started a case themselves, becoming court+pŕosecutors at same time, something that is NOT supposed to ever happen, they also are trying to institute a "Fake News" law, something that obviously goes against our constitution that guarantees free speech.

notional 6y ago
“But we can’t let this place become known as a gay tourism paradise. Brazil can’t be a country of the gay world, of gay tourism. We have families,” Bolsonaro added Bolsonaro, a former army captain, has long been notorious for his homophobic comments, once declaring: “Yes, I’m homophobic – and very proud of it.” Bolsonaro claimed “homosexual fundamentalists” were brainwashing heterosexual children to “become gays and lesbians to satisfy them sexually in the future”. He doesn't sound very democratic to me. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/26/bolsonaro-accused-of-inciting-hatred-with-gay-paradise-comment https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/26/bolsonaro-accu...

whoevercares 6y ago

I wonder if the marriage between China & US for the past 30 years have played a role in this. Generally manufacturing are moved out of US which could cause a bigger wealth gap between the the rich and working class. Rich people become richer because they are the first receiver of the benefit from exploiting China, while working class don’t have much better alternatives. Democratic system IMO is more fragile when the gap is widen

hangonhn 6y ago
I've had the same questions myself. America has this dual system of capitalism and democracy. We are greatly affected by both. When the two exists in our borders, we are able to sort of use one to effect the other, etc. but globalization expanded our markets (supply, labor, and demand) while leaving all the democratic restraints and "feedback" at home.

the_arun 6y ago

I have these questions about Democracy & Politics. I am no expert & not intending to be sarcastic. 1. Do we have defined policies for clean Politics? I mean ethical/fair. 2. I believe, we teach democracy in college. Do we teach rules of politics (1)? 3. When a political party takes the office (white house in US), aren't they expected to represent people instead of their political party? 4. When people take oath in office wouldn't (3) come into play? 5. Shouldn't white house employees (Federal) work for ruling party - but they are govt officials instead of party workers? 6. When ruling party/govt breaks above rules what is the penalty/punishment? Sorry, if this is out of context for the main topic, but these keep bugging me.

whoevercares 6y ago
It looks like you are asking people to have a lot of “good intentions”/hold high moral standard. What are the mechanisms given we are all greedy human?
- the_arun 6y ago
  Imagine 100% human are greedy - there will be hunger games & we get extinct in no time. Hence, don't we need some moral standard to survive in peace?
  - airstrike 6y ago
    Imagine you've coded a little game played by bots in which all of them are greedy and they compete aggressively. How do you set up incentives so that they willingly cooperate, without changing their definitions in the code? Pointing the bots to a higher "moral standard" will not work unless they are programmed to follow it. But you can't refactor humans, sadly
    - the_arun 6y ago
      Yep, humans are not bots (no emotional properties). Moral standard applies to humans because of their EQ.

api 6y ago

Democratic regression began beneath the surface long before it became obvious through overt anti-democratic movements. Democratic regression started when the majority of people in countries like the USA started to feel as if they had no viable choice that actually represented their own interests or ideas. This is why most people don't vote. They see it as a choice between "the puppet on the left" and "the puppet on the right." I mean take 2012. Obama had clearly demonstrated himself to be Bush's third term, at least when it comes to quite a few issues such as banking reform and remaining entangled in Iraq. For all his "change" rhetoric Obama didn't change much. His opposition was Mitt Romney, a literal member of the financial elite who signaled nothing beyond an intention to represent that elite. Nobody signaled an intent to represent the actual interests of the middle or working class in the US. Nobody talked about pushing back on unfair trade policies or taking any other steps to return good jobs (a.k.a. not service jobs) to the US. Nobody even really acknowledged that there was a problem. Then in 2016 you had Hillary Clinton who clearly would continue Obama's policies and seemed to be working on trade pacts to further accelerate outsourcing to China, and you had a wildcard self-styled populist upstart. I can't stand Trump, consider him dangerous, and did not vote for him, but I can totally understand people who did. He was the first candidate in at least a generation to even acknowledge the economic collapse of the American center. The Democratic Party and the left continue to think Trump's victory was about race, and I still think they are wrong. Yes there are racists and yes they like Trump, but those people were never going to vote for Hillary Clinton anyway. Maybe a few of them voted when they otherwise would have stayed home, but I don't buy the idea that some tide of closet neo-Nazis and 4chan incels swept him into office. Do they ever ask people in these polls if they actually voted or intend to vote? Trump won because historically blue "rust belt" states tipped, and that was because of his economic rhetoric... which was ironically liberal in some ways. He ran as a social conservative but as an economic liberal, and that overlaps quite well with working class America. He may be lying and just saying what he needs to say to get elected, but that's what he said and that's what people voted for. Another major ingredient was the collapse of trust. The Bush administration lied us into a war, and then in 2008 we bailed out the banking interests that created the crisis while leaving the actual economy to rot. Those two events did more to undermine American democracy than a thousand Russian troll farms could ever achieve. People no longer believe in our system. We've been a very dysfunctional democracy for decades. What we are seeing is the final collapse of the facade revealing the rotten structure underneath.

haltingproblem 6y ago

Democratic regression measured by the methodology of one NGO - the Freedom House and the Economist. Their methodologies do not have ground truth - so like school rankings they are completely made up. I can have a measurement, equally plausible to many, that democracy has gone up. These are also left-leaning organizations and there facts almost always target countries with governments of the opposite ideological bent - "And then are the states that remain democratic but have been deteriorating in quality, including the world’s four largest democracies – the United States, India, Indonesia, and Brazil – and the largest democracy in Central and Eastern Europe, Poland. 12 In 2019, India suffered one of the steepest declines on the 100-point Freedom House scale (4 points). Since 2012, India has declined by 5 points, Indonesia by 7, Brazil by 6, Poland 9, and the U.S. 7 points." There is no scientific basis to assert that Freedom has actually gone down in these countries. Just like more coverage of murders and crime on the evening news makes us think that crime has gone up, greater coverage of so-called illiberal events makes us think that democracy is in danger. Lacking data, I would go with the earlier in the graph of Democracy trending up and not down (null hypothesis).

AftHurrahWinch 6y ago
You're not disagreeing with the conclusion, you're disagreeing with the premise. If someone accepts the premise then they should also accept the conclusion. Personally, I agree with the Freedom House and the Economist hallmarks of democracy. Therefore, the conclusion is significant to me.
pierrebai 6y ago
Quote: > In fact, 2006 was the high water mark for democracy in the world, with the percentage of democracies peaking that year at 57% among states over one million population (Figure 1), and 61% of all states. 9 Since then the proportion of democracies in the world has gradually declined, to 55% of all states and 48% of states above one million population. So you are in opposition to even the simplest provable fact provided in the article. And you wish to replace a statistic you don't approve of with... made up measurement? You then bring up that somehow, measurement of liberties would have a scientific basis? Liberties are not a physical quantities. They choose indicators and measured them. You chose to no indicators and simply stated your political bias. I will choose to appreciate the more rigorous of the two.

modzu 6y ago

these conclusions seem to depend almost entirely on the freedom house scale -- who can explain more about what that is? it seems to be a ranking, so is it objective and robust enough to fit this analysis, espscially over time? a cursory look at wikipedia makes it look like an arms length extension of the CIA...

haltingproblem 6y ago

I decided to dig into the raw data. What I could find was the country by country narrative for 2018 which has each country ranked on a bunch of metrics out of a total score and then those scores are combined via some weighting into an aggregate scores. These component scores are entirely subjective and have no ground truth - worse than college or hospital rankings. College rankings have some quantitative basis - average starting offer for college graduates and hospitals have risk of death or readmittance for hospitals. Freedom house metrics have no quantitative basis (see below). The country narratives are not available for 2019 or 2020. I can assure you that if you dig into the raw data you will most certainly find it rife with ad-hoc assumptions to justify their conclusions. The fact that they have a magical threshold of 1 million for a country and that country get a weight of 1 and India with a population of 1.4 billion gets a a weight of 1 which leads to this gem: "From 2006 to 2020, the number of democracies contracted to 108 and the percentage of democracies to 55%. Among states over one million population, the decline in the number of democracies was more dramatic, from 86 to 75, a drop from 57% to 48% (Table 4)." I can tell from a fairly informed perspective that the quality of the process of voting in elections in India over the past decade has gone up significantly due to tamper-proof EVMs and the fact that India's voting commission is an independent constitutional body. Just that gain alone should make India's ranking move up in the Democracy index. India has added ~100 million people over that time. So the sheer number of people being able to exercise that vote freely and have it be counted dwarfs the population of countries who have become undemocratic. To quote Charlie Munger, incentives matter and to quote Taleb - always always ask what they are selling. Freedom house is selling their rankings to Donors. Press like this gives them the ability to show donors the PR and raise more dollars. Freedom House rankings are optimized to raise the $30,000,000 they need every year from Donors. They are incentivized to say - Democracy is in Danger - for it raises more dollars. Dem are there incentives. Even better when you can demonize the countries whose governments are of the opposite ideological strain than that of the donors. India's rating has cratered since 2014 since Modi got elected. Incentives matter and always always ask what they are selling and why.