4 ms·

Newspeak is discarding the post (Yalta and) Universal Declaration of Human Rights global consensus. The use of the expression "Liberal Democracy" is just to co

• rayiner 2y ago
  > discarding the post-Yalta and Universal Declaration of Human Rights global consensus That was never a “consensus.” It was a quasi-religious moral framework imposed on the world by Wilsonian elites who turned out to be minorities even within their own western countries. Those ideas have little purchase in India or China or Bangladesh, or even Poland or, these days, Florida. > And no one is above the law, including elected leaders. If you implement that concept literally, you have a society where the real power is held by judges and prosecutors who interpret the law. That’s not democracy. > Liberalism, in this sense, is about guaranteeing universal freedoms, not imposing ideology. What “freedom” entails reflects ideology. Thais don’t agree with Americans don’t agree with Germans, for example, about what constitutes “free speech.” Not only that, “freedom” is such a broad and vague concept that if you empower unelected philosopher kings to decide what constitutes “freedom” or not you displace democracy. To use one specific example: > ensures: - Civil rights movements (e.g., LGBTQ+, racial equality) succeed through debate and persuasion, not judicial fiat At least in the U.S., the proponents of supposed “liberal democracy” achieved both through judicial fiat, overriding electoral majorities. And they continue to press ideas that are broadly unpopular with voters (such as affirmative action) through unaccountable bureaucracies. I expect you’ll see the same thing happen with immigration issues in Western Europe. That is the predictable result of the whole concept of “liberal democracy.” Once you declare that major issues are too important for the political process then ideologues have tremendous incentive to reframe every issue in those terms.
  • DrNosferatu 2y ago
    What quasi-religious framework imposed by Wilsonian elites? Know your History better: The UDHR was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948 with 48 votes in favor, including nations from Latin America (e.g., Mexico, Brazil), the Middle East (e.g., Lebanon, Iran), and Asia (e.g., India, Philippines). Only eight countries abstained (Soviet bloc, Saudi Arabia, South Africa). Hardly Wilsonian. More! Actually the Indian delegation insisted on gender-neutral language: “all human beings” instead of “all men”. Clearly it was a global compromise, not a Western diktat. As for "societies run by judges" - this fundamentally misunderstands Constitutional Democracy. Judges interpret laws created by elected bodies within constitutional frameworks that were themselves democratically approved. They protect the system's integrity, not override it. When courts strike down laws violating minority rights, they're functioning as intended - preventing democratic processes from being used to undermine Democracy itself. This isn't anti-democratic; it's ensuring democracy remains sustainable. Your example about Florida is telling. When democratic backsliding occurs, it's not "freedom from liberalism" but rather the dismantling of crucial democratic guardrails. True democracy requires both electoral processes and institutional protections. On LGBTQ+ rights and affirmative action - these weren't imposed solely by courts. They emerged through complex interactions between social movements, legislative actions, and judicial decisions. The courts didn't act in isolation but responded to evolving societal understanding of constitutional principles - or should we go back to segregation? Your alternative to liberal democracy isn't "more democracy" - it would be a vulnerable "elected regime" that can be dismantled from within (ever heard about a certain election in 1933?). History shows that without institutional protections, electoral systems alone can facilitate their own destruction. Liberal Democracy isn't perfect, but it's proven more resilient and just than any alternative system of governance yet devised. Indeed: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
    • rayiner 2y ago
      India for example was ruled by Oxford-educated westernized elites at the time. They didn’t speak for the Indian people. Democracy has nothing to do with “minority rights.” That’s a fixation of liberalism, and it’s in tension with democracy. And in practice it’s a vehicle for liberals to overrule the democratic majority on almost everything, because everything can be framed in terms of “rights.” (See Sanders’ recent push to reframe healthcare as a right.) Constitutions and laws haven’t meant anything for a century. At one time you could argue a constitution was a way for a democratic super-majority to bind future transient majorities. But the prevailing American view of constitutional interpretation in the 20th century posited that “emanations from penumbras” was a source of constitutional law. That means that something that the people never ratified in the past could overrule democratic majorities in the present. “Liberal democracy” is nothing more than rule by philosopher kings, either judges or these days administrators. It’s not meaningfully democracy. It’s indistinguishable from Iran’s Guardian Council, which overrides democracy to ensure compliance with Islamic law. Same shit, different religion.