3 ms·
Really? Because history totally disagrees with this assessment. Winston Churchill is a hero of democracy, and deservedly so. But fuck man, that guy was a lying
by spwa4 1y ago
Really? Because history totally disagrees with this assessment. Winston Churchill is a hero of democracy, and deservedly so.
But fuck man, that guy was a lying bullshit artist ... he was a drunk. He abused his power with women. He lied to the public, to the army, to preserve his own power. And worse. He was a terrible, terrible person by all accounts.
And frankly, in that he was not exceptional. Get some papers from the 1920s, 1930s, and compare against the history books, or against science, against the truth. Again: WTF.
No, what makes democracy work, is not truth. I don't really know what does make it tick, but truth? No way. Participation? I don't have that big a smoking gun, but I doubt it. It's the option to participate that matters, not whether people actually do. In my opinion, what matters a great deal is that the government is forced to drastically change course when a large portion of the population is unhappy (which is, let's face facts, why Trump got elected, and it is why republicans are in for a world of hurt next time)
Even today, the fact of the matter is that European governments are fundamentally forced to scale back the welfare state. It is framed as a money problem, but really it is a problem of labor availability, money is only the abstraction the government uses for everything. We're blaming the abstraction. The real problem is not being seriously discussed in any European country, instead democratically elected governments are trying to sneak in cutback after cutback because "immigrants suck" or "criminals are expensive" or ... bullshit essentially.
- johnecheck 1y ago"[A democracy] is forced to drastically change course when a large portion of the population is unhappy." I concur. But the odds of that course-correct being the right one must relate to the prevalence of the truth in the population, right? Was Churchill's election a grand triumph of democracy? I can see why you might think so. They elected what seems to have been the right man for the job, despite his flaws. Was he really? Was that lying drunk really the only guy who could have pulled it off? Or did Britain elect a terrible person and just got lucky that his failings didn't muck everything up?