5 ms·

> After an apparent victory over communism with the end of the Cold War, democracy now faces a major challenge. The benefits of globalization did not reach all

> After an apparent victory over communism with the end of the Cold War, democracy now faces a major challenge. The benefits of globalization did not reach all citizens, leading to a maldistribution of wealth. Sounds like they nailed the problem. Too bad there’s no push to solve this as a global community. That’s really the only way out, globalization isn’t going away, externalities and climate change are on a one way path. So assuming you can go back to a time before globalization is fantasy. Instead, people are retreating to their tribes and the only option now is prepping for tribe-tribe battle. It’s a shame that it’s been the failure of multiple generations to provide, not only the leadership, but the citizens who could accept and promote the right people into the leadership, for the good of all people Alas, humanity does not have the capacity to do that. Bummer man

mkleczek 10mo ago
This. It looks like it goes in cycles: after major catastrophic event subsequent generations that don't remember the catastrophe are willing to engage in another one (I think of WWI and WWII as one event). If the memory was stronger there would be more pressure to find other means of resolving issues. Eg. as a "half boomer" European I remember well why EU was created. It looks like the reasons have been largely forgotten now.
- hexbin010 10mo ago
  The EU? Or a prior institution with different goals and aims?
  - mkleczek 10mo ago
    Indeed. The organization changed in the passing years. My worry is that there is more will to just dissolve it instead of working on improving it.
- lmz 10mo ago
  Didn't WW2 largely lead to a "cleaning up" of minorities across state lines in Europe? Maybe it's the population importers who forgot the reasons for post war prosperity. https://www.dday.center/the-impact-of-wwii-on-european-borders-and-population-transfers/ https://www.dday.center/the-impact-of-wwii-on-european-borde...
fbias 10mo ago
[dead]
OgsyedIE 10mo ago
The macroeconomic problem is that export-led growth is zero sum. Other kinds of growth aren't, but for most countries export-led growth is the most accessible kind of growth. Then, if other countries are rationally defecting, trying to reach out to them gets viewed as treason.
- jjk166 10mo ago
  But export led growth isn't zero sum. Sure someone needs to import your products, but they are importing them because it is in their own best interest to do so. You grow by having access to a market for your goods and services, they grow by having better access to a resource than they did before. Of course these strategies can be poorly executed and may wind up leaving one party worse off, but win win situations are most certainly possible.
  - OgsyedIE 10mo ago
    I was unclear. There is a finite pool of customers to be fought over.
    - jjk166 10mo ago
      They don't need to be fought over, customers can purchase from multiple sellers. Increasing prosperity increases demand for goods and services.
rich_sasha 10mo ago
I think more broadly, we're (re?)discovering various weak spots in democratic governments, and all at once globally. Ones that strike me include: - Most crucially, democracy relies on an educated electorate, but access to really excellent education is minimal globally. This exposes democracies to disinformation and populism - Democracies are not great at long-term investment and planning, due to the rapid election cycle and politicians needing to manage polls in ~real time - We long relied on media as gatekeepers and curators of sound political analysis and facts, but a revenue race to the bottom means media now chase ragebait and owner politics instead - The uncomfortable truth is that a lot of successes of Western Democracies happened when they weren't all that democratic. Anything prior to 20th century was really plutocratic at best, then there was a slow expansion of the vote, but even then, there simply weren't that many terrible options to vote for. Even an uneducated electorate can make a good choice when all you can do is choose between two decent options - Not entirely related, but I think shift from values-based societies to consumption/hedonistic societies broke the unwritten contract of democratic systems, where you vote not for your immediate benefit, but for some kind of societal one. As Churchill supposedly quipped, democracy still seems like the least bad option, but that shouldn't mean we don't discuss improvements. I don't really know where we go from here - pumping lots of money into education would possibly do it eventually - but awareness is a good first step to fixing.
- linguae 10mo ago
  Good points, though I have some other thoughts (note that this is coming from an American; I don’t know the situation in other democratic countries): 1. More people have access to a university education today than in previous generations. Granted, not everybody goes to college, and I’m concerned about the relatively low standards of today’s high schools outside of highly-ranked ones that serve as feeders to elite universities. 2. I wholeheartedly agree. Moreover, I feel modern American culture as a whole, and not just politics, is very short-term driven compared to previous generations, though this is a perception and I have no data to back this up. I feel so many businesses, for example, are hyper-focused on achieving the next quarter’s targets. To put it in computer science terms, sometimes a greedy approach isn’t optimal. 3. I sympathize, but this is not the first time America has dealt with a reckless media landscape. I remember reading in high school about “yellow journalism” and its role in instigating the Spanish-American War. 4. I wonder if modern presidential primary elections helped contribute to polarization as opposed to the old, pre-George McGovern methods of choosing presidential nominees? The Democratic and Republican parties used to be less uniform ideologically, and party bosses often picked compromise candidates to try to appeal to different factions of each party. The pre-Civil Rights Democratic Party was an alliance of Northern pro-union, moderate-to-liberal politicians and Southern conservatives. The Republican Party had Northeastern moderates (like Nelson Rockefeller and Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.) and conservatives from other parts of the country (like Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater). On one hand primaries are arguably more democratic, but on the other hand they’ve fueled polarization. 5. I’ll have to think about this some more.
thomassmith65 10mo ago
The benefits of globalization did not reach all citizens, leading to a maldistribution of wealth. Those are merely received ideas, not necessarily the root cause of a decline in democracy. Acid House music arose around the end of the Cold War. If, for some reason, a handful of influential figures had blamed Acid House for all society's problems instead of globalization, then presumably the author would have written: The benefits of Acid House did not reach all citizens, leading to a maldistribution of wealth. This century, we have landed on a whole framework for explaining what we don't like about the world - involving 'elites', globalism, immigrants, etc etc - and it is a pretty useless as a framework.
servo_sausage 10mo ago
Democracy requires that people view themselves as part of a singular group; we might all have different interests and priorities, so each citizen might want different policy, but the compromise to the majority should be something that's positive overall. We are not so far into the multicultural experiment (in the literal sense where distinct self contained cultural groups can exist in one nation), and it's becoming clear that it doesn't really work. You get endless cases of representatives chosen based on cultural groups, policies where one group wins at the cost of the whole, and lower trust in the system generally. This is complicated by the messaging that multiculturalism is the same as anti-racism. This has been such a successful campaign that nationalism even being an acceptable idea is one of the major dividing points between parties. I don't really believe that it's resolvable without some kind of major external factor.
- donkeybeer 10mo ago
  What has nationalism and religion ever given us other than bloodshed? Nationalism is the problem. If nationalism didn't exist people won't have an inclination to fight over racial lines. Destroying nationalism will solve half the worlds conflicts. Destroying religion should deal with the remaining 90%.
  - Ekaros 10mo ago
    So if not for nationalism. Why not roll over and let the other country take over you and then join their democracy? A single world government ruling over all the land?
    - donkeybeer 10mo ago
      They have a right to self defense like anyone else, illegal aggressors should be killed. Nationalism as in racialism. I have no problem with defining a country on principles you have agree to follow, in fact its one of the best forms of countries. I am ambivalent to apathetic to "Iran" remaining "Iranian race" or "France" remaining "French race".
jmward01 10mo ago
I actually think globalism has nothing to do with the decline. Or maybe the gains it brought us has indirectly contributed. In general US quality of life has risen. Japanese quality of life isn't bad either. I think the keys are just simple apathy, ignorance and fear of loosing what you have when you have it easy. It is like the silly anti-vax stuff now. People don't see the huge infant mortality rate that used to be there so their value signal for vaccines is completely un-tuned. They didn't have to go through the hardship so they don't know the value. Similarly, by most measures, life is actually pretty good compared to the time we are trying to make great again, but because people now weren't alive then and didn't see the impacts of unregulated stocks, weak health institutions, etc etc, they don't understand the value of the institutions and can't adequately judge the importance of people that are trying to keep those institutions strong. Instead they see a report that has dramatic music and footage from a different time/country with no context and a headline saying 'inconsequential thing X will destroy you and take your home and I will protect you' so they vote out of fear and ignorance or don't vote at all because they can't be bothered to learn as a way to inform instead of experience. Until it happens to them it isn't real. I think fear, ignorance and apathy are the real keys here.

mkleczek 10mo ago

This. It looks like it goes in cycles: after major catastrophic event subsequent generations that don't remember the catastrophe are willing to engage in another one (I think of WWI and WWII as one event). If the memory was stronger there would be more pressure to find other means of resolving issues. Eg. as a "half boomer" European I remember well why EU was created. It looks like the reasons have been largely forgotten now.

hexbin010 10mo ago
The EU? Or a prior institution with different goals and aims?
- mkleczek 10mo ago
  Indeed. The organization changed in the passing years. My worry is that there is more will to just dissolve it instead of working on improving it.
lmz 10mo ago
Didn't WW2 largely lead to a "cleaning up" of minorities across state lines in Europe? Maybe it's the population importers who forgot the reasons for post war prosperity. https://www.dday.center/the-impact-of-wwii-on-european-borders-and-population-transfers/ https://www.dday.center/the-impact-of-wwii-on-european-borde...

fbias 10mo ago

[dead]

OgsyedIE 10mo ago

The macroeconomic problem is that export-led growth is zero sum. Other kinds of growth aren't, but for most countries export-led growth is the most accessible kind of growth. Then, if other countries are rationally defecting, trying to reach out to them gets viewed as treason.

jjk166 10mo ago
But export led growth isn't zero sum. Sure someone needs to import your products, but they are importing them because it is in their own best interest to do so. You grow by having access to a market for your goods and services, they grow by having better access to a resource than they did before. Of course these strategies can be poorly executed and may wind up leaving one party worse off, but win win situations are most certainly possible.
- OgsyedIE 10mo ago
  I was unclear. There is a finite pool of customers to be fought over.
  - jjk166 10mo ago
    They don't need to be fought over, customers can purchase from multiple sellers. Increasing prosperity increases demand for goods and services.

rich_sasha 10mo ago

I think more broadly, we're (re?)discovering various weak spots in democratic governments, and all at once globally. Ones that strike me include: - Most crucially, democracy relies on an educated electorate, but access to really excellent education is minimal globally. This exposes democracies to disinformation and populism - Democracies are not great at long-term investment and planning, due to the rapid election cycle and politicians needing to manage polls in ~real time - We long relied on media as gatekeepers and curators of sound political analysis and facts, but a revenue race to the bottom means media now chase ragebait and owner politics instead - The uncomfortable truth is that a lot of successes of Western Democracies happened when they weren't all that democratic. Anything prior to 20th century was really plutocratic at best, then there was a slow expansion of the vote, but even then, there simply weren't that many terrible options to vote for. Even an uneducated electorate can make a good choice when all you can do is choose between two decent options - Not entirely related, but I think shift from values-based societies to consumption/hedonistic societies broke the unwritten contract of democratic systems, where you vote not for your immediate benefit, but for some kind of societal one. As Churchill supposedly quipped, democracy still seems like the least bad option, but that shouldn't mean we don't discuss improvements. I don't really know where we go from here - pumping lots of money into education would possibly do it eventually - but awareness is a good first step to fixing.

linguae 10mo ago
Good points, though I have some other thoughts (note that this is coming from an American; I don’t know the situation in other democratic countries): 1. More people have access to a university education today than in previous generations. Granted, not everybody goes to college, and I’m concerned about the relatively low standards of today’s high schools outside of highly-ranked ones that serve as feeders to elite universities. 2. I wholeheartedly agree. Moreover, I feel modern American culture as a whole, and not just politics, is very short-term driven compared to previous generations, though this is a perception and I have no data to back this up. I feel so many businesses, for example, are hyper-focused on achieving the next quarter’s targets. To put it in computer science terms, sometimes a greedy approach isn’t optimal. 3. I sympathize, but this is not the first time America has dealt with a reckless media landscape. I remember reading in high school about “yellow journalism” and its role in instigating the Spanish-American War. 4. I wonder if modern presidential primary elections helped contribute to polarization as opposed to the old, pre-George McGovern methods of choosing presidential nominees? The Democratic and Republican parties used to be less uniform ideologically, and party bosses often picked compromise candidates to try to appeal to different factions of each party. The pre-Civil Rights Democratic Party was an alliance of Northern pro-union, moderate-to-liberal politicians and Southern conservatives. The Republican Party had Northeastern moderates (like Nelson Rockefeller and Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.) and conservatives from other parts of the country (like Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater). On one hand primaries are arguably more democratic, but on the other hand they’ve fueled polarization. 5. I’ll have to think about this some more.

thomassmith65 10mo ago

The benefits of globalization did not reach all citizens, leading to a maldistribution of wealth. Those are merely received ideas, not necessarily the root cause of a decline in democracy. Acid House music arose around the end of the Cold War. If, for some reason, a handful of influential figures had blamed Acid House for all society's problems instead of globalization, then presumably the author would have written: The benefits of Acid House did not reach all citizens, leading to a maldistribution of wealth. This century, we have landed on a whole framework for explaining what we don't like about the world - involving 'elites', globalism, immigrants, etc etc - and it is a pretty useless as a framework.

servo_sausage 10mo ago

Democracy requires that people view themselves as part of a singular group; we might all have different interests and priorities, so each citizen might want different policy, but the compromise to the majority should be something that's positive overall. We are not so far into the multicultural experiment (in the literal sense where distinct self contained cultural groups can exist in one nation), and it's becoming clear that it doesn't really work. You get endless cases of representatives chosen based on cultural groups, policies where one group wins at the cost of the whole, and lower trust in the system generally. This is complicated by the messaging that multiculturalism is the same as anti-racism. This has been such a successful campaign that nationalism even being an acceptable idea is one of the major dividing points between parties. I don't really believe that it's resolvable without some kind of major external factor.

donkeybeer 10mo ago
What has nationalism and religion ever given us other than bloodshed? Nationalism is the problem. If nationalism didn't exist people won't have an inclination to fight over racial lines. Destroying nationalism will solve half the worlds conflicts. Destroying religion should deal with the remaining 90%.
- Ekaros 10mo ago
  So if not for nationalism. Why not roll over and let the other country take over you and then join their democracy? A single world government ruling over all the land?
  - donkeybeer 10mo ago
    They have a right to self defense like anyone else, illegal aggressors should be killed. Nationalism as in racialism. I have no problem with defining a country on principles you have agree to follow, in fact its one of the best forms of countries. I am ambivalent to apathetic to "Iran" remaining "Iranian race" or "France" remaining "French race".

jmward01 10mo ago

I actually think globalism has nothing to do with the decline. Or maybe the gains it brought us has indirectly contributed. In general US quality of life has risen. Japanese quality of life isn't bad either. I think the keys are just simple apathy, ignorance and fear of loosing what you have when you have it easy. It is like the silly anti-vax stuff now. People don't see the huge infant mortality rate that used to be there so their value signal for vaccines is completely un-tuned. They didn't have to go through the hardship so they don't know the value. Similarly, by most measures, life is actually pretty good compared to the time we are trying to make great again, but because people now weren't alive then and didn't see the impacts of unregulated stocks, weak health institutions, etc etc, they don't understand the value of the institutions and can't adequately judge the importance of people that are trying to keep those institutions strong. Instead they see a report that has dramatic music and footage from a different time/country with no context and a headline saying 'inconsequential thing X will destroy you and take your home and I will protect you' so they vote out of fear and ignorance or don't vote at all because they can't be bothered to learn as a way to inform instead of experience. Until it happens to them it isn't real. I think fear, ignorance and apathy are the real keys here.