3 ms·

When haven't things been going wrong with democracy? Whether it's the 1800's France, 1910's Russia, 1930's Europe, 1960's South America, 1990's Russia, or 2014

When haven't things been going wrong with democracy? Whether it's the 1800's France, 1910's Russia, 1930's Europe, 1960's South America, 1990's Russia, or 2014 Ukraine, Egypt, and Syria, creating and maintaining a functioning democracy has always been hard work that is prone to failure. I suspect it will always be that way. And yet, (paraphasing Churchill), the fragile and difficult democratic system is better than any of the utopian non-democratic schemes that have been devised.

jseliger 13y ago
Great comment. I would add that to some extent the current crop of strongmen have figured out some ways of suppressing democracy more quietly than strongmen of old; Putin, for example, cloaks repression in bureaucracy.
gooble_flop 13y ago
> democratic system is better than any of the utopian non-democratic schemes Those aren't the only two choices though.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  Exactly. Instead of giving a binary choice, there are other ways a country could be run. Churchill was from another era. EDIT: Besides, Churchill was only a proponent of democracy when it was going HIS way. We have now seen communication cables between FDR and Churchill during WWII, where Churchill implored FDR to go to war against the will of the US Congress. You can't have it both ways.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    That doesn't surprise me. Churchill is not someone I'd look to for guidance on political governance. He's internationally recognized and respected because he was a war leader. That's the beginning and end of his qualifications.
    - ekianjo 13y ago
      I recommend the book Pearl Harbor: the Seeds and Fruits of Infamy for anyone who wants to know more (the book is quite neutral despite its title). Free PDF here: http://library.mises.org/books/Percy%20L%20Greaves,%20Jr/Pearl%20Harbor%20The%20Seeds%20and%20Fruits%20of%20Infamy.pdf http://library.mises.org/books/Percy%20L%20Greaves,%20Jr/Pea...
Sniffnoy 13y ago
That have been tried. That it's better than anything else that's been devised is far from clear.
- saraid216 13y ago
  I actually disagree. (And I disagree with Churchill.) Let's assume that we agree that liberalism is a good thing. We can hash out what "liberalism" actually means, if you like. I'm willing to be flexible on the definition. Given that assumption, let's sketch out a governmental form and argue about feasibility. I suspect that, unless we go very far afield from mainstream concepts of liberalism, we'll arrive at something approximating democracy very closely, differing mostly in that it'll be overly idealistic. Anyone up for playing this game?
fiatmoney 13y ago
Wait, all of your examples are examples of mass violence being unleashed as a result of a conversion from an already existing non-democratic, non-utopian government to a democratic form of government (which incidentally often has has explicitly utopian goals). Your proper decision point isn't "Do I choose liberal democracy or fascism"; it's "given I live in Wilhelmine Germany, do I start a revolution to elect some Nazis".

jseliger 13y ago

Great comment. I would add that to some extent the current crop of strongmen have figured out some ways of suppressing democracy more quietly than strongmen of old; Putin, for example, cloaks repression in bureaucracy.

gooble_flop 13y ago

> democratic system is better than any of the utopian non-democratic schemes Those aren't the only two choices though.

ekianjo 13y ago
Exactly. Instead of giving a binary choice, there are other ways a country could be run. Churchill was from another era. EDIT: Besides, Churchill was only a proponent of democracy when it was going HIS way. We have now seen communication cables between FDR and Churchill during WWII, where Churchill implored FDR to go to war against the will of the US Congress. You can't have it both ways.
- saraid216 13y ago
  That doesn't surprise me. Churchill is not someone I'd look to for guidance on political governance. He's internationally recognized and respected because he was a war leader. That's the beginning and end of his qualifications.
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    I recommend the book Pearl Harbor: the Seeds and Fruits of Infamy for anyone who wants to know more (the book is quite neutral despite its title). Free PDF here: http://library.mises.org/books/Percy%20L%20Greaves,%20Jr/Pearl%20Harbor%20The%20Seeds%20and%20Fruits%20of%20Infamy.pdf http://library.mises.org/books/Percy%20L%20Greaves,%20Jr/Pea...

Sniffnoy 13y ago

That have been tried. That it's better than anything else that's been devised is far from clear.

saraid216 13y ago
I actually disagree. (And I disagree with Churchill.) Let's assume that we agree that liberalism is a good thing. We can hash out what "liberalism" actually means, if you like. I'm willing to be flexible on the definition. Given that assumption, let's sketch out a governmental form and argue about feasibility. I suspect that, unless we go very far afield from mainstream concepts of liberalism, we'll arrive at something approximating democracy very closely, differing mostly in that it'll be overly idealistic. Anyone up for playing this game?

fiatmoney 13y ago

Wait, all of your examples are examples of mass violence being unleashed as a result of a conversion from an already existing non-democratic, non-utopian government to a democratic form of government (which incidentally often has has explicitly utopian goals). Your proper decision point isn't "Do I choose liberal democracy or fascism"; it's "given I live in Wilhelmine Germany, do I start a revolution to elect some Nazis".