Representative democracy is finished. It has been gamed to death in two different ways:
- The Euro way, exemplified by the UK, where the populace has the illusion of choice, but where whichever government they elect never enacts popular policies. In short: No matter who you vote for, you're gonna get the same managerial class running the show. The Tories and Labour are now practically indistinguishable on all major issues.
- The US way, where ideological polarization, and the capture of both political parties by their fringes, means that you can only vote for one or another extreme.
(To say nothing of capture by oligarchs and moneyed interests, etc.)
Both forms are inherently unstable. I'd argue that the latter feels more unstable, but the former is more dangerous -- for the American way of treating politics as a gang affiliation or team sport diverts the animal energies of the populace, whereas the Euro way leads to despair and resentment.
The only ways out are with much more democracy, like Switzerland (++) -- or much less democracy, like China. If human nature is inherently good, pray for the former; if it is evil, the latter is more suitable. Ancient Chinese sages like my man Han Feizi were understandably interested in this question.
D'oh, yes? Simplistic ideologues proclaim that "democracy" is some fabulous thing, which will provide peace & prosperity & justice & happily-ever-after for everyone, if only we believe.
Meanwhile, it gets more and more obvious to the 90% that those proclamations are bullshit, and this magic "democracy" stuff is good only for the 1%.
Note that there is nothing special about "democracy" here. I could make the same arguments about "communism" in '80's-era Eastern Europe, or "theocracy" in modern Iran, or ...
Whichever -ocracy's and -ism's your society idolizes - behind the shiny facade, a whole lot of people have to give a crap about making it actually work for the vast majority of your citizens, then work hard at doing that. Complacent modern "gimme, now!" capitalism has largely optimized that work out of western societies, leading to obvious instabilities.
I could make the same arguments about "communism" in '80's-era Eastern Europe, or "theocracy" in modern Iran
No, you can't, without completely making stuff up. Plenty of people have lived in those and also the other alternatives who could tell you this, not that it's difficult to surmise without that experience.
Representative democracy is finished. It has been gamed to death in two different ways:
- The Euro way, exemplified by the UK, where the populace has the illusion of choice, but where whichever government they elect never enacts popular policies. In short: No matter who you vote for, you're gonna get the same managerial class running the show. The Tories and Labour are now practically indistinguishable on all major issues.
- The US way, where ideological polarization, and the capture of both political parties by their fringes, means that you can only vote for one or another extreme.
(To say nothing of capture by oligarchs and moneyed interests, etc.)
Both forms are inherently unstable. I'd argue that the latter feels more unstable, but the former is more dangerous -- for the American way of treating politics as a gang affiliation or team sport diverts the animal energies of the populace, whereas the Euro way leads to despair and resentment.
The only ways out are with much more democracy, like Switzerland (++) -- or much less democracy, like China. If human nature is inherently good, pray for the former; if it is evil, the latter is more suitable. Ancient Chinese sages like my man Han Feizi were understandably interested in this question.
D'oh, yes? Simplistic ideologues proclaim that "democracy" is some fabulous thing, which will provide peace & prosperity & justice & happily-ever-after for everyone, if only we believe.
Meanwhile, it gets more and more obvious to the 90% that those proclamations are bullshit, and this magic "democracy" stuff is good only for the 1%.
Note that there is nothing special about "democracy" here. I could make the same arguments about "communism" in '80's-era Eastern Europe, or "theocracy" in modern Iran, or ...
Whichever -ocracy's and -ism's your society idolizes - behind the shiny facade, a whole lot of people have to give a crap about making it actually work for the vast majority of your citizens, then work hard at doing that. Complacent modern "gimme, now!" capitalism has largely optimized that work out of western societies, leading to obvious instabilities.
I could make the same arguments about "communism" in '80's-era Eastern Europe, or "theocracy" in modern Iran
No, you can't, without completely making stuff up. Plenty of people have lived in those and also the other alternatives who could tell you this, not that it's difficult to surmise without that experience.
Are you claiming that Soviet communism did not promise a bright & prosperous future to the young and the working classes?
Or do you feel that it delivered on such a promise?
Or what?