
Centrists, not extremists, are most hostile to democracy - anigbrowl
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/23/opinion/international-world/centrists-democracy.html
======
sandov
On a first glance, I see many issues with this article: (sorry for my mediocre
English)

1\. Extremists may have given pro-democracy answers in order to make their
ideology/side seen as more benevolent.

2\. Thinking that a democracy isn't a "very good" political system doesn't
mean that you are going to be less contrary to an authoritarian political
system. Maybe the opposite is true.

2a) Many people may have answered that democracy = "very good" simply because
that's the idea that's been pushed by media, school, social pressure, etc.

Maybe the same psychological trait that makes people be skeptic of this idea
that _democracy is basically the perfect system_ is the one that makes people
develop a centrist ideology,

2b)Maybe that same skepticism would make them oppose an authoritarian regime
more than people who think democracy is perfect

3\. Maybe people who think democracy is "very good" also think that an
authoritarian regime is not that bad, but people who think democracy is
mediocre think that an authoritarian regime is inacceptable.

4\. Maybe the scale centrists use for good-bad is offset in relation to the
scale extremists use for good-bad, but the relative distances between a
dictatorship and a democracy are the same in both scales.

5\. The author says that liberty and democracy are inherently related, which
might not be the idea that everyone has. Then he confuses "I think liberty is
necessary for democracy" with "I support liberty" which is not always the
case.

Example: someone might fully support liberty, but not think that democracy
always ends in liberty, maybe people will democratically decide that liberty
is undesirable in favor of security, equality, etc.

My point is that you can't conclude the author's thesis from the data
presented in the article alone.

~~~
noobermin
1) You assume extremists act as a group rather than individuals in this
survey, why don't centrists do the same?

2) In comparison to extremists, centrists we're less likely to say democracy
is very good. Authoritarianism isn't the only alternative to democracy.

2a) then yes, centrists are not as supportive of democracy as extremists.

2b) sure

3) same as above. It doesn't matter what the alternative is, they are less
supportive of democracy than extremists.

4) Not sure I understand (no need to list this in my reply, but just being
consistent)

5) again, those who hold those ideas (that democracy doesn't lead to liberty)
are less supportive of democracy.

Are you just trying to rationalize why someone would not be supportive of
democracy? That isn't an issue with the article, that is a justification of
the centrist position.

------
falcolas
Wow. There's so much context from the questionnaires being lost in this
exceptionally simplistic analysis that it's a bit embarrassing.

I'd really like to see someone who is... less motivated to get the answer they
want... do a proper analysis of the data. There's potentially some very
interesting things going on there.

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
Yeah, that's one of the most shallow pieces of analysis I've seen in NYT. I'm
not sure how it got published.

------
namlem
Elections are not synonymous with democracy. In fact, elections were actually
seen as oligarchic and undemocratic in ancient Athens. Sortition, or random
selection, is how they conducted their democracy. And they were right to do
so, it is a much more democratic system.

------
qop
Reason has always decried impulsiveness!

Democracy seems appealing if you're insecure and/or naive enough to think that
the next guy probably knows better and you're willing to rely on that as a
rule.

The real world is many orders of magnitude more complex and idiosyncratic than
most political thought expresses.

Admittedly, I didn't read TFA, but the headline is a glaringly obvious
conclusion that nytimes is undoubtedly parading as some radical, innovative
revelation.

In my (very limited) experience, the fewer logical and polariZed jumps a
person is willing to make, the more rational that person is, or at least that
thought they're pursuing at that time. People jumping down a spectrum of
subjectivity are not engaged to a paradigm of any reason or rational or
logical thought, it's all emotional and egotistical. One claim never begets
another, only evidence.

~~~
echotango
Great point about the complexity of the real world. I would add that people
who favor simple explanations are more likely to be centrist (supports status
quo) because they are less likely to question the simple explanations handed
to them.

George W Bush in so many words said "We must invade Iraq or they will nuke
us." Compared to that, any arguement against the war would have seemed like a
lot of logical jumps, but the simple argument was a lie.

~~~
qop
Great example, that's along the lines of the kind of weird rhetoric politics
is known for. Iraq is an entire country! Thousands of villages, micro and
macroeconomic activity, relationships with several dozen other countries! It's
got everything every other country has: complexity.

Simple minded "let's get em" shit didn't work then and won't work now.

------
mto
Only that basically every right winger I've left didn't call himself right but
center. Might be a European thing because they'll quickly call you Nazi
otherwise, but still... "I'm not a racist, but...".

The other point is that they really do love their hierarchies, but probably
don't think they do. Just looking at all the Burschenschaften (fraternities)
I've seen with their strong sense for hierarchy and leadership. Yet only few
of them acknowledge it and feel it's that way. It's only from the outside that
you can see it really. Person cult is certainly strongest with the extremer
parties. Looking at people in Austria dressing their babies in Strache or
Hofer shirts and filling their Facebook profiles with photos together with
them etc. You never see that with the traditionally centrist parties. They
don't have those strong figures but seem more like a homogenous mass of people
where you're hard pressed to name one of them. But I have to admit that it's
probably one of the reasons why they're losing so much nowadays where people
are seeking for those personalities again and love to hype Jobs, Musk or
whoever else comes along..

