
How Stable Are Democracies? ‘Warning Signs Are Flashing Red’ - jostylr
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/world/americas/western-liberal-democracy.html
======
norea-armozel
I think the problem with democratic governments today is the fact that they're
winner-take-all. And it's taken to such a extreme that even city governments
which have been more socially liberal in the past decade are being overruled
by state governments being dominated by socially conservative politicians.
They claim that such actions are "needed" to "preserve order." Yet, what I'm
seeing here is the antithesis of order since to overrule a city government
which is closest to the community of citizens they represent is inherently
anti-democratic. This has been a common thread through this election cycle in
the United States where communities that are clearly not in step with their
state governments are being forced to conform. I'm just waiting for the same
social conservatives to make it a mandate that corporations have to abide by
government approved "social conventions" to just negate the non-discrimination
clauses in employment contracts (just as a way to ensure total compliance to
their view of reality). Because the only solution I see for any of this is a
radical form of local democracy with proportional representation at higher
levels of government to take hold and overturn the current system as it is.

~~~
dismantlethesun
> I think the problem with democratic governments today

Was this not a problem with democracies in the past?

~~~
norea-armozel
Yes, but I think those in the past are irrelevant beyond giving us lessons as
to how to fix ours.

------
Pica_soO
Democracy are only stable as long as the surplus generated bribes everyone
into holding still. This is gone.

If only we had used the time, to craft tools that will keep a minima of
society, science and education going even in troubled times.

~~~
hackuser
> the surplus

What are you referring to? If you mean economics, the major democracies are
wealthier than ever.

~~~
coldtea
Wealth doesn't matter in itself as much as the distribution of total wealth
(and relative wealth). Humans are social animals, they don't just want
something to munch and some cover over their head (not to mention that
millions don't even have those), they want to do at least as good as what's
perceived as average for their society.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
If that's truly the case, then all societies everywhere have a permanent and
insurmountable Lake Woebegone ( where all the children are above average )
problem.

~~~
coldtea
I don't see how. For one, "at least as good as what's perceived as average for
their society" is totally feasible without everybody being "above average".

Second, even that was meant as the thing people strive for and want to have.
That doesn't mean that they are only satisfied if they accomplish it and then
some, they can also be ok with being below, but close, to the average.

But even more importantly, the key word is "perceived average". They want to
be close to what they consider average ("middle class") family lifestyle at
least. Not necessarily close to its absolute mathematical definition.

------
hackuser
Particularly chilling are the responses to the question of how essential it is
to live in a democracy. They graph the answers by the decade in which the
respondents were born:

* U.S.: 1930s: 75%, 1980s: ~30%, with a straight line between them.

* U.K.: 58 - 30% (with a jagged line)

(See the graphs in the article for more.)

~~~
burfog
Democracy doesn't feel like democracy when people with your culture (political
party, part of the country, etc.) lose power. When some other culture is
running the show and antagonizing you every day, non-democratic solutions can
look pretty appealing. You might be willing to do anything to fix the
situation. You justify it, because the alternative is WRONG in your mind.

BTW, this applies to both sides. Don't imagine that one culture in your
country -- especially your own -- is immune to this sort of thinking.

~~~
devoply
What is your culture? America is a melting pot of many different cultures. One
dominant culture, and many sub-cultures. When the dominant culture is not
curtailed we see all sorts of problems, which academia has enumerated. So the
dominant people in the dominant culture feel powerless. Because when they are
not in this position, according to academia, bad things happen. Take that how
you want to take it. Governments are okay with this because they want to dis-
empower people, in order to control and manage them better, and this is but
one way of doing that.

~~~
sharemywin
I don't think there is a dominant culture in the US. The power of the American
culture is it's ability to assimilate other cultures and integrate them in.

~~~
hackuser
> I don't think there is a dominant culture in the US.

I think that's a stretch. You will note that most of the country, from
business to government to IT, is run by people of the same skin color, socio-
economic class, and gender. Those people also fill higher education (sans the
gender) the stepping stone to opportunity too. Look at photos of the US
Senate, Fortune 500 CEOs, etc.

That doesn't make them the same 'culture', however the word and its groupings
are defined (it's always nebulous), but clearly there are cultures that are
largely excluded.

------
5706906c06c
How much longer before the U.S. sees some event?

~~~
glbrew
Well, the first terrorist attack after Trump takes office, so about 3 months
from now.

