Is liberal democracy in terminal decline?

Posted by alephnerd 1 day ago

Counter62Comment161OpenOriginal

Comments

Comment by rawgabbit 1 day ago

In the US, we are witnessing one of the flaws of the Constitution. The Executive branch, which is supposed to carry out the laws, is ignoring the law. Both Congress and the Supreme Court are acquiescing. The only people who are pushing back are the lower courts (which again are ignored by the Executive branch). This is dysfunction on a national level.

Comment by pjc50 1 day ago

All three parts are controlled by the same party, so of course it collapses to a unitary executive.

It's not dysfunction, either. It's functioning exactly as intended, by the people who spent years setting it up, and is delivering their goals. Top of which was abortion bans, which required spending years patiently stacking the Supreme Court.

That the goals are stupid and evil and incoherent is a separate problem.

Comment by dylan604 1 day ago

The patience of waiting for "their guy" to be given 3 posts to SCOTUS in one term was the ultimate pay off. It just so happened that "their guy" has got to be one of the most malleable to anyone's position as he has no position of his own other than being "the guy".

Comment by markoman 1 day ago

I really wonder how history will view DJT -- surely one of the most flawed yet consequential figures in American history -- who nonetheless had the good fortune of two untimely deaths (Scalia & Ginsburg) and some arm-twisting (Kennedy) which he parlayed into fantastic 'success' in the SCOTUS. This includes primarily the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, and the incredible Presidential Immunity doctrine, which is essentially legislation via judicial decision.

The falsity of how the SCOTUS was captured by the executive branch was ultimately rooted in lies. Trump's three nominees all lied about their position on Roe v. Wade during their confirmations.

As a case in point, consider Justice Brett Kavanaugh who wrote that Roe was "wrongly decided" in a concurring opinion on Dobbs (2022). Yet in his 2018 confirmation hearing he testified that Roe v. Wade was "important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times" and went on to discuss the importance of judicial precedent. Of course the Kavanaugh hearing was an utter circus in every sense, but it was obvious that he had lied during a number of exchanges with senators.

Let's not forget that just a few months ago in a decision, it was Kavanaugh who gave us the 'Kavanaugh stop' which is a law enforcement practice in the United States in which federal agents can stop and detain a person based on their perceived ethnicity, spoken language, and occupation. This doctrine reset what constituted 'reasonable suspicion' for any police stop.

Comment by pjc50 1 day ago

> I really wonder how history will view DJT -- surely one of the most flawed yet consequential figures in American history

History is written by the victors, so that depends who gets to write the legislation controlling which version of early 20th century history is allowed in universities in 2100.

Comment by dylan604 1 day ago

regardless of future winners, DJT will have a significant impact in the historical timeline whether you do or don't like him. There's the potential for ending the democratic experiment, or there's potential of being just the most significant test for its survival. either way, there will be more discussed than presidents 8 - 15 combined.

Comment by betty_staples 19 hours ago

[dead]

Comment by wat10000 1 day ago

A major purpose of the Constitution was to design a system with independent components that would jealously guard their power against the others. This has been eroding for decades, and has now spectacularly failed.

Comment by 1718627440 1 day ago

> All three parts are controlled by the same party, so of course it collapses to a unitary executive.

I don't think that's necessarily to be the case. As far as I understand how my country is supposed to work, Congressman and Judges are only responsible towards their own conscience and maybe the constitution. They are supposed to and do control each other, regardless of which party they are in. Just because people are in the same party doesn't mean they are now agents of the same power. That's not called party, that would be called a cult.

Granted this is not what seems to happen in the USA right now.

Comment by scoofy 1 day ago

I mean, machine politics means that Congressmen who want to stay Congressmen fall in line.

The problem was never the system, the problem is always that the electorate actually wants this. The system is there to prevent a king from emerging if the people do not overwhelmingly want a king. Right now, we have a president and congress and judicial system in place that were all put there by people who actually want this stuff. The fact that that electorate is often unsophisticated or don't actually vote is ultimately the problem, and there's a real chance it could lead to civil war.

Obviously this is all terrible, but the American left have spent nearly three generations putting all their faith in the judicial branch to just "take care of it" because passing legislation became "too hard" because they didn't want to get rid of the filibuster. Now those chickens are coming home to roost. We have a judiciary that is saying "we need legislation more than the assumption of rights" and the American left just isn't willing to actually force through legislation when they have power.

Comment by PaulHoule 1 day ago

Yeah but how legitimate is the Constitution really? Nobody alive has given their consent to it!

The average American sees the system producing bad results, at some level people still worship the Constitution like a god when it says something they agree with, on an other level the system can feel like an exhausting and dispiriting legalistic hellscape.

How bad the results we are getting is open to debate. People today seem to be really angry about inflation and cost of living issues although the official numbers don't look too terrible. There's the explanation that the numbers are wrong and the explanation that the perception is wrong. There's probably some truth in both, but more fundamentally people don't find centrist politics of any kind emotionally satisfying anywhere anymore but when you get emotionally satisfying politics you wake up with a hangover the next day.

I think a lack of meaning is a part of it. If you're not really sure your citizenship is worth something or that you're part of something you're proud of, it's easy to get worked up about illegal immigration. If you don't have a sense of purpose, what is there to be concerned about than the price of eggs? Purposelessness turns the slightest irritation into an existential threat.

Comment by 1718627440 1 day ago

> Yeah but how legitimate is the Constitution really? Nobody alive has given their consent to it!

You do by being a citizen. You can renounce your citizenship, if you don't want a constitution to bind you. You can always ask another country whether they want you as a citizen, if you prefer their constitution.

> emotionally satisfying

Democracy is not supposed to be "emotionally satisfying", Democracy is boring. That's what makes it great. If you want "emotionally satisfying", than you have better lack with a monarchy, dictatorship or civil war.

Comment by aebtebeten 1 day ago

> emotionally satisfying

I think this is the basic issue: politics is about satisfying objective needs, in terms of allocating public goods and coordinating independent actors; it's not about satisfying emotional needs.

The latter is better done by oneself, or at worst through one's kith or karass, and certainly not at the granfalloon levels at which politics operates.

Comment by 1718627440 1 day ago

> kith, karass, granfalloon

Can you translate these for the not-so-gifted people among as (e.g. me)?

Comment by aebtebeten 1 day ago

kith: people whom you have chosen to be in your entourage (friends, etc., as opposed to kin)

karass: (from "Cat's Cradle", 1963) "a group of people linked in a cosmically significant manner, even when superficial linkages are not evident"

granfalloon: (idem) "a false karass; i.e., a group of people who imagine they have a connection that does not really exist. An example is 'Hoosiers'. Hoosiers are people from Indiana, and Hoosiers have no true spiritual destiny in common. They really share little more than a name."

Comment by gsf_emergency_6 22 hours ago

Etymological pedantry: Falloon is roughly Gaelic for "son of a leader", so granfalloon is ... An apt label for the Kennedys?

Functional pedantry:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastMonth&page=0&prefix=tr...

Satisfies my cognitive dissonance needs (from afar :)

Somewhat in the same reactionary progressivism bracket as PH. I.e. have to occasionally delve into their code to see how it's working out for them so far :)

(American Gen-Z[0] are the new hipsters (middle-middle class formal-education-shunning rebels[1], I hope the HN DAU agrees with me!!)

[0]both geohot and PH's son

[1]James Dean, Marlon Brando, James Franco.. or at the very least their most popular characters

Comment by aebtebeten 14 hours ago

ok, so how representative are geohot and PH's son? I'm not seeing much of either over here, but maybe it's just a case of "try that in a small country?"

[1] let's not forget "Joe Cool"; but then again maybe he doesn't shun formal education: https://i.pinimg.com/170x/31/59/7d/31597dc97c7c3591ef9e2ac14...

TW Körner on formal education: https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~twk10/Naked.pdf#page=11

> ...since good students mainly educate themselves outside the lecture room, you need not worry that you will influence them too much. Eventually they will outgrow you. The clever ones will make this clear to you but the very clever ones will listen to you as respectfully as ever.

Comment by gsf_emergency_6 13 hours ago

Edit: propaganda https://archive.ph/bZg92 https://archive.ph/o/bZg92/https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/car...

Sorry!! I should have been much more careful with this potentially incendiary stuff.. I'm not saying all gen-Z are hipsters that's dumb. But that the ("anti-elitist") middle middle class is where we might look for the new breed of "hipsters" to replace those Bernie Bros

Where we are: intellectual polarization is nowhere as marked as in suburban America.. (Remember Tocqueville!!)

>I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America

>Among a multitude of men you will find a selfish, mercantile, and trading taste for the discoveries of the mind, which must not be confounded with that disinterested passion which is kindled in the heart of a few.

I wouldn't listen to Koerner on this. He might have had a great time pre-college? Did he go to schools where each teacher taught every subject?? My examples above didn't even make it to college..

(Geohot tried long after he got famous, --on the prodding of kith+kin AIUI--, straight into gradschool(!!) but then dropped out again.. Poole had a similar path. I personally know dozens of technically brilliant boys who struggled K-12)

Comment by aebtebeten 11 hours ago

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/education/learning-from-switzer... ... maybe I should've qualified, as our idea of "formal" has many more tracks?

(I also may be the wrong person to talk with about this, as I have both a 4-year degree and a trade, thanks to Aristippus' advice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristippus#:~:text=It%20is%20r... )

Comment by gsf_emergency_6 11 hours ago

Yes, I had a different idea of "formal" from the Swiss one (which actually approximates the vibe in my current locality better than the UK)

Comment by PaulHoule 1 day ago

The problem with that is that disaffected people vote and politicians can win by being emotionally satisfying when the alternatives aren't.

The common denominator on the left and the right is a completely garbled and fragmentary concept of the Constitution. Until recently you would have thought right wingers only cared about the second amendment although in the last ten years they've discovered the first but in the garbled sense that Facebook owes you a megaphone (for "free as in beer") and Twitter is doing a crime if they don't give your posts maximum visiblity with all the other spam and scams.

Comment by 1718627440 1 day ago

> politicians can win by being emotionally satisfying

That is called populism and comes with a huge stigma for a reason.

> The common denominator on the left and the right is a completely garbled and fragmentary concept of the Constitution.

Sure, a disagreement with what people think and what the constitution says is going to cause problems. Ultimately society is based on trust, once you loose that you have already lost some important part. The existence and growth of para-country organizations (e.g. FAANG) has certainly affected if not effected your current issue (and continues to do so for other countries in the world).

Comment by gsf_emergency_6 22 hours ago

Pedantry: the general term is emotivism, not populism. "intellectuals" (shorthand for the average HNer) are vulnerable to that, we just won't admit it.

It's hard for trust to work beyond the Dunbar limit-- representative democracy is a jerry-rig-- but Swiss sidestep that with (a version of) direct democracy

Update: since there's a false etymology that "jerry" comes from "German", may I suggest we stay below the line

https://magdamiu.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/13.png

https://old.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/16npbs4/...

Comment by mothballed 1 day ago

>You do by being a citizen. You can renounce your citizenship, if you don't want a constitution to bind you. You can always ask another country whether they want you as a citizen, if you prefer their constitution.

Yeah that's not how consent works. "Leave and pay me $2000+" is the robber's or rapist's version of consent. There is no rational version of consent that requires the counterparty to pay you a large sum of money and travel to an embassy in order to declare an opt-out to consent. Most people here never consented to being a citizen unless they naturalized.

Comment by mothballed 1 day ago

It's not a question of whether the Constitution is legitimate.

It's that it's the only plausible thing that authorizes our government to exist.

If they aren't following the constitution then they're just a collection of people LARPing in costumes while initiating violence on others.

Comment by _DeadFred_ 1 day ago

WTF are you talking about? We give consent to the status quo every year we don't make Constitutional amendments. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

I have lost 15 pounds in the last month because I have had to change my food habits due to price increases. It's healthy for me so far, but soon it won't be.

People have been promised an immigration fix since Ronald Reagan gave millions of undocumented amnesty in the 1980s. This frustration isn't new, and people in the 1980s under the cold war were pretty avid supporters of the US system.

Comment by PaulHoule 1 day ago

"... every year we don't make Constitutional amendments" is kinda proof of the opposite, that the system is broken and no longer able to make constitutional amendments.

The Constitution is legitimate in terms of itself, but if you want ask the question of why people don't take threats to our institution seriously the answer is that people don't actually believe in it.

The people who run our institutions reject the idea that output legitimacy matters and they will lose our republic on account of that. ("how could we be held accountable for the results we get, we can't control that" is a Hillary Clinton line that she'll borrow trouble with, Trump will only use that line after it has all fallen apart)

Comment by gsf_emergency_6 21 hours ago

Gen Z in swing counties within swing states, for they are aware that the republic is not theirs, so paradoxically, it might be emotionally satisfying to lose it for the other gens ;)

Comment by _DeadFred_ 7 hours ago

Because we haven't flexed out power authority in forever doesn't mean we did have it, just that we were too apathetic to be willing to use it. We picked this route, and yet your response it 'but politicians did politician things'. Weak sauce. Politicians don't hold themselves responsible, we do. Or in the case of the USA for the last forever, we no longer do. If it's because the politicians convinced us we are powerless, or some other reason, it doesn't matter. WE CHOSE to give up our power.

Comment by cindyllm 23 hours ago

[dead]

Comment by burnt-resistor 1 day ago

Something perhaps Gödel identified but failed to disclose.

Also, a large problem is the self-reinforcing pattern of corruption and influence peddling.

Comment by Yizahi 1 day ago

You are forgetting about legislative branch too. Congress fist voluntarily "gifted" their right to the executive branch, in the form of the eCaNoMic ImErGenCy. And then Congress passed a measure which blocked every single member of Congress from legally questioning that "gift", in the form of legislation that whole year 2025 is one single calendar day, and thus a legal requirement of waiting 10 (or 15?) days before protest couldn't pass. Essentially Congress blatantly broke Constitution twice. At minimum.

Comment by Herring 1 day ago

They had no choice. Trump literally rewrote the republican party in his image. Congressmen who weren't falling in line got fired or forced to retire. Many many times, eg see Liz Cheney. The last time a purge like this happened was at the time of the Civil War. Even super-popular FDR tried taking out conservative democrats but wasn't successful (democrats don't have that kind of tribal discipline).

Comment by Yizahi 1 day ago

Well, they did had a choice. And all of them are directly complicit in this situation by not reforming electoral college and first part the post election system. All current and past congressmen are guilty in that, since they have preserved a broken system so long as it benefited them personally.

Comment by Herring 1 day ago

Maybe I misspoke, I mean it's an institutional+cultural failure. Looking forward, if we're to ever get out of this, it'll need something real big. Like another great depression leading to FDR's New Deal. Or Europe's hundreds of millions dead in two world wars. Heroism from individual congressmen isn't gonna cut it.

Comment by psunavy03 1 day ago

The Supreme Court has told Trump to pound sand as often as it's upheld his policies. As dangerous as many of the things the Trump administration is doing are, there are other dangerous narratives out there, and the caricaturing of the Supreme Court is one of those.

There's a huge difference between "I disagree with this legal rationale" and "this court is illegitimate." Like it or not, every Justice on the Court is there legitimately. One of them via bare-knuckle hardball politics, to be sure. But according to the rules.

Comment by dylan604 1 day ago

One of them is there because Congress made up rules to deny a sitting president his legitimate right to make a nomination. So I would say that judge is illegitimate to a lot of people.

Comment by psunavy03 1 day ago

The President made a nomination. The Senate refused it. It's the Senate's prerogative to deny confirmation to the nominee.

Comment by ceejayoz 1 day ago

The Senate made it very clear they would refuse any nomination.

Which is a scenario it seems the Founders didn't really anticipate.

Comment by dylan604 1 day ago

There's a difference between putting a nomination to a vote and denying versus "we don't accept nominations in last year of an outgoing POTUS" yet turned right around and did it for Trump's third nomination. In that sense, 2 out of 3 would be deemed illegitimate on the same rule being applied in opposite ways. If you can't see the hypocrisy in that, then we really can't have an honest conversation

Comment by pjc50 1 day ago

Do they get to stay there legitimately regardless of what outside influence they receive? https://theweek.com/in-depth/1022846/a-running-list-of-clare...

(Thomas was appointed by GHW Bush, pre-dating the first Iraq war)

Comment by psunavy03 1 day ago

Yes. That's what the impeachment clause is for.

Comment by Yizahi 1 day ago

An anecdote - it is maybe lesser known fact in the west, but Putin deems himself a very law abiding person, and he proudly repeats this many times over his 26 year reign. The only tiny problem is that he himself first changes those laws as he sees fit. And then he can play pretend to be law abiding.

I think you get the hint. In despotias laws mean nothing really. USA is not there yet, but the process is very gradual, glacial even. But irreversible.

Comment by collinmcnulty 1 day ago

This deeply misunderstands the Court. The legitimacy of the Supreme Court rests not simply on the justices being placed on the Court via the letter of the law, but also on the Court being an impartial arbiter of what the Constitution says. With verdicts like Trump vs. USA, the Court (especially certain justices) has pretty well jettisoned even trying to convincingly appear to like a judicial body and instead is behaving as a purely political actor. The Court has never been immune from politics, but its legitimacy rests in restraining itself by what the Constitution says, even when the justices don't like it.

Comment by beej71 1 day ago

> The Supreme Court has told Trump to pound sand as often as it's upheld his policies.

Has it? Last I saw, they had overturned nearly 90% of lower conservative court rulings to be in Trump's favor, and a huge portion of those were on the shadow docket.

They also said it's fine to gift the justices, just not before they make a ruling.

And they gave the President a lot more immunity than he previously had.

If they're not actually corrupt, they look exactly as if they are.

Comment by UncleMeat 1 day ago

psunavy03 is lying to you. Trump is very obviously not losing in front of the supreme court 50% of the time.

Comment by wat10000 1 day ago

Legitimacy can mean more than just following the letter of the rules. There's a pretty good argument to be made that refusing to even hold hearings for a nominee is a violation of the Senate's Constitutional duties. And refusing to uphold norms is a completely reasonable basis for calling something illegitimate as well. A pretty big chunk of our legal system is based on precedent and norms rather than written law.

Comment by ModernMech 1 day ago

Giving Trump “Presidential Immunity” instead of allowing him to be tried for the insurrection and auto coup he attempted really tips the scales though. In terms of eroding democratic norms, that was a landslide.

Comment by lovich 1 day ago

Overturning multiple precedents coming from decades ago, citing legal theorists from before the creation of our country to do so, and the increasing use of the shadow docket to geld the lower courts seems pretty illegitimate to me.

Also lol, this court is turning into heads Trump wins, tails everyone loses.

They ruled that Biden couldn’t forgive student loans but Trump has absolute immunity.

Comment by tokai 1 day ago

Who would have know it would be a disaster to base your system on the Roman Republic?!

Comment by AnimalMuppet 1 day ago

Well, that gave us a system that worked (with some modifications) for over 200 years, so that's still pretty good?

Comment by nh23423fefe 1 day ago

lol civil war (just like the romans loved to do) within 80 years of founding isnt great.

Comment by paganel 1 day ago

The Constitution without the people willing to "respect" it is just a piece of dead wood, it has always been like that. That applies to all Constitution-like covenants, no matter the time and the geographical location.

What's changed now, compared to the past, it's that the people deciding that what's written there is bogus have started changing things a little bit faster compared to the usual, hence all the brouhaha. Also a reminder that the Slavery System was very much alive and all under this same US Constitution for more than half a century, which goes to show that's it's really just a piece of dead wood.

Comment by gregbot 1 day ago

So do you oppose DACA? That was the executive deliberately refusing to enforce the law as passed by congress.

Edit: Here’s what a federal judge had to say in 2023: "The solution for these deficiencies lies with the legislature, not the executive or judicial branches. Congress, for any number of reasons, has decided not to pass DACA-like legislation ... The Executive Branch cannot usurp the power bestowed on Congress by the Constitution — even to fill a void." https://www.npr.org/2023/09/14/1199428038/federal-judge-agai...

> Also, as an aside, if the bad actors in government who were screeching about DACA's constitutionality put even a fraction of that effort into protecting the Constitution when the First and Fourth Amendments were on the line, that would be great.

This is actual whataboutism

Comment by wan23 1 day ago

Obama deported more people than Bush or Clinton, but chose to deprioritize (defer action) on the most sympathetic and focused more on troublemakers. Some might call that pragmatic use of limited resources.

Comment by pjc50 1 day ago

And - crucially - did not have indiscriminate sweeps or raids. The number of false positives, people deported or arrested who had a legitimate right to remain, was nowhere near as high.

Almost everywhere has immigration enforcement. Most of those will do the occasional raid on homes or workplaces. Very rarely do you see the kinds of conflict that ICE is (IMO intentionally) causing.

Comment by plagiarist 1 day ago

I'm reading through the Wikipedia and you'll have to explain this because it looks like that version of the federal government respected injunctions that were issued. Or we can drop the pretense that you want to start a discussion in good faith with this whataboutism, that's fine with me too.

Also, as an aside, if the bad actors in government who were screeching about DACA's constitutionality put even a fraction of that effort into protecting the Constitution when the First and Fourth Amendments were on the line, that would be great.

Comment by aappleby 1 day ago

Oh boy, whataboutism!

Comment by mstank 1 day ago

The pendulum is swinging back slightly, but I wouldn’t pronounce it dead just yet.

We are seeing a decline of American hegemony, accelerated by this current regime. And the ascendancy of a non-democratic superpower.

However, the largest chunk of GDP and growth still sits firmly in democratic countries and very consequential American elections are happening this year, and in 2028.

The real question is, will Europe find its spine?

Comment by idibiks 1 day ago

That so many people still think we're in a recoverable state for a near- or even mid-term return to "normal" is part of why we're definitely not. The fundamental fixes we need to make, and even awareness of what those problems are that need to be fixed, remain nerd-shit that normal people aren't even aware of, let alone pushing their representatives to achieve.

If you want a primer on where we're already moving into, and likely to remain for some time, this wikipedia article is the place to start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_regime

In a decade, the year most scholars of political science will say the US slipped fully into this will likely be either 2025 or 2026.

But yes, we'll probably still have elections. Functionally nobody's talking about what those elections would need to be laser-focused on achieving to turn us from this path, though. Court reform, eliminating much of the post-9/11 security apparatus, revoking a great deal of authority congress has ceded to the president. Even the democrats won't have the votes to get a majority on most of that, even if they didn't have to worry about a veto and if they took a slim majority in both chambers. They won't get more than 90% of their own members on board with any of that, in many cases, probably not even 50%. We're toast. The very best we might get is a little push-back on tariff power and, if we're very lucky, a substantial reduction in ICE funding. No restructuring the absurd and dangerous under-the-executive(?!) immigration courts to fall under the judiciary instead. No court reform. No undoing large parts of the USA PATRIOT Act. No full abolition of our paramilitary domestic police force. We'll relieve a few symptoms, maybe, in the very best case, but not treat any part of the disease. And that's the best plausible outcome.

Comment by latexr 1 day ago

> very consequential American elections are happening this year, and in 2028.

Let’s hope they are (happening).

Comment by tdb7893 1 day ago

There's no way to stop them federally without a full coup since they are administered by the states. The US has a long history of not cancelling election but suppressing votes (e.g. literacy tests, gerrymandering, closing polling locations, etc).

I would look more for voting place shenanigans, voter ID laws with only a weird subset of IDs allowed, radical gerrymandering, and stuff like that. Some of it will be blatantly partisan but also people are using justifications like "restoring trust in elections" to advocate for things that reduce the general franchise. They don't need to do a lot since a few percent is enough to swing the general balance of things.

Comment by tcb678 1 day ago

Your contention only works in a functioning democracy.

Republicans currently control ~55% of all state legislative seats nationally and hold governing majorities in most states. In some of these states, they are incredibly partisan and just don't care - they will burn it all down to stay in power (MO, TX, etc.) Congress is required to certify the results of presidential elections, but state and congressional elections are a different matter. Those are certified at the state level, by state officials.

So what happens if Republican led states simply decide to declare, "We certify that the incumbent representative has been reelected," regardless of the actual vote count, or play other games e.g. discarding votes, eligibility, etc? It would be wildly illegal, of course. It would almost certainly trigger lawsuits, protests, and significant political repercussions within each state.

But here's the problem: in many of these jurisdictions, the federal district courts are controlled by Republican-appointed judges. The circuit courts are too. If the state officials certifying the results are Republican, the state courts and legislatures are friendly, and the federal courts that would hear any challenge are also sympathetic, how exactly would anyone stop them? Who enforces the ruling if the courts themselves are part of the alignment? The U.S. DOJ will not take up these cases on anyone's behalf. And in such a circumstance, you're unlikely to find a Congress willing to impeach the officials failing to do that.

More importantly, the National Guard and/or the Army gets activated under the Insurrection Act. So. That's the ballgame.

Comment by tdb7893 1 day ago

I'm expecting shenanigans at the state level. I'm not saying there won't be malfeasance, it's just that the "no election happening" is not really a possibility at this point without a full coup.

People keep saying "if" the election happens and it's definitely happening, it's just whether it's free and fair (the US has never had incredibly fair elections even in modern times, highly gerrymandered two party elections are really stupid, but substantially less fair than even the somewhat low bar the US traditionally sets for our democracy).

Comment by AnimalMuppet 1 day ago

A few percent may not be enough to swing 2026.

What there are also going to be are allegations, claims of cheating, lawsuits...

Comment by idibiks 1 day ago

They are happening. Polling places in districts with close races will even have ICE stopping suspiciously foreign-seeming people to make sure non-citizens don't vote, since that's a real, actual, pressing problem and not made-up bullshit. Since Democrats are the ones committing these (mysteriously un-investigated) criminal conspiracies to let illegal immigrants vote, naturally ICE's limited resources will focus on polling places where the demographics lean heavily democratic.

They'll be the most free and fair elections we've had since 2016, and maybe ever!

Comment by burnerzzzzz 19 hours ago

cant tell if this is sarcasm or you’re a maga nut

Comment by idibiks 18 hours ago

Sarcasm. Though I do think that’s a highly-likely scenario in November.

Comment by alephnerd 1 day ago

Hungary isn't the only illiberal democracy within the EU - France, Italy, Slovakia, Romania, Poland, Cyprus, Malta, Slovenia, Latvia, Belgium, Lithuania, Croatia, and Bulgaria are all either Illiberal/Flawed Democracies or Hybrid Regimes according to the EIU ranking [0].

Now that Babis is back in power with the backing of SPD and AUTO, it will also revert back into an Illiberal/Flawed Democracy.

Furthermore, all states on the cusp of EU membership (Albania, Montenegro) are also Illiberal/Flawed Democracies.

> largest chunk of GDP and growth still sits firmly in democratic countries

The only Full Democracies in the 10 largest GDPs are Germany, Japan, and the UK. Japan under Takaichi Sanae is pro-Trump and Germany is likely to see the AfD break it's cordon sanitare by 2029.

[0] - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/democracy-index-eiu

Comment by inglor_cz 1 day ago

Don't rely on these magic figures too much. Some of the parameters judged by the EUI are very soft and prone to subjectivism/manipulation.

Is Greek government really more functional than Polish/Czech one? My personal experience would say "nope".

Comment by alephnerd 1 day ago

Functional doesn't mean "more democratic". What matters is institutions, jurisprudence, and norms.

And after having dealt with the experience of opening a large foreign office in Czechia, there absolutely is a democratic deficit (sure it's extremely efficient, but we just needed to keep a handful of decisionmakers and "phone a (now deceased) friend" in a non-democratic manner).

Comment by inglor_cz 1 day ago

The index you just cited is calculated out of five sub-numbers, one of whom is literally "functional government", and Czechia for some reason gets rather low 6.4 on this, less than Greece.

First, this is not my experience, and second, much like you I don't think that this is particularly relevant to the democratic character of the country.

I also would like to hear more about the democratic deficit you describe. Most problems around opening anything are caused by bureaucracy, which is obliged to follow norms produced by the lawmakers. Some of these norms are stupid, but that does not mean that they are undemocratic. Voters have the right to be stupid and to elect stupid representatives who produce stupid norms.

Comment by alephnerd 1 day ago

> democratic character of the country

The core crux of "democratic character" is providing an even playing field as much as possible institutionally, organizationally, and politically. If functioning is subpar or requires "hacks" or misaligned institutions, it undermines democratic character itself.

Chest-thumping while ignoring the real degradation of institutions in a large portion of Europe is only going to put you back in the same position as the US.

> I also would like to hear more about the democratic deficit you describe

I'd rather not given the incumbent in power and how small the Cybersecurity FDI community in Czechia is. Maybe Vsquare, just not you.

Comment by inglor_cz 1 day ago

OK, you prophesied that Czechia will lose its current EUI number under the incoming government.

Which of the five numbers that, averaged together, result in the total score, do you expect to lower and why?

Comment by alephnerd 1 day ago

I'd expect a degradation to start in Civil Liberties scores with ANO's plan to abolition of the license fee; merge CT and CRo; and then move to a fully state funded operating model for the NewCo.

I also expect the political culture score to start steadily dropping as SPD and AUTO's competition to "own" the far-right leads to the intensification of culture war discourse, and potentially forces ANO to start opportunistically shifting right as well.

I don't expect "functioning of government" scores to shift significantly either, as the same issues that persisted when I helped my former employer enter Czechia still remain.

Our PortCos will still continue to remain in CZ because once you build that network it makes everything so much easier (and because Israeli founders and operators continue to have a soft spot for CZ), but the manner if which we need to operate in Czechia and maintain closeness with the right people isn't that different from emerging markets.

And that I feel is the crux of the issue in Czechia and much of the CEE - once you know the right 20-30 people or their friends or colleagues, you get the red carpet. Otherwise, it's an uneven playing field.

Comment by inglor_cz 1 day ago

The model that is being discussed for the public broadcasters is that they will be financed by a certain fixed percentage of the country's GDP, and I don't think that there will be any merging of CT and CRo; there is no agreement on that in the coalition.

"intensification of culture war discourse" Compared to what? There isn't much space left to increase the heat.

"potentially forces ANO to start opportunistically shifting right as well."

ANO is a pensioner's party and given our fertility rate, this is their goldmine. They don't really have to expand their electorate, it expands on its own.

"once you know the right 20-30 people or their friends or colleagues"

Isn't that why people fight to get into Ivy League universities or Ecole Normale Superieure? I am not sure if there is any single nation on Earth where personal connections are unimportant.

Comment by alephnerd 1 day ago

> Isn't that why people fight to get into Ivy League universities or Ecole Normale Superieure

Going to Harvard or Yale doesn't mean I have the ability to call a couple people who can pressure someone at the SEC to speed up the review of an S-1 or can pressure a city council to re-zone agricultural land to residential land to build a housing complex, or (using your earlier Eton example) find a SpAd who can put pressure at the SFO to get them off my back.

And more critically, if I find someone to do that, then my competitor will find out and take me to court, and 2-3 years are burnt in negotiating a settlement.

On the other hand, if someone even finds out that I do something like that in CZ, they have no choice but to roll with it because otherwise they will be frozen out from dealflow or ignored when asking for a favor.

And this is why institutions matter, and degradation of institutions are worrisome, becuase they increase the risk profile of opportunities and incentivize zero-sum thinking.

> The model that is being discussed for the public broadcasters is that they will be financed by a certain fixed percentage of the country's GDP

Yet the power of the purse will be removed from the media and given to the state, thus reducing CT and CRo's independence. This disincentivizes the publication of politically controversial statements.

-----

Just becuase the US is seeing degradation of institutions does not mean much of Europe is not facing similar problems.

Ignore it at your peril.

Comment by anon291 1 day ago

Reminder that in the full democracy of the UK , you can be prosecuted for social media posts questioning the governments immigration policy.

Comment by pjc50 1 day ago

No, you can't. You can be prosecuted for encouraging people to burn down a hotel though.

Comment by pydry 1 day ago

There are hundreds of elderly people in prison right now in the UK charged with supporting terrorism because they opposed a racism inspired nazi-style genocide. Greta was among them.

0 have ever threatened or supported any kind of violence against any person ever.

Social media posts on this topic are treated the same way as holding up a poster in public.

Comment by 1718627440 1 day ago

Why does that always need to be told like it's an either or thing? Why can't the stance that the Hamas are a terrorist organization, that is ultimately also screwing the local population and that Israel is committing war crimes, be accepted by "internet posters". I would say that is the position, that a lot of governments and people have.

Comment by pydry 1 day ago

Not one of those people expressed sympathy for Hamas. They were imprisoned exclusively for protesting racism inspired genocide that mirrors the holocaust.

They supported a group that spray painted some planes. That was the extent of the "terrorism".

Most of the people who think they deserve to be in prison are racists.

Comment by 1718627440 1 day ago

In my opinion, that's kind of the other side of the coin. For one side, anything that criticizes Hamas is a Genocide sympathizer. For the other side any criticism on Israel is terrorism. Both sides are extreme and problematic.

Comment by pydry 12 hours ago

Some people did (and still do) say "sure, hitler was bad but something had to be done about the jews" thinking that this is somehow a moderate position.

Im more of the opinion that you are either anti genocide or you are a racist/racist sympathizer. There isnt a moderate middle ground.

Comment by pjc50 1 day ago

Yeah, the proscription of support for Palestine Action was extremely indefensible. Different goalpost to your original post, though.

Comment by pydry 1 day ago

The Economist (who runs the EIU) celebrated the Romanian democratic vote being canceled: https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/05/18/maga-misses-the-...

When they refer to liberalism or democratic values they mean neither. These are bywords for western hegemony, which is what they really care about.

This is what was under threat when they celebrated Romania's democratic first choice of president being denied.

Comment by mjanx123 1 day ago

The European countries leaderships were each put in place by its responsible CIA compartment supporting liberal candidates/parties and undermining the competition. With the current conservative US admin they are supposed to interact with they don't know what to do and likely will do nothing.

Comment by pyuser583 1 day ago

CIA is fanatical about following the State Department's foreign policy. Aside from gathering intelligence, they just take the State Department's lead.

A lot "CIA influence" isn't the CIA at all, but the US Government, usually State or DoD, projecting soft power.

I know this sounds pendantic. But whenever someone starts talking about the CIA like it's responsible for "supporting liberal candidates" - all seriousness leaves the room.

Comment by igleria 1 day ago

> But whenever someone starts talking about the CIA like it's responsible for "supporting liberal candidates" - all seriousness leaves the room.

Nobody likes to admit their vote (or lack of) has consequences outside their little bubble.

Comment by 1718627440 1 day ago

Do they? Isn't that kind of the point of voting to influence things that are far outside of your direct reach?

Comment by alephnerd 1 day ago

> CIA is fanatical about following the State Department's foreign policy

From past personal experience, inter-service autonomy over policymaking is tightly guarded, and arguments always end up with the NSA (advisor, not the agency) where the president essentially becomes the tiebreaker.

Under the current administration, this rivalry has gotten much more intense due to the relatively hands-off management style that has been adopted.

Comment by pyuser583 1 day ago

I'm sure fights happen all the time over inter-service autonomy. There was a book written recently about very nasty fighting between the CIA and DEA over whether to support a group of anti-communist guerillas who financed by running drugs.

The CIA and DEA switched positions repeatedly: one day the CIA wanted to support them to fight communism, and the DEA wanted to cut them off to stop the supply of drugs. When communism fell, the CIA saw the group as a liability who knew too much, while the the DEA wanted to pay them to destroy their drug labs and plant licit crops.

The group ended up destroying their drug labs, and focusing on money laundering, ransomware, and crypto-scams, which neither the CIA nor DEA cared about.

But the CIA is very consistent in following state department policies. They jealously guard their ability to delivery intelligence that conflicts with State Department priorities, but they don't have any strong priorities that conflict with those of State.

I'm sure things need to be ironed about by the NSA/NSC. That's normal. But the CIA isn't going fight the State department like they fight the DEA.

I'm open to correction on this. Maybe I'm just not understanding the situation.

Comment by alephnerd 1 day ago

> I'm open to correction on this. Maybe I'm just not understanding the situation

It's much more gray simply because there are multiple agencies per department that can interpret and conduct intelligence operations.

The current administration also decided to adopt the private sector practice of letting "middle managers" conduct and implement what they want on their own and only disturb "upper management" if there are irreconcilable differences.

This is why policies change on a dime in the current administration.

Comment by kreetx 1 day ago

Where would you say the "CIA influence" is the strongest, so I could see better what you mean?

I've observed that it's the messy process of democracy that has put the people in power. Sure, big countries (i.e, mostly Russia) would like to tilt governments their way, but it isn't succeeding. I can tell you though that local Facebook pages for newspapers are full of strange comments, seemingly Russian trolls (but I have no proof).

Comment by thomassmith65 1 day ago

Social media incentivizes small 'creators' to espouse outrageous views that mainstream media does not, and that seem vitally important. An easy way to pump out a stream of unacceptable, important-sounding views is to (a) be outrageously wrong or offensive, and (b) claim everything mainstream is part of an evil plan to ruin the world.

This leads to constant messaging against whatever the underpinnings of a society happen to be.

So liberal democracy is in decline where it has been healthiest.

I have hope that liberal democracy will rise in regions where it is scarce. The Middle East first, then perhaps China, which we have all written off based on a couple decades (the blink of an eye, in the long run)

Comment by C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 1 day ago

> Social media incentivizes small 'creators' to espouse outrageous views that mainstream media does not, and that seem vitally important

You write about this in a negative tone ("outrageous views"). To go for the extremely low hanging fruit, what about when the establishment media tried to mostly ignore Epstein, and it was only the hard push from social media personalities that brought the topic back into the mainstream? What confidence does that leave in the establishment media, and that they are not bought and paid for by the 'ruling pedophile class'?

When the establishment media refuses to talk about certain topics, it gives up the control over the narrative on that topic. That is their conscious choice. It is obvious that individuals will rise to fill that gap. Why are you writing about it as if it's a bad thing?

Does a liberal democracy even exist without independent media? I think not.

Comment by 1 day ago

Comment by somenameforme 1 day ago

What some do not see, and it may even be an age thing, is that over the past ~2 decades the definition of liberal has changed in a very substantial way.

In the early 2000s I was anti-war, anti-intervention, pro free speech, pro freedom of equality, against politicians trying to legislate morality or speech in any way, and thought we should have a strong border but with good immigration opportunities to allow the best to come and make the country even better. I was a fairly text book liberal, perhaps a bit more left than average. I still hold, more or less, these same values - yet somehow in contemporary times that's deemed conservative, if not very conservative.

Why this happened is an interesting question, but it's ultimately irrelevant. It has happened. And so it's predictably going to have long-term consequences for the parties. Basically we keep using the same names for these ideologies, but the values they represent shift, and even flip flop, in dramatic ways over time frames that, in hindsight, seem extremely rapid. Yet paradoxically, it's not like there's any given year or election where you can officially say that issue [x] suddenly flipped.

Comment by wan23 1 day ago

Liberal still means liberal, and still means all the things you said. Without getting into the merits of any particular side, IMO we have a categorization problem. People use the word liberal for all types of left ideologies, which is a mistake as it makes it hard to pin down what people actually believe. Also the concepts of left and far left (and right and far right) are overused. The combination of these two phenomena make it so that people will say that things leftists do are "more liberal" when they are in fact not liberal at all.

Comment by 1718627440 1 day ago

> Liberal still means liberal, and still means all the things you said.

To you (and maybe me). Applying political terms is very much political in itself, I would expect the majority of people telling you a different opinion to actually believe that to be the case themselves.

Comment by somenameforme 19 hours ago

Exactly this. This is an issue where perception is 100% of the game. The problem I think in modern times is that parties are incapable of saying 'no' to anything that is politically beneficial in the short-run. For instance part of the official DNC platform involves putting more police out there and actively supporting them.

This is obviously intended to appeal to traditional liberals, yet in practice it falls apart because the party exploits every single crisis as an opportunity which, over time, causes those exploitations to shift what people, including myself, perceive their "real" ideology and agenda to be. At the bare minimum, this most certainly would not include expansion and support of law enforcement.

And so again I don't think this shift is being driven by social media or whatever. I do not partake in any social media whatsoever, besides this site and a handful of other fringe focus interest things, and my perspective of the parties, and one party in particular, has shifted radically - primarily because of their own actions.

Comment by danmaz74 1 day ago

The "liberal" in "liberal democracy" has nothing to do with the current common meaning of "liberal" - ie, left-wing - in the USA, as it comes from classical liberalism. In short, liberal democracy means a democracy based on rule of law, separation of powers, election of representatives, freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Comment by somenameforme 7 hours ago

In theory I agree with you, in practice I do not. This is one of those terms where the precise meaning is being, or has already been, lost. For instance in the overwhelming majority of rhetoric around the lines of this article, populism is framed as being in an adversarial relationship with liberal democracy. Yet that is, from a precise interpretation of 'liberal democracy', quite nonsensical.

The entire system of democracy, of any flavor, is fundamentally populist. But populism trends towards values that are not what one would consider left-wing by US standards. And so far as I can tell, that is the only real basis for the claim of its supposed adversarial relationship with liberal democracy. It is framing "liberal" as being left-wing and US-centric left wing, and not simply of liberty.

Comment by danmaz74 1 hour ago

While "liberal democracy" has a very clear meaning, "populism" has very different definitions. I'm pretty sure that the definition you have in mind is pretty different from the ones I know, if you say that democracy "is fundamentally populist".

Comment by pjc50 1 day ago

> yet somehow in contemporary times that's deemed conservative, if not very conservative.

.. no, I think that sounds pretty capital-L Liberal to me. I think you may have confused the views of a few incredibly online leftists for "contemporary times". Or we get into specific issues and find out what the extreme conservativism actually is.

Comment by stfp 1 day ago

Unfortunately I think the social media thing is key. At this point I'm convinced that we need a ban, at least before elections. That probably seems unrealistic but these novel entertainment options have proven to be so toxic to democracy that I don't think there's an alternative.

Comment by RickJWagner 1 day ago

That’s a great idea.

Social media is a poisonous pool of trolls, useful idiots, bots, foreign agents, and people convinced ‘the other side’ is evil.

We should restrict it, or at least demand transparency on who is saying things.

Comment by thrance 1 day ago

People on HN got to stop blaming social media for everything wrong in society. "Small creators" are no more outrageous than the morons parading on Fox News 24/7. The 20th century had its fair share of fascism too, all without social media, why is that? Because the issue isn't actually social media, it's media control by an oligarchical class that pours billions into propping up right wing populism, because it serves their interest better. Liberal democracy can't exist when half the country has been propagandized away from reality.

Know that I would rather social media didn't exist, but putting all the blame for our dire political situation on it is very misguided.

Comment by prometheus76 1 day ago

Liberal democracy is rooted in Christian ethics. It does not make sense to a Muslim culture or the Chinese culture.

Comment by burnerzzzzz 7 hours ago

No evidence supports this. “Rule by the people” is in no why an idea unique to Christians. This is simply false info

Comment by red-iron-pine 1 day ago

Ancient Greece sure as hell wasn't Christian

Comment by 1718627440 1 day ago

But Christian swallowed Greece Philosophy, until to the point where it is a core part of Christianity. There are much less a break between different high-cultures as people make it be after the fact, but more of a continuous morphing into each other.

Comment by thomassmith65 1 day ago

Ancient Greeks and Romans spent more time in the Middle East than they did in Northern Europe. If Christians borrowed from anyone, it was Middle Easterners... ie: themselves.

Granted, Islam is not the same as Middle Eastern, but European and the Middle Eastern cultures have interwoven for millennia. The Middle East is not monolithic, either. They have had their own Christian communities ever since the religion was invented.

Neither is Europe free of Muslim thought. Spain is an obvious example, but there was also trade, which is how algebra came to Europe.

Comment by 1718627440 1 day ago

I don't get you claim. Greek philosophy existed earlier than Christianity, and borrowed e.g. from Egypt, and not really from Israel, which is the cultural branch Christianity evolved from.

Comment by thomassmith65 1 day ago

Yes, what I meant to convey is that the lands around the Mediterranean constituted a coherent region more than the Northern Mediterranean combined with Northern Europe.

Greeks and Romans traveled throughout the area. To a Roman, a northern Barbarian was more exotic than the peoples South of the Mediterranean.

We are more similar to Middle Easterners than it might seem, though, granted, Islam today is a huge differentiator.

Comment by 1718627440 1 day ago

Sorry, did you wanted to point out a contradiction or just add to the point?

What I mainly disagree with is:

> ie: themselves.

Those were completely different incompatible cultures. "middle eastern" simply isn't a term, that makes sense for that time as a cultural distinction.

> Islam today is a huge differentiator.

On yet another note, some claim Islam to be somewhat of a Christian sect.

Comment by thomassmith65 1 day ago

Oh, by 'themselves' I wanted to point out that the first Christians were, obviously, Middle Easterners. There have been Christian communities throughout the region ever since.

Yes, I gather Islam incorporated both Judaism and Christianity.

Comment by wat10000 1 day ago

I imagine the people of Malaysia and Taiwan would be surprised to learn this.

Comment by red-iron-pine 1 day ago

Or Indonesia. Or Turkey, which has a long history of Democracy stemming from Attaturk

Comment by thrance 1 day ago

Christian ethics? What is that exactly?

IIRC, "Christianity" used to be very much tied to monarchy in Europe, as well as feudalism. Then it was used to justify slavery. Then apartheid. And now it's sometimes used to justify stripping minorities of their rights.

There is no Christian ethics, only people justifying there political views by invoking Jesus.

Comment by thomassmith65 1 day ago

Democracy is pre-Christian.

Liberalism is rooted in Christian sectarianism.

Comment by PaulHoule 1 day ago

"...Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried..."

https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/quotes/the-worst-form...

Comment by mindcrime 1 day ago

Terminal? Hard to be sure, but I think there are glimmers of hope that the answer is "no" in the short-term.

Corollary question: should it be? Eg, is "liberal democracy" really the best we can possibly do? My take is that the long-term goal should be a society based on Voluntaryism with no use of force for anything other than self-defense. But if we ever get there, it won't be soon, and in the near-term the collapse of liberal democracy is trending towards the full-on advent of fascism and totalitarianism.

So at least for now, I believe liberal democracy is something worth fighting to protect.

Comment by Havoc 1 day ago

Unfortunately I suspect yes - for practical reasons not directly linked to demographics

It’s hard to beat the raw power of central control when you need something specific done sharpish at any cost.

See chinas quest for catching up with asml. Asml arose under the western order certainly but I don’t think the western order could will it into existence the way an autocratic government can. And that i think is going to become a big problem as progress speeds up and more of these pivotal junctures come up in quick succession

Comment by ultropolis 1 day ago

A trick I learned recently that you can apply here is the following:

If a headline asks a yes/no question, the answer is "no".

Comment by blenderob 1 day ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...

> "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

Comment by ultropolis 1 day ago

I immediately tested the premise in my newsreader, and saw that modern clickbait gives us headlines like "How many weeks till Blandars Gnob is released?", So I added that it must be a binary question.

Comment by latexr 1 day ago

Either way, research suggests it’s not true. See the “Studies” section in the linked Wikipedia page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...

> A 2016 study of a sample of academic journals (not news publications) (…) were more often answered "yes" in the body of the article rather than "no".

> A 2018 study of 2,585 articles in four academic journals in the field of ecology (…). Of the yes/no questions, 44 percent were answered "yes", 34 percent "maybe", and only 22 percent were answered "no".

> In 2015, a study of 26,000 articles from 13 news sites on the World Wide Web (…) divided into 20 percent "yes" answers, 17 percent "no" answers and 16 percent whose answers he could not determine.

Comment by inanutshellus 1 day ago

> research suggests it’s not true

You misread. Betteridge's law says it can be "no"...

I think though his "law" is referring to clickbait that imply a falsehood to get you to read it.

"New Research asks - Can your baby live entirely off of kelp?!" ... "wow can she? that's nuts! lemme read! oh. no."

Comment by pinnochio 1 day ago

Hm, not much of a law if we boil it down to a tautology.

Comment by 1718627440 1 day ago

Every true statement boils down to resolving it to a tautology. In a mathematical proof you resolve definitions until only a tautology is left.

Comment by pinnochio 17 hours ago

> Every true statement boils down to resolving it to a tautology.

Prove it.

Comment by latexr 1 day ago

> You misread. Betteridge's law says it can be "no"...

That doesn’t make sense. Of course Betteridge didn’t mean “it can be answered with “no”, but also “yes””. The point is that you can answer “no” instead of reading the article.

Either way, I was responding to ultropolis’ assertion—not Betteridge’s—by citing the studies which already suggest it to be false.

Comment by pif 1 day ago

Comment by cosmicgadget 1 day ago

Ultropolis's Law of Headlines, they call it.

Comment by 1 day ago

Comment by Yizahi 1 day ago

Yes it is, partly because it was never democratic, and more like a an elective oligarchy. While people's and oligarchy intentions roughly aligned, we thought that "yay, democracy is working!". But as soon as the intentions diverged, this social order is slowly being exposed for what it is.

Why is it not democratic, you may ask? Because not a single one of us across the world had ever voted for or against any of the laws we must comply with (except for some lucky blokes in Switzerland). Laws were written and approved by a small number of individuals and not people.

Comment by mothballed 1 day ago

I think it's drifting further from even that.

The people have discovered they can vote OPM to themselves and their pet causes. ICE now has a budget 4x the size of the marine corps. SS fund is on its way to bankruptcy. Corporations get all kinds of subsidies. Farmers get their own subsidies. And it goes on and on.

Meanwhile the national debt just keeps going up.

As each guy pays more OPM to the next guy he keeps asking more for more OPM for himself to cover the OPM he's losing to others. Eventually the portion of the economy that is one big circle jerk ratchets up and then if it goes on too long the whole thing collapses.

Comment by direwolf20 1 day ago

Debt is the flip side of money, and most governments make sure they have enough debt so that everyone has money. The US is the global reserve, so it has to print enough money for the whole world, not just its own citizens.

Comment by wat10000 1 day ago

Democracy has been a pretty consistent desire among large numbers of people for a long time now. I don't see that ending any time soon. I do think things will get worse before they get better, because we have a hard time learning from history. The reasons for wanting democracy are too abstract right now. Once enough people get smacked in the face by them and learn why democracy is good, it will turn around. Unfortunately, those of us who do understand history have to learn this lesson alongside them.

Comment by LightBug1 1 day ago

Terminal velocity achieved ...

The only question is whether it'll hit the ground before the next US election.

Any emergency 'chute's available?

Comment by roromainmain 1 day ago

I can’t access the article… but honestly, I’ve been asking myself the same question for the past ten years. The best answer I’ve found is: not yet — but the current backlash and drift toward authoritarianism in many democracies is actually the sign that something real is shifting. In a way, the situation looks weirdly similar to Europe before WWII. Democracies were starting to integrate some of the socialist ideas that had emerged in the 19th century, and the dominant forces of capitalism pushed back hard. They let fascists rise, sometimes even supported them. That led to a war, millions of deaths, and then a massive change of mindset: after WWII, every European country implemented strong social protection and regulation. Today, the shift is less about social security and more about cultural transformation — the end of patriarchy, and with it the decline of imperialism and Western dominance. Those foundations started being seriously questioned in the 60s. The dominant forces are resisting because, deep down, they’ve already lost — there’s no going back. But as always, they can still cause immense damage on the way out. And yes, if they refuse to let go peacefully, it could lead to conflict, and a lot of casualties. But after, democracy will make a come back. I may be too optimist.

Comment by alephnerd 1 day ago

The article's argument follows your track of logic but is much more pessimistic:

"Is liberal democracy, then, in terminal decline? The rise of Carney himself offers a glimmer of hope, fuelled as it was by a reaction against Trump. But electoral trends in Europe do not suggest a repeat. A broad-based recovery of the liberal order will probably depend on a turnaround in the underlying trends, and here the signs are less promising. Attempts to soften the impact of worsening demographics are routinely rejected by voters and parties on both left and right. And the most promising source of renewed economic dynamism — AI — is likely to worsen inequality and increase societal instability, further undermining faith in democracy and hastening the slide into a zero-sum world.

Events of the past year have shocked the democratic world out of its daze, but it is these more powerful and slow-moving forces that should be the lasting cause for concern. Trump may fade from view in a few years, but any expectation that the liberal order will snap back flies in the face of the evidence. The old system was one that worked under a particular set of conditions. Those conditions are no longer present."

Comment by kreetx 1 day ago

"Events of the past year", what has happened the past year?

Comment by direwolf20 1 day ago

Tariffs, invasions, threats of invasions, threats of invasions against allies, broken alliances due to threats of invasions, the International Criminal Court got banned from using Windows and Office because they were investigating our war crimes, suddenly everyone was interested in divesting from US tech stacks, BRICS got their own currency and trade system, China abandoned the petrodollar, the beginning of a widespread sell-off of US bonds

Comment by kreetx 7 hours ago

Perhaps for you. As a European, the shake-up came with the war in Ukraine. That this actually could happen, and could happen in other countries here, too.

Though, in the US, there seems to be some focus on what the country wants and does. The following I say more as a joke, but I wouldn't mind being bought by the US all that much (or "invade" as you say). In a way, US is the biggest ally anyway, after being incorporated it's unlikely that Russia would try anything.

Regarding Greenland, it has been Denmark's colony, who has kept the natives in check there. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad to go through these injustices and choose a different parent country?

Comment by 1 day ago

Comment by _DeadFred_ 1 day ago

In the US most Americans just don't matter to the economy like they once did (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43298862)

We have reached not just Dead internet theory, but also Dead Civilization theory. The top feel like they don't need half of civilization, and in fact half of civilization are now a weight/burden on society.

Liberal democracy was able to take power from authority because it was supported by enough people with enough power but that dynamic no longer exists. Authority has finally reached a point where that power has/is being taken back because it no longer needs those people's labor/participation/existence/buy in in society.

Comment by josefritzishere 1 day ago

I'm surprised this hasn't been flagged yet.

Comment by keernan 1 day ago

1. Has there ever been a society - regardless of political type - in which the 'power elite' did not define the rules of society to their benefit and to the detriment of the non-elite?

2. As for the US Constitution: (a) It's original design limited participation to (i) white (ii) men (iii) who owned land (wealth). I would argue not much has changed in 250 years. How many billionaires can pick up the telephone and speak directly to the President or Senator or Governor that same day? And how many of you can do the same?

(b) The design of the US Constitution did not provide SCOTUS or CONGRESS with any mechanism to control an Executive who appointed officials swearing allegiance to the President ( the man ) as opposed to the President ( the office ).

Once the President successfully appoints heads of every department, especially FBI, DOJ, and military who are loyalists to the MAN, then there is absolutely nothing SCOTUS can do to force the President to comply with its rulings; nor is there anything the Senate can do when the President laughs when the convict the President of Articles of Impeachment.

Comment by rawgabbit 7 hours ago

I largely agree with you. Unfortunately if everything comes to pass as you describe we are headed towards civil war as about 40%(?) disagree with the current administration.

Comment by 1 day ago

Comment by gnosis67 1 day ago

[flagged]

Comment by kaidon 1 day ago

This sounds like something out of the Warhammer universe.

Comment by gnosis67 1 day ago

[flagged]

Comment by polotics 1 day ago

Live youtube link or it never happened! :-)

Comment by gnosis67 1 day ago

[flagged]

Comment by mise_en_place 1 day ago

[flagged]

Comment by rune-dev 1 day ago

Can you elaborate on this? Surely you don’t mean only white people can form/sustain liberal democracies…

Comment by direwolf20 1 day ago

On a surface reading that's exactly what it says.

Comment by mise_en_place 1 day ago

Read Spengler.

>Comradeship breeds races... Where a race-ideal exists, as it does, supremely, in the Early period of a culture... the yearning of a ruling class towards this ideal, its will to be just so and not otherwise, operates (quite independently of the choosing of wives) towards actualizing this idea and eventually achieves it.

In other words, it's not necessarily that a non-white culture can't independently form and sustain a liberal democracy. But they'd need their own historical events mirroring that of the Magna Carta, the Enlightenment, etc. The seed needs to exist from the very beginning. The Global South doesn't have such preconditions culturally; unless you count colonialism, but as we've seen, that's not enough to transmit the race-ideal permanently, mimetically speaking. So you'll get a cargo cult of liberalism at best, but you won't get liberalism as such.

Comment by 1 day ago

Comment by AnimalMuppet 1 day ago

If that's Spangler, why would I want to read more of it?

Why is it that all of these "profound" philosophers can't write worth a lick?

Comment by rune-dev 1 day ago

Right… So very thinly veiled racism. Got it

Comment by beej71 1 day ago

And yet here we have a whole bunch of white guys tearing up the Constitution.

Comment by eudamoniac 1 day ago

Sad but true. White (western European) culture built these institutions and nonwhite cultures will have a hard time upholding them in their current form, if they even wanted to.

I don't think this is related to what's currently happening with Trump, however. That's a separate thing, more of a populist backlash by whites for various reasons.

Comment by mothballed 1 day ago

It is interesting to note Liberia has(had) a similar constitution, although they seem to have done better at preserving freedom, and overall a quite different result in what they've got. You can build a house without code psychopaths condemning it because you broke some silly rule, you can raise your children mostly as you see fit without fascist CPS agents who pretend to be the ultimate parent scrutinizing you, they do not have much of any functioning immigration police, not much of any enforcement on the "war on drugs", the government is overall a pretty low % of GDP, and they only have 10% the amount of prisoners per capita as the US.

Comment by vfclists 1 day ago

How can liberal democracy not be in decline if it can only be discussed or seen behind a paywall which costs £59 a month to get over?

Are the voters a joke to the people who write such articles?

Am I a joke to them?

Is there a browser addon which can mark links on HN as behind paywalls?

Some sub-reddits tag them as such.

Comment by pjc50 1 day ago

The paradox is that, because it earns a decent amount of money from readers, the FT provides generally sound content. Free media tends to be ideological advertising for whoever's funding it.

Comment by tim333 1 day ago

There's a browser addon that lets you read them - works on this one https://gitflic.ru/project/magnolia1234/bpc_uploads

Comment by paganel 1 day ago

Hopefully, yes.

Also hilarious how even on this downward trajectory the liberal order's main propaganda entities (like the FT here) run with geeky and nerdy stuff like charts (?!), that will show 'em!! A true sign that they know nothing of the real (ideological world). Just the other day they (the FT, that is) were also running with that mantra of "Trump is invading Greenland only on account of him getting messed up by the Mercator map projection!!", which was straight West Wing [1 ]heavy-liberal territory. Like I've said, they know nothing of the real world.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLqC3FNNOaI

Comment by OutOfHere 1 day ago

Liberal democracy was in practice never about the people. Its existence made the rich richer and the poor poorer. The poor would be better off being more enterprising and putting their savings in inflation-resistant assets, e.g. gold, stock indexes, and major cryptocurrencies, rather than relying on liberal democracy to safeguard them. Don't call it investing because it should be the default vehicle. The rich of course don't want the poor to do anything of the sort, so that the poor can continue to remain exploited.