• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Real End of History

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Back in the 90's Francis Fukuyama wrote a book, arrogantly titled "The End of History." The premise: liberal democracy would be the panacea, the end-all predominant system geared to to replace all previous forms of government. And, it would soon sweep the world.

lol...thirty years later, a new theory emerges. And, it is far less Pollyannish.


Democracy is hard work. And as society’s “elites”—experts and public figures who help those around them navigate the heavy responsibilities that come with self-rule—have increasingly been sidelined, citizens have proved ill equipped cognitively and emotionally to run a well-functioning democracy. As a consequence, the center has collapsed and millions of frustrated and angst-filled voters have turned in desperation to right-wing populists.

His prediction? “In well-established democracies like the United States, democratic governance will continue its inexorable decline and will eventually fail.”

The Shocking Paper Predicting the End of Democracy - POLITICO Magazine


Hard to argue against the obvious, IMO.

Citing reams of psychological research, findings that by now have become more or less familiar, Rosenberg makes his case that human beings don’t think straight. Biases of various kinds skew our brains at the most fundamental level. For example, racism is easily triggered unconsciously in whites by a picture of a black man wearing a hoodie. We discount evidence when it doesn’t square up with our goals while we embrace information that confirms our biases. Sometimes hearing we’re wrong makes us double down. And so on and so forth.
 
Last edited:
Back in the 90's Francis Fukuyama wrote a book, arrogantly titled "The End of History." The premise: liberal democracy would be the panacea, the end-all predominant system geared to to replace all previous forms of government. And, it would soon sweep the world.

lol...thirty years later, a new theory emerges. And, it is far less Pollyannish.





Hard to argue against the obvious, IMO.

As a consequence, the center has collapsed and millions of frustrated and angst-filled voters have turned in desperation to right-wing populists.

It didn't "collapse", it's been punctured for the last ten to fifteen years by a million small cuts, from well funded agendas that seek to inculcate and indoctrinate millions with the incredibly stupid notion that "the United States was never a democracy".

The only people pushing the Athenian Straw Man Nonexistent Threat of Slippery Slope Windyfoggery (ASMNSSW) with regard to DEMOCRACY are people who have a misunderstanding/problem or hatred of democracy. (See AUTHORITARIANS)
 
To date, no Western democracy has fallen. Nor have any gone to war against each other.
 
It didn't "collapse", it's been punctured for the last ten to fifteen years by a million small cuts, from well funded agendas that seek to inculcate and indoctrinate millions with the incredibly stupid notion that "the United States was never a democracy".

The only people pushing the Athenian Straw Man Nonexistent Threat of Slippery Slope Windyfoggery (ASMNSSW) with regard to DEMOCRACY are people who have a misunderstanding/problem or hatred of democracy. (See AUTHORITARIANS)

From the article:

The irony is that more democracy—ushered in by social media and the Internet, where information flows more freely than ever before—is what has unmoored our politics, and is leading us towards authoritarianism.
 
To date, no Western democracy has fallen. Nor have any gone to war against each other.

I beg to differ. From the piece in the op:

By the end of the century there were 87 [democracies]. But then came the great reversal: In the second decade of the 21st century, the shift to democracy rather suddenly and ominously stopped—and reversed.

Right-wing populist politicians have taken power or threatened to in Poland, Hungary, France, Britain, Italy, Brazil and the United States. As Rosenberg notes, “by some metrics, the right wing populist share of the popular vote in Europe overall has more than tripled from 4% in 1998 to approximately 13% in 2018.”
 
I beg to differ. From the piece in the op:

You're claiming they're no longer democracies?

I think the term liberal might be foggy and relative.
 
Back in the 90's Francis Fukuyama wrote a book, arrogantly titled "The End of History." The premise: liberal democracy would be the panacea, the end-all predominant system geared to to replace all previous forms of government. And, it would soon sweep the world.

lol...thirty years later, a new theory emerges. And, it is far less Pollyannish.





Hard to argue against the obvious, IMO.

Critics of democracy have always said that it is a poor defender of liberty-- that democracy eventually devolves into tyranny.
 
To date, no Western democracy has fallen. Nor have any gone to war against each other.

Well, actually....the civil war WAS technically...
 
Critics of democracy have always said that it is a poor defender of liberty-- that democracy eventually devolves into tyranny.

As opposed to just starting with tyranny, and staying that way, lol.
 
Well, actually....the civil war WAS technically...

Hah. Not bad.

However we were not, as a slaver nation, yet a Western democracy as the term is defined today.
 
Was the Weimar Republic not a democracy, ecofarm?

Hitler illegally seized power with only 33% of Parliament. Germany became a fascist dictatorship for a bit.
 
Hitler illegally seized power with only 33% of Parliament. Germany became a fascist dictatorship for a bit.

Hitler was elected quite lawfully.
 
To date, no Western democracy has fallen. Nor have any gone to war against each other.

The point isn't that they have "fallen" but that they are being eroded from within and will fall at the rate we are going. The argument is worth thinking about.
 
Hitler was elected quite lawfully.

Hitler did not have the authority to seize dictatorial power. His party controlled only 33% of Parliament. His actions to usurp authority were entirely illegal and Germany, in case you forgot, became a dictatorship.
 
Back in the 90's Francis Fukuyama wrote a book, arrogantly titled "The End of History." The premise: liberal democracy would be the panacea, the end-all predominant system geared to to replace all previous forms of government. And, it would soon sweep the world.
Does Mr. Fukuyama devote any page space in his new book to discussing why populist movements have surged in recent years? (Aside from general disdain for "experts and public figures who help those around them navigate the heavy responsibilities that come with self-rule", of course.)

Islam? Foreign nationalism? Imploding native populations? Increasingly severe wealth disparity? Astronomical debts? Crushing taxation? Endless foreign wars? Record corruption? Decades of failed promises by so-called "elites"? Police states? Anything?
 
It seems like a real stretch to say the Weimar Republic didn't fall when they were supplanted by a fascist dictatorship.

Spain, Italy & Portugal as well.
 
Didn't end well for Piggy.

I'm not Piggy. I'm a brilliant badass.


I don't mean to be overly dismissive of the pitfalls of modern social dynamics, personally or socially. I'm just tired.
 
Last edited:
It seems like a real stretch to say the Weimar Republic didn't fall when they were supplanted by a fascist dictatorship.

A stumble but not a fall. Germany returned to a republic.
 
You're claiming they're no longer democracies?

I think the term liberal might be foggy and relative.

Liberal: From each according to their ability (to pay more taxes), to each according to their need (for more public assistance).
 
Liberal: From each according to their ability (to pay more taxes), to each according to their need (for more public assistance).

Cute.
 
Back
Top Bottom