Your conflating modern democracy with Western democracy. The West practices Western norms (IE liberalism) because they are in keeping with its traditions. Elsewhere in the world illiberal Traditions remain just as popular as they've ever been.
-
-
-
Japan and South Korea are democracies.
-
You admit it yourself "WE" define democracy several decades. In the post-war period where only the Soviets had the strength to contend us. And they did contend us. That was known as the Cold War. Now how many others can contend us, hence the conflict.
-
“Us” in this context isn’t Americans or Westerners. It’s political scientists. Although Americans—and Westerners more broadly—have had a lot of influence over the field, the standard for what qualifies as a democracy is universal, and applied universally.
-
The universality of liberal axioms is my contention. They were never "accepted" by the world so much as they were imposed in the greater context of Western hegemony. The belief thst no one has the right or ability to challenge them is a big part of why liberals are slipping up.
-
Your point is well taken, but it’s tangential to the post you replied to. I didn’t say anything about values. Just definition and classification. If a country chooses not to protect individual rights, some may think that’s better. But it’s not a democracy.
-
Using your definition the United States was in a democracy the majority of its existence by virtue of not protecting the individual rights of minorities. That's my problem with it.
-
By this definition, the US was not a democracy before women’s suffrage, and probably not until Civil Rights. At least not a full democracy.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
What if people saying the US isn't a democracy aren't confused about what a democracy is and are really telling us that they don't like democracy?
-
As a more general statement, possibly. But on "actually it's a republic" specifically, it's hard to see how that's anti-democracy as opposed to just pro-pendant.
-
Fair enough, but I get the sense that many see "republic" as an acceptable way of expressing approval for non-majoritarian/anti-democratic aspects of our system.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
I think we need to distinguish between anti-maj features that prevent tyranny of the majority (e.g., rights, courts) and anti-maj features that can lead to minority rule (e.g., malapportionment, barriers to voting, enhanced role of wealth).
-
I agree, that has value. Though democracy v. republic might not be the best terms for that distinction, not least because the adjective forms of those words are already taken by the two big parties.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
As an allegedly pedantic, "random" internet guy (& pol scientist), I just want to note that insisting on 'republic' reminds us that direct democracy is dangerous, only to be used in tiny groups or extreme circumstances (eg, revolution). Democracy isn't the be all, end all.
-
I’m on board with that. BTW, it’s funny how many sophisticated responses I got. People who knew my comment wasn’t directed at them, but wanted to engage the issue regardless.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I've been hearing "we're not a democracy, we're a republic from right-wingers for decades now.
#FoxNewsCosmology -
In my experience, this particular pedantic comment comes from people across the political spectrum. It's a certain type of personality more than a certain type of ideology.
-
I've only heard right wingers make this distinction. I am 58 years old and spent too many years in grad school, hung out with leftist solidarity types, religious human rights activists, labor and progressive Dems. First time I heard this "republic" talk was Right Wing group.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.