Is liberalism, at long last, dying? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Modern liberalism. Civil rights and liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14745977
We have some interesting data points to look at. They suggest public support for the underlying assumptions of liberalism* has declined - not just a little bit, but in an astonishingly precipitous fashion.

*'Liberalism' here is not intended in the parochial American sense. Liberalism, in the general sense, is the common core of Western societies, as derived (however tenuously) from Enlightenment philosophy. Modern conservatism, liberalism in the American parlance, social democracy, libertarianism, etc. are all subsumed under the more general category of Liberalism.
Link

The researchers looked at the question "is it essential to live in a democracy?" and analyzed the answers according to both date of birth and country:

Image

The Anglophone stalwarts are losing faith. This is not good for liberalism, representative democracy, etc.
---
Believe military takeover is not legitimate in a democracy
Millennials Older citizens
19%...........43%
US

36%...........53%
EU

So only 1 in 5 American millennials take a dim view of a coup d'etat. The rest simply can't be bothered.
---

We see similar numbers on related questions, such as the importance of free elections and civil rights. Notably, in millennials the degree of apathy is closely correlated with non-compliance with liberalism.

The strongly suggests to me that liberal institutions have been zombified. They coast along on momentum, but are not organically connected to the population.
#14745979
I believe these figures are very misleading. I think they represent a disillusionment with corrupt government.
People don't want to do away with democracy, they think it has already been done away with.
#14746001
Democracy isn't necessarily liberalism, it may be that people are coming to realise that democracy is actually the slow path to totalitarianism rather than the pinnacle of liberalism. See packing a military institution (government) with a small horde of civilians selling themselves to bands of civilian voters on the basis of how much they will leverage the military people to rob and annoy other bands of civilian voters can only lead to liberalism's opposite totalitarianism. Government is always tyranny but the tyranny of a more or less permanent elite minority is actually softer and more liberal than the tyranny of ever shifting masses in majorities. Some people understood this even before the great totalitarian age of the 20th century when democracy spread across the world like a plague:

You had better have one king than five hundred.
- King Charles the 1st of England.


Tyranny naturally arises out of democracy.
- Plato


"I hate rebels, I hate traitors, I hate tyranny come from where it will. I have seen much of the world, and I have learnt from experience to hate and detest republics. There is nothing but tyranny & oppression, I have never known a good act done by a Republican, it is contrary to his character under the mask of Liberty. He is a tyrant, a many headed monster that devours your happiness and property. Nothing is free from this monster's grasp. A republic has no affection for its subjects. A King may be ill advised and act wrong, a Republic never acts right, for a knot of villains support each other, and together they do what no single person dare attempt."

-Lord Horatio Nelson


A growing disenchantment with democracy may just be the consequence of a growing maturity and realism in liberalism....
#14746002
stephen50right wrote:The correct answer is "Yes" as far as politically.

Most people are thankfully realizing that liberals should never be in charge of government.


I notice that you did not read the OP, or if you did, you did not read it carefully.

----------------

I think the problems caused by global capitalism are coming home to roost, and this is making people dissatisfied with the current system. However, tye populace is not clear on what caused the problems, and thus they are unclear as to the solution.
#14746005
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think the problems caused by global capitalism are coming home to roost, and this is making people dissatisfied with the current system. However, tye populace is not clear on what caused the problems, and thus they are unclear as to the solution.

No one but a few fruitbats shares your irrational hatred for shopkeepers. The problem is not commerce it is democracy.
#14746010
Are you saying that immigration is not caused by economic factors?

That would mean that all the Middle Easterners that migrated to Europe in the last few years are all refugees and none are economic migrants. Is that the case?
#14746013
Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you saying that immigration is not caused by economic factors?

That would mean that all the Middle Easterners that migrated to Europe in the last few years are all refugees and none are economic migrants. Is that the case?

People migrate for all sorts of reasons. Where there is an economic motive it is when people go from poor places to rich places in the hope that some of that richness will rub off on them too. Those places that are richer are so because of better commerce... So people migrate towards shopkeepers not away from them... :D So yes economic migration shows that the once again only a few fruit bats shares your random hatred for shopkeepers.
#14746014
I think the problems caused by global capitalism are coming home to roost, and this is making people dissatisfied with the current system. However, tye populace is not clear on what caused the problems, and thus they are unclear as to the solution.


This makes a lot of sense. We know we don't like what is happening, but most are totally lost when coming up with solutions. I think this is due to the solutions require tremendous changes in our thinking about society as a whole. Any possible solutions, are therefore, dismissed as radical. Yet, it is radical solutions we need.
#14746016
SolarCross wrote:People migrate for all sorts of reasons. Where there is an economic motive it is when people go from poor places to rich places in the hope that some of that richness will rub off on them too. Those places that are richer are so because of better commerce... So people migrate towards shopkeepers not away from them... :D So yes economic migration shows that the once again only a few fruit bats shares your random hatred for shopkeepers.


So we agree that global economic inequality is a driving force for immigration, and that people view immgration as a problem. I find it interesting that you ignore the history of colonialism and imperialism when looking at why developed nations have better economies. You simply assume "shopkeepers" are the only reason for the economic inequality.

The same can be said for climate change: capitalism is causing negative impacts, and people are unable to see a solution for said problem.
#14746020
The same can be said for climate change: capitalism is causing negative impacts, and people are unable to see a solution for said problem.

I read an article that said international shipping causes more pollution than all of the cars.
It seems becoming self reliant and self sufficient could do great things for our environment.
Last edited by One Degree on 05 Dec 2016 17:35, edited 1 time in total.
#14746028
Pants-of-dog wrote:So we agree that global economic inequality is a driving force for immigration, and that people view immgration as a problem. I find it interesting that you ignore the history of colonialism and imperialism when looking at why developed nations have better economies. You simply assume "shopkeepers" are the only reason for the economic inequality.

The same can be said for climate change: capitalism is causing negative impacts, and people are unable to see a solution for said problem.

You are presuming too much with what you are claiming that I agree (as usual).

As far as colonialism goes you have it backwards. Rich countries can afford empires and colonies and those places that become their colonies tend to benefit more than they lose, some of that richness rubs off in the process. So global inequality is not caused by shopkeepers as you so desperately want to deceive us into believing. Rather the shopkeepers are the remedy to poverty, you would cause more poverty if you could.
#14746044
One Degree wrote:I believe these figures are very misleading. I think they represent a disillusionment with corrupt government.
People don't want to do away with democracy, they think it has already been done away with.

The questions asked were quite specific. The answers indicated a lack of support for democracy itself among millenials. They also indicate a large degree of apathy for military dictatorship, which is generally a very corrupt form of government.
SolarCross wrote:Democracy isn't necessarily liberalism, it may be that people are coming to realise that democracy is actually the slow path to totalitarianism rather than the pinnacle of liberalism.


The abandonment of 'democracy' as a principle highlights the contradictions of liberalism. Whether you like or dislike these authoritarian impulses, they cannot be integrated into the classical liberal framework
#14746078
SolarCross wrote:You are presuming too much with what you are claiming that I agree (as usual).


Okay, if you think that immigrants from the developing world do not move to the developed world for economic opportunities, then you are free to believe that.

I noticed you completely ignored my point abput climate change as well. Since you ignored it, it is logical to assume that you have no rebuttal for that claim. And since you have no rebuttal, it is logical to assume that you agree with it.

As far as colonialism goes you have it backwards. Rich countries can afford empires and colonies and those places that become their colonies tend to benefit more than they lose, some of that richness rubs off in the process. So global inequality is not caused by shopkeepers as you so desperately want to deceive us into believing. Rather the shopkeepers are the remedy to poverty, you would cause more poverty if you could.


If that were the case, then the silver mines exploited by Spanish colonialissts would have been in Spain, and not Potosi. It would also mean that England and France are wealthier in natiral resources than Canada, the former colony.

Since this is not the case, we ar forced to concede that some countries may have been colonised because of their wealth.
#14746149
Note: The Quartz article has got rid of the graphs that you show in the OP, saying "Update (Dec. 5, 2016, 12:30pm ET): A previous version of this story included a chart published in the New York Times that, as the Monkey Cage blog points out, is misleading."

That viral graph about millennials’ declining support for democracy? It’s very misleading.

The data for the graph are from the fifth wave of the World Values Survey (WVS), which asked people to place themselves on a 10-point scale where 1 meant that living in a democracy is “not at all important” and 10 “absolutely important.”

So where does this graph go wrong? It plots the percentage of people who answer 10, and it treats everyone else the same. The graph treats the people who place themselves at 1 as having the same commitment to democracy as those who answer 9. In reality, almost no one (less than 1 percent) said that democracy is “not at all important.”

The graph below uses the exact same data, but it plots the average scores rather than the percentages who place themselves at the top end of the scale (see my earlier tweeted version here).

Image

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... 7f287a926b
#14746200
"Democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms"
Perhaps that date simply reflects a lack of enthusiasm as compared to those generations that lived through the grimmest decades of history which included WWII and cold war.
#14746224
Pants-of-dog wrote:blah bullshit lying trash etc...

You know I can play your moronic "logic" games as well:

At NO point did you deny or refute my assertion that "no one but a few fruitbats shares your irrational hatred for shopkeepers", THEREFORE you agree and concede by default that this assertion is CORRECT in every detail, that you DO hate shopkeepers and that hatred IS irrational. FURTHERMORE it logically follows that since by your own tacit admission you are in the habit of making your irrational hatreds the focus of your beliefs that your comments and arguments are about as credible and worthy of serious consideration as some poor sad mental patient who witlessly claims to be the second coming of Napoleon despite all evidence to the contrary. THUS you are not worth engaging in any way.

You have my pity but I can not waste my time on you so I will engage the other posters instead.

@Prosthetic Conscience
Note: The Quartz article has got rid of the graphs that you show in the OP, saying "Update (Dec. 5, 2016, 12:30pm ET): A previous version of this story included a chart published in the New York Times that, as the Monkey Cage blog points out, is misleading."

Right that is misleading, however the graph which is more inclusive of the opinions of the less than wholly pro-democratic fanatics still produces a downtrend in democratic zeal across the generations albeit a less precipitous one. It is misleading but not that much.

quetzalcoatl wrote:The abandonment of 'democracy' as a principle highlights the contradictions of liberalism. Whether you like or dislike these authoritarian impulses, they cannot be integrated into the classical liberal framework

Yeah I would go along with that this highlights a contradiction in liberalism, or rather the ideals of liberalism are in contradiction with the methodology of democracy. Something has to give in the end for the circle to be squared.

Perhaps I am being too fussy but I am not sure there is a classical liberal framework, it isn't that well thought out, it isn't the carefully designed product of engineers. Liberalism is a patchwork of memes thrown haphazardly together by a motley crew of shameless scammers, slavers, criminals and mass murderers all for the basest and and most fraudulent of motives. No? Look at the substantial authors of Liberalism...

The founding fathers.. slavers that begged for King George to protect them from the imperial expansion of the French, offering to formally cede to King George governorship over the land they had taken from the natives. Then on hearing that the king's courts could find no lawful basis for slavery and set the dooming precedent for slaving founders that the usual acts that accompany slavery: abduction, false imprisonment and forced labour must be considered as criminal acts. Thus slaving founding fathers reasonably fearful this legal precedent would and must travel to the 13 colonies with King George's governorship, instantly making all your founding fathers highly indictable serial criminals so then with perfect duplicity welched on the deal and produced some high sounding lies about the actually reasonable taxes to pay for the security cover for which the colonists actualy asked and King actually provided. Who else? .. Robespierre? Seriously?!! Totally blood drenched mass murdering psychopath.

Okay what about the philosophers?! Thomas Paine, Rousseau, Mill... Aye there were some and some were probably reasonably clever men with good intent but really many of them were frankly full of shit too.

Confessions extracted under torture...seems legit.[…]

^ Wouldn't happen though, since the Israelis are n[…]

I was actually unaware :lol: Before he was […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Every accusation is a confession Why sexual v[…]