[Political Interest]

It is always in the Western press, criticism over an authoritarian leader. Always you hear from Westerners, "he is a dictator!". And then you hear them say "Putin is not exactly democratic". Why do Westerners have an obsession with democracy and why do they find strict leadership so offensive?

Are most Westerners educated to think in this way from a young age? What makes them so ultra-liberal?

[mikema63]

It's weird how people who grew up in relatively liberal democratic societies prefer liberal and democratic norms and values. I mean, why would they dislike a strongman who kills journalists? That's just good leadership.

[skinster]

America and its allies kill journalists.

[Rugoz]

It is always in the Western press, criticism over an authoritarian leader. Always you hear from Westerners, "he is a dictator!". And then you hear them say "Putin is not exactly democratic". Why do Westerners have an obsession with democracy and why do they find strict leadership so offensive?

Are most Westerners educated to think in this way from a young age? What makes them so ultra-liberal?

At this point it's tradition.

I would read some political philosophy.

[MistyTiger]

Westerners have a history of being rebels, fighting against authority and oppression. Americans in particular are used to living on their own property where they are the masters and no one can or should tell them what to do.

[stephen50right]

It is always in the Western press, criticism over an authoritarian leader. Always you hear from Westerners, "he is a dictator!". And then you hear them say "Putin is not exactly democratic". Why do Westerners have an obsession with democracy and why do they find strict leadership so offensive?

Are most Westerners educated to think in this way from a young age? What makes them so ultra-liberal?

It is because we cherish freedom and liberty.

BTW, freedom and liberty is a bedrock conservative principle.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Why do people not love Big Brother? The ghost of Comrade Ogilvy is disappointed in you. Comrade O'Brien will be along in a moment to have a word with you.

[Thompson_NCL]

Are most Westerners educated to think in this way from a young age? What makes them so ultra-liberal?

I would suggest that the Western worlds concepts of individual liberty are deeply ingrained in our society and have been for centuries. It has its roots in Athenian Democracy, The Roman Republic, Magna Carta, the Reformation, Parliamentary Democracy, the American Revolution and so on.

[Political Interest]

It is understandable that they would reject authoritarianism in their own countries, but their utter offense at any country that is not democratic is a type of bigotry.

If our only objection to certain countries is that they are not democratic then that is utterly ridiculous. We clearly have no issues when we are dealing with authoritarian states that happen to be our allies.

There are cases in which an authoritarian solution cannot be avoided. For example, in much of Asia democracy was not possible during the 20th century. It took strict leadership to industrialise many of these countries and ensure that they did not turn into corrupt banana republics. While there were many corrupt and oppressive dictatorships, there were also a number which did not rule with absolute terror and actually did something for the nations they ruled.

Ultimately democracy can only emerge from specific conditions within a country. It cannot be promoted from abroad. Liberal democracy in Europe and America did not emerge as the result of foreign diplomatic pressure but was instead the free choice of the societies which eventually adopted this system. This is why it is a waste of time for Western leaders to lecture the Chinese about human rights. Western lecturing is not going to turn China into a parliamentary democracy. That can only happen if the Chinese establish democracy on their own.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

It is understandable that they would reject authoritarianism in their own countries, but their utter offense at any country that is not democratic is a type of bigotry.

No, it's the precise opposite. It's being consistent; if you want democracy for yourself, then you should want democracy for others as well.

If our only objection to certain countries is that they are not democratic then that is utterly ridiculous. We clearly have no issues when we are dealing with authoritarian states that happen to be our allies.

Having no issues with authoritarians allied to us is hypocritical, yes. But in your OP, you were complaining that people didn't like authoritarians in general.

There are cases in which an authoritarian solution cannot be avoided. For example, in much of Asia democracy was not possible during the 20th century. It took strict leadership to industrialise many of these countries and ensure that they did not turn into corrupt banana republics. While there were many corrupt and oppressive dictatorships, there were also a number which did not rule with absolute terror and actually did something for the nations they ruled.

Now, this might be seen as 'bigotry', by saying "those people there cannot form a democracy, they need a strongman to tell them what to do". You might excuse it as realpolitik - saying it takes time to develop a system where democracy, the rule of law, justice and so on can be relied on. Exactly what is bigotry, what is realpolitik turning a blind eye to imperfections, and what is hypocrisy, can be debated. But criticism of authoritarians is fine for a democracy; you're just trying to find excuses for not always doing it.

[Political Interest]

Now, this might be seen as 'bigotry', by saying "those people there cannot form a democracy, they need a strongman to tell them what to do". You might excuse it as realpolitik - saying it takes time to develop a system where democracy, the rule of law, justice and so on can be relied on. Exactly what is bigotry, what is realpolitik turning a blind eye to imperfections, and what is hypocrisy, can be debated. But criticism of authoritarians is fine for a democracy; you're just trying to find excuses for not always doing it.

When dictatorships hear a Western leader criticise them over human rights they just think its an obstinant arrogant Westerner telling them what to do. Nationalistic opinion in these countries also responds the same way. It goes in one ear and out the other. There is no way to enforce any of this either.

Democracy can only emerge when the conditions for it exist. It cannot be exported. One of the justifications for the invasion of Iraq was that it would allow for the establishment of Iraqi liberal democracy and the removal of a very oppressive dictator. The conditions did not exist for this and now we see that Iraqi democracy is barely functioning.

[AFAIK]

Democracy is a euphemism for capitalism amongst the elites. If the IMF, the military or the president voices concerns about democracy then you know they're full of shit.

[Rugoz]

For a political forum there is surprisingly little discussion of political philosophy, which I admit I am guilty of myself.

It's hard to argue for example that enlightenment thinkers were not instrumental for the American (e.g. Locke) and French (e.g. Rousseau) revolution.

[Potemkin]

Democracy can only emerge when the conditions for it exist. It cannot be exported. One of the justifications for the invasion of Iraq was that it would allow for the establishment of Iraqi liberal democracy and the removal of a very oppressive dictator. The conditions did not exist for this and now we see that Iraqi democracy is barely functioning.

There is an interesting historical parallel between the modern neo-cons and neo-liberals who try to impose 'democracy' and 'human rights' on the rest of the world, essentially at gunpoint, and the Enlightenment absolutist monarchs of 18th century Europe. They are well-meaning despots (whose despotism now takes an economic-military form rather than a traditional institutional form) who cannot for the life of them understand why people won't just be 'rational' and allow themselves to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world. Basically, these people are the 21st century equivalent of the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II. And they are likely to be just as unsuccessful.

[Oxymoron]

Democracy is not the best form of government, in its purest form it is a utopian idea as retarded as communism.
I do see the value of keeping the masses part of the operations of a State, but the less that part the better for the long term benefit of all. I think the Principe is my personal favorite system, with some changes in regards to transfer of power.

[Rugoz]

There is an interesting historical parallel between the modern neo-cons and neo-liberals who try to impose 'democracy' and 'human rights' on the rest of the world, essentially at gunpoint, and the Enlightenment absolutist monarchs of 18th century Europe. They are well-meaning despots (whose despotism now takes an economic-military form rather than a traditional institutional form) who cannot for the life of them understand why people won't just be 'rational' and allow themselves to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world. Basically, these people are the 21st century equivalent of the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II. And they are likely to be just as unsuccessful.

He is buried in tomb number 42 in the Imperial Crypt in Vienna. He asked that his epitaph read: "Here lies Joseph II, who failed in all he undertook."

[Rugoz]

Democracy is not the best form of government, in its purest form it is a utopian idea as retarded as communism.

[Decky]

Putin is hardly a dictator. He has an approval rating any leader in western Europe couldn't even dream of.

[MememyselfandIJK]

BTW, freedom and liberty is a bedrock conservative principle.

In reality, they are liberal principles; they were born during the enlightenment and came of age during the French Revolution.

To answer the original post I think it is because the West often focuses on the flaws of the system: One or a few people are in power and their character flaws can often corrupt the system.

However, on its own authoritarianism can be a viable system (I personally suscribe to a centralized but weak technocracy), and can yield results. Likewise, democracy can be flawed because the masses are easily deceived (take the election of Trump for example).

In the end, Authoritarianism can work if you separate political freedom and personal freedom. If you keep personal freedoms high and keep the economy from abusing the people, you can crush political freedoms without complaint as there is no reason to rebel.

[AFAIK]

Putin is hardly a dictator. He has an approval rating any leader in western Europe couldn't even dream of.

Dictatorship and popularity are not mutually exclusive. Here's a business article gushing about how much money some of the 20th centuries mass murderers produced;
http://www.businessinsider.com/most-suc ... sedenbal-1