Saw this in an op-ed piece this morning on ABC News Online

"A recent Lowy Institute poll of national opinion showed that of those aged between 18 and 29, only 39 per cent any longer believe that democracy is preferable to any other form of government."

http://www.abc.net.a....mc_id=newsmail

So democracy is no longer the preferred option among young people in Australia. This datum was included in an article on people whose name is missing from the electoral roll, so there was no exploration of what options the disillusioned 61% prefer. It is clear, however, that the sheer difficulty in governing now, as constant exposure makes political leaders increasingly vulnerable to media attack, and as the electorate expects governments to have huge budgets with something for everyone in them, that democracy in the West has led increasingly to populism and its shadow, fiscal irresponsibility. Young people can see the fruits of populist democracy in Spain, Greece and the US and, understandably, see this kind of democracy - the only kind they know - as not even the best of a bad bunch of options.

My own feeling, despite deep misgivings about the turn democracy has taken since 1945 when the Beveridge Report was implemented in Britain's new Welfare State, is that democracy is still the best option, but that the present and future electorate needs to be educated about the responsibilities necessary to democracy as well as the entitlements that it may provide. The "culture of entitlement" really needs to be challenged. Unfortunately, many teachers are compassionate people and sometimes their desire for greater equity and "fairness" (affirmative action for people deemed "disadvantaged") takes root among students without attention to the necessity of both government and individual responsibility.

Perhaps the silliest action of a government hell-bent on enacting a populist agenda was that of the Whitlam government in Australia (1972-75) in extending the vote to 18 year-olds. At the time, many 18 year-olds were working full time or serving in the military, so there was some justification in extending the vote to people who already had responsibility and accountability to the community. Not many 18 year-olds now, at least in Australia, are working full time or serving in the military. In fact, it could be said that for many years now, the adolescence of young people has been extended by the need to extend the years of full time study. I really don't believe an under-21 university student is yet a responsible adult.

Unless there is a turn-around in the mentality of the electorate in Western countries and a more mature approach to the responsibilities of government and leadership (and that includes some tolerance - the media really doesn't need to carry on so much when a political leader makes a relatively trivial gaffe), I can see democracy tottering towards something much more authoritarian.

Perhaps some limits on the right to vote should be reinstated. I would like to see the voting age increased, perhaps to 30, and the eligibility age to stand for public office to be set at perhaps the same age or even a bit higher. I'm not sure about property rights, but can see an argument in favour of acknowledging people who have a physical stake in the land, perhaps in order to stand for office rather than just vote. And education? I think not. In my now fairly lengthy sojourn through life I've met too many people who lack formal education but have wisdom and too many who have acquired the former, but not the latter

Young people are idiots. In the universities they are taught that democracy (and capitalism) are bad and unfair. Their professors always leave out the hundreds of millions who died under the alternative in the past 100 years.

There was a thread entitled "Democracy... what next?" a few months ago. Generally, people seem to think that democracy (at least as it works in Western countries at present) is a pretty dreadful form of government. The only trouble is that all the alternatives are worse.

Young people are idiots. In the universities they are taught that democracy (and capitalism) are bad and unfair. Their professors always leave out the hundreds of millions who died under the alternative in the past 100 years.

I'm assuming that was sarcasm, but just in case it was not... I'll address it in good faith

You must've gone to a different university from me.

Presumably you went to a university in mainland China, or North Korea? Or the Soviet Union?

SC

There's nothing discriminatory

about playing with a straight bat

(SC's defence in the animal cruelty case)

Young people are idiots. In the universities they are taught that democracy (and capitalism) are bad and unfair. Their professors always leave out the hundreds of millions who died under the alternative in the past 100 years.

I'm assuming that was sarcasm, but just in case it was not... I'll address it in good faith

You must've gone to a different university from me.

Presumably you went to a university in mainland China, or North Korea? Or the Soviet Union?

SC

There's nothing discriminatory

about playing with a straight bat

(SC's defence in the animal cruelty case)

Many universities in the US are hotbeds of communism, socialism and most of the other isms. Universities in the US reek of it.

Young people are idiots. In the universities they are taught that democracy (and capitalism) are bad and unfair. Their professors always leave out the hundreds of millions who died under the alternative in the past 100 years.

I'm assuming that was sarcasm, but just in case it was not... I'll address it in good faith

You must've gone to a different university from me.

Presumably you went to a university in mainland China, or North Korea? Or the Soviet Union?

SC

There's nothing discriminatory

about playing with a straight bat

(SC's defence in the animal cruelty case)

Many universities in the US are hotbeds of communism, socialism and most of the other isms. Universities in the US reek of it.

I don't think it's quite so bad as you make out but I take your point. BTW that's why I want my children to attend university in the US. To expand their world view. To try things on. To be active and passionate about something. It doesn't mater if their view subsequently changes, or not. What matters is that their awareness expands. I trust them to seperate out that which is not constructive to their lives.

I do wish the costs were a little less though.

Young people are idiots. In the universities they are taught that democracy (and capitalism) are bad and unfair. Their professors always leave out the hundreds of millions who died under the alternative in the past 100 years.

I'm assuming that was sarcasm, but just in case it was not... I'll address it in good faith

You must've gone to a different university from me.

Presumably you went to a university in mainland China, or North Korea? Or the Soviet Union?

SC

There's nothing discriminatory

about playing with a straight bat

(SC's defence in the animal cruelty case)

Many universities in the US are hotbeds of communism, socialism and most of the other isms. Universities in the US reek of it.

I don't think it's quite so bad as you make out but I take your point. BTW that's why I want my children to attend university in the US. To expand their world view. To try things on. To be active and passionate about something. It doesn't mater if their view subsequently changes, or not. What matters is that their awareness expands. I trust them to seperate out that which is not constructive to their lives.

I do wish the costs were a little less though.

Can they play any sports well? Get a free ride that way.

Young people are idiots. In the universities they are taught that democracy (and capitalism) are bad and unfair. Their professors always leave out the hundreds of millions who died under the alternative in the past 100 years.

I'm assuming that was sarcasm, but just in case it was not... I'll address it in good faith

You must've gone to a different university from me.

Presumably you went to a university in mainland China, or North Korea? Or the Soviet Union?

As chuckd pointed out that's how American universities are. It has been well-documented that well over 90% of professors lean to the Left. As a result, it is totally uncool to be for Democracy (or capitalism) but super cool to wear Che Guevara t-shirts. To claim "Democracy is best" is the equivalent of being for "White Supremacy".

I'm assuming that was sarcasm, but just in case it was not... I'll address it in good faith

You must've gone to a different university from me.

Presumably you went to a university in mainland China, or North Korea? Or the Soviet Union?

SC

There's nothing discriminatory

about playing with a straight bat

(SC's defence in the animal cruelty case)

Many universities in the US are hotbeds of communism, socialism and most of the other isms. Universities in the US reek of it.

I don't think it's quite so bad as you make out but I take your point. BTW that's why I want my children to attend university in the US. To expand their world view. To try things on. To be active and passionate about something. It doesn't mater if their view subsequently changes, or not. What matters is that their awareness expands. I trust them to seperate out that which is not constructive to their lives.

I do wish the costs were a little less though.

Can they play any sports well? Get a free ride that way.

Not really, though they are straight A students, maybe something there. Anyway it wasn't the tuition cost that I'm angry about, it's the house I need to buy over there for the wife to be satisfied that she can still watch out for them.

Young people are idiots. In the universities they are taught that democracy (and capitalism) are bad and unfair. Their professors always leave out the hundreds of millions who died under the alternative in the past 100 years.

I'm assuming that was sarcasm, but just in case it was not... I'll address it in good faith

You must've gone to a different university from me.

Presumably you went to a university in mainland China, or North Korea? Or the Soviet Union?

As chuckd pointed out that's how American universities are. It has been well-documented that well over 90% of professors lean to the Left. As a result, it is totally uncool to be for Democracy (or capitalism) but super cool to wear Che Guevara t-shirts. To claim "Democracy is best" is the equivalent of being for "White Supremacy".

We are probably living in a post democratic era and if we are ever going to regain that democracy the leaders that will bring that about will come from those universities not from ensconced politicos, corporatists, or other vested interest. There is a vibrancy of thought there where all things remain possible. Ever spend much time in American college towns? They are alive with discovery and activity. I think it's fantastic.

Young people are idiots. In the universities they are taught that democracy (and capitalism) are bad and unfair. Their professors always leave out the hundreds of millions who died under the alternative in the past 100 years.

I'm assuming that was sarcasm, but just in case it was not... I'll address it in good faith

You must've gone to a different university from me.

Presumably you went to a university in mainland China, or North Korea? Or the Soviet Union?

As chuckd pointed out that's how American universities are. It has been well-documented that well over 90% of professors lean to the Left. As a result, it is totally uncool to be for Democracy (or capitalism) but super cool to wear Che Guevara t-shirts. To claim "Democracy is best" is the equivalent of being for "White Supremacy".

We are probably living in a post democratic era and if we are ever going to regain that democracy the leaders that will bring that about will come from those universities not from ensconced politicos, corporatists, or other vested interest. There is a vibrancy of thought there where all things remain possible. Ever spend much time in American college towns? They are alive with discovery and activity. I think it's fantastic.

One ray of hope might be the Eastern Europeans who now live in the west. Every once in a while a video pops up on YouTube of one of them lecturing ignorant protesters about what life was really like in the Soviet Union and how great Democracy is. People who have actually lived in different systems have a better insight than those who are taught by an old hippy.

Can I put in a word for British universities, especially the well-established ones? Their world-view is much more comprehensive than that of the Americans, who always seem to stand a little out of it. Not only are we also full of expatriate Europeans, but English people have traditionally travelled worldwide... and, I hope, learnt something from it. It is easy to fulminate from a rostrum in Harvard or Yale... but from Oxford or Cambridge the rest of the world is a dam_n sight nearer.

Can I put in a word for British universities, especially the well-established ones? Their world-view is much more comprehensive than that of the Americans, who always seem to stand a little out of it. Not only are we also full of expatriate Europeans, but English people have traditionally travelled worldwide... and, I hope, learnt something from it. It is easy to fulminate from a rostrum in Harvard or Yale... but from Oxford or Cambridge the rest of the world is a dam_n sight nearer.

My 2 girls have been in a Cambridge accredited and proctored Intl. School for 11 and 12 years respectively. I can't knock the education but I find in the later years it becomes way too narrow (though deep) at too young an age. The breadth of the American system appeals to me until such time as a student wants to focus on a particular area of interest.

Can I put in a word for British universities, especially the well-established ones? Their world-view is much more comprehensive than that of the Americans, who always seem to stand a little out of it. Not only are we also full of expatriate Europeans, but English people have traditionally travelled worldwide... and, I hope, learnt something from it. It is easy to fulminate from a rostrum in Harvard or Yale... but from Oxford or Cambridge the rest of the world is a dam_n sight nearer.

My 2 girls have been in a Cambridge accredited and proctored Intl. School for 11 and 12 years respectively. I can't knock the education but I find in the later years it becomes way too narrow (though deep) at too young an age. The breadth of the American system appeals to me until such time as a student wants to focus on a particular area of interest.

A school is very different from a university. In Cambridge, when I was there at least, I was in control of my course from Day 1. No set classes; optional lectures, and supervisions (which weren't optional).

I think one of the things that's led to this post decocratic era is globalization and the adoption of the belief system that a market based economy trumps all. I think it was sold as a way to further democratize certain regions of the world such as the former Soviet states and China. In fact, I think the west has backslid through these associations with oligarchal criminal cabals and corrupt party henchmen and writes it off to "realpolitik", but something's been lost. I'm not sure what will happen in Russia or the former Soviet states, but I expect China's going to implode one day and perhaps their current dissidents will lead the next wave towards democracy.

I think we've been through all this before just recently.

The basic problem with democracy, as I see it, is size. In a large 'democracy' like the US, or even Britain, the individual has no input whatsoever. The 'demos' is trotting along to the polling station and electing a member who himself has very little input.

So, except in rather small countries like Finland and Switzerland (and even Switzerland is a federation of smaller states), there is simply no such thing as democracy.

I can't see China becoming democratic, any more than India is democratic. India may go through the motions of an election, but is still controlled by regional power blocs.

Young people are idiots. In the universities they are taught that democracy (and capitalism) are bad and unfair. Their professors always leave out the hundreds of millions who died under the alternative in the past 100 years.

I'm assuming that was sarcasm, but just in case it was not... I'll address it in good faith

You must've gone to a different university from me.

Presumably you went to a university in mainland China, or North Korea? Or the Soviet Union?

SC

There's nothing discriminatory

about playing with a straight bat

(SC's defence in the animal cruelty case)

Many universities in the US are hotbeds of communism, socialism and most of the other isms. Universities in the US reek of it.

my personal experience points to a geographical issue. i attended MIT, Boston for 1½ years and quite often, in mostly political or social issue discussions, one could separate and label those who came to MIT for post graduate studies into "West (California), Midwest and East candidates". West = utmost socialist even marxist, Midwest = rightwingers and East = moderates.

experience in Germany was rather identical but university, not geographically based. in both cases it showed clearly the imprint and lasting influence of the former university, or in case of the USA the colleges (no colleges in Germany).

my personal experience points to a geographical issue. i attended MIT, Boston for 1½ years and quite often, in mostly political or social issue discussions, one could separate and label those who came to MIT for post graduate studies into "West (California), Midwest and East candidates". West = utmost socialist even marxist, Midwest = rightwingers and East = moderates.

experience in Germany was rather identical but university, not geographically based. in both cases it showed clearly the imprint and lasting influence of the former university, or in case of the USA the colleges (no colleges in Germany).

A very interesting observation, Naam, and I'm sure a very credible one.

The word "quite", though, as in "quite often", is a little ambiguous. Depending on tone of voice it can mean either "fairly" or "substantially".

Do you mean your observation applied "fairly often", i.e. sometimes, or "very often", i.e. often enough that, if measured, you think it would have statistical significance?

Apologies for the pompous tone of my query, but I would really like to know if your classification into those regions is really strong enough for a generalization. It could be very helpful, but we'd need to be careful using it. For example, I believe Rutgers University in New Jersey has a strong reputation as a left wing institution. Is this a rare exception to your classification?

A very interesting observation, Naam, and I'm sure a very credible one.

The word "quite", though, as in "quite often", is a little ambiguous. Depending on tone of voice it can mean either "fairly" or "substantially".

Do you mean your observation applied "fairly often", i.e. sometimes, or "very often", i.e. often enough that, if measured, you think it would have statistical significance?

Apologies for the pompous tone of my query, but I would really like to know if your classification into those regions is really strong enough for a generalization. It could be very helpful, but we'd need to be careful using it. For example, I believe Rutgers University in New Jersey has a strong reputation as a left wing institution. Is this a rare exception to your classification?

no need for an apology Xangsamhua i acquired a certain immunity having a wife for 33 years who's mother tongue is English and who still corrects my 'foreign' English

what i meant was "very often" but of course limited to the range of individuals with whom i had close contacts. that's why a statistical significance cannot be derived/established. there might have been a bunch from Rutgers or any other eastern left wing institution with whom i never discussed anything.

A very interesting observation, Naam, and I'm sure a very credible one.

The word "quite", though, as in "quite often", is a little ambiguous. Depending on tone of voice it can mean either "fairly" or "substantially".

Do you mean your observation applied "fairly often", i.e. sometimes, or "very often", i.e. often enough that, if measured, you think it would have statistical significance?

Apologies for the pompous tone of my query, but I would really like to know if your classification into those regions is really strong enough for a generalization. It could be very helpful, but we'd need to be careful using it. For example, I believe Rutgers University in New Jersey has a strong reputation as a left wing institution. Is this a rare exception to your classification?

no need for an apology Xangsamhua i acquired a certain immunity having a wife for 33 years who's mother tongue is English and who still corrects my 'foreign' English

what i meant was "very often" but of course limited to the range of individuals with whom i had close contacts. that's why a statistical significance cannot be derived/established. there might have been a bunch from Rutgers or any other eastern left wing institution with whom i never discussed anything.

Thank you.

Democracy in the west is going through a crisis. Short term populist measures have left economies in ruins just as the very financial Ponzi schemes our rulers have presided over call for an ever increasing number of debt slaves who have to be shipped in from places where democracy is an alien concept.

Perhaps we need to see a former democracy actually revert to another system in order to remind ourselves as to why, though imperfect, it is the best solution we have yet devised, sadly I see this coming quite soon as democratic freedoms are being curtailed. The trend towards authoritarian control is actually easier to see from outside if you visit your Country of birth once per year, the cumulative erosion of freedom is far easier to observe then as oppose to being a frog in a pan of gradually heated water.

Democracy in the west is going through a crisis. Short term populist measures have left economies in ruins just as the very financial Ponzi schemes our rulers have presided over call for an ever increasing number of debt slaves who have to be shipped in from places where democracy is an alien concept.

Perhaps we need to see a former democracy actually revert to another system in order to remind ourselves as to why, though imperfect, it is the best solution we have yet devised, sadly I see this coming quite soon as democratic freedoms are being curtailed. The trend towards authoritarian control is actually easier to see from outside if you visit your Country of birth once per year, the cumulative erosion of freedom is far easier to observe then as oppose to being a frog in a pan of gradually heated water.

I think I agree with most of this but will need to go back to my homeland for a couple of years to test it out (starting later this year).

But I'm uncertain whether a failing representative democracy will lead to authoritarianism or just multiple, diverse and expanding forms of resistance. If people are prepared to keep on propping up fiscally irresponsible and regulatory governments, then I suppose they get what they deserve and things will go on as they are for a while longer.

The Greeks, however, have given us another model. They have shown what they think of central governments by simply not giving the government the money it needs to carry out the programs that the people voted them in for. This has turned out disastrously for them, but it shows that, when people lose faith in their representative rulers, they may just resist until the whole fantasy is revealed for what it is.

As present, as democratic regimes try to balance failure to rein in debt with increased restrictiveness on personal freedom and enterprise, perhaps what we'll see is increasing large-scale passive resistance and refusal to obey the diktats of politicians and the cashed-up lobby groups that manipulate them. Even in a litigious society, eventually the threat of court action will fail to deter people from exercising their freedoms and resourcefulness. Democracy in this form will muddle along and the distaste for "strong" government will find its way in to the hearts even of politicians and single-interest campaigners.

Maybe this is starting to happen in Australia, where the ruling Labor Party is now turning on the Greens, whose vote they depend on to stay in government. Whether validly or not, they are presenting the Greens (their partners on the Left) as big spenders and authoritarian, if not totalitarian, fanatics who can't understand democratic processes and won't listen to other views.

I think I agree with most of this but will need to go back to my homeland for a couple of years to test it out (starting later this year).

But I'm uncertain whether a failing representative democracy will lead to authoritarianism or just multiple, diverse and expanding forms of resistance. If people are prepared to keep on propping up fiscally irresponsible and regulatory governments, then I suppose they get what they deserve and things will go on as they are for a while longer.

The Greeks, however, have given us another model. They have shown what they think of central governments by simply not giving the government the money it needs to carry out the programs that the people voted them in for. This has turned out disastrously for them, but it shows that, when people lose faith in their representative rulers, they may just resist until the whole fantasy is revealed for what it is.

As present, as democratic regimes try to balance failure to rein in debt with increased restrictiveness on personal freedom and enterprise, perhaps what we'll see is increasing large-scale passive resistance and refusal to obey the diktats of politicians and the cashed-up lobby groups that manipulate them. Even in a litigious society, eventually the threat of court action will fail to deter people from exercising their freedoms and resourcefulness. Democracy in this form will muddle along and the distaste for "strong" government will find its way in to the hearts even of politicians and single-interest campaigners.

Maybe this is starting to happen in Australia, where the ruling Labor Party is now turning on the Greens, whose vote they depend on to stay in government. Whether validly or not, they are presenting the Greens (their partners on the Left) as big spenders and authoritarian, if not totalitarian, fanatics who can't understand democratic processes and won't listen to other views.

Greece is one example to look at, but how about Iceland, who have the oldest parliament in the world. After their previous government bankrupted the nation the Icelandic people effectively vetoed a settlement to pay off external debt and re-wrote their constitution. Now a few short years later Iceland is booming now that the dishonest debt has been removed. I see Europe going the same way and would love the UK to leave the EC seeing as it is now undemocratic to the core.

Returning to Greece I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Aristotle.

Tolerance and apathy are the last two attributes of a failing civilization.

Truly, we need people to believe in democracy and have faith they can change things or fatalism and an each man for himself approach will lead to terminal decline.

Returning to Greece I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Aristotle.

Tolerance and apathy are the last two attributes of a failing civilization.

I wonder which failed civilizations Aristotle was thinking of when he said that about 2300 years ago?

Returning to Greece I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Aristotle.

Tolerance and apathy are the last two attributes of a failing civilization.

I wonder which failed civilizations Aristotle was thinking of when he said that about 2300 years ago?

Athens, probably! He was Alexander the Great's tutor about 60 years after Athens had succumbed to the Spartans. And I don't think he liked Demosthenes.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." - Winston Churchill.

Unfortunately familiarity breeds contempt.

It would seem that in many countries where "democracy" of one form or another has prevailed for some time, the basic tenets are now unfamiliar to the rank and file and those who crave power over service are taking advantage of this.

Democracy is given lip service by many though few these days seem to grasp the fundamental principles of the concept.

So - democrats (with a small "d") - be afraid, be very afraid.....your institutions are getting coroded.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." - Winston Churchill.

Unfortunately familiarity breeds contempt.

It would seem that in many countries where "democracy" of one form or another has prevailed for some time, the basic tenets are now unfamiliar to the rank and file and those who crave power over service are taking advantage of this.

Democracy is given lip service by many though few these days seem to grasp the fundamental principles of the concept.

So - democrats (with a small "d") - be afraid, be very afraid.....your institutions are getting coroded.

I have to agree with what you say. As governments get bigger in response to popular demand for benefits and services, then government becomes more complex and harder to fund at a high level, but it seems it can't go back. Any reduction in the size of government is met with substantial opposition and the likelihood of real suffering. People who have government jobs that are no longer required, for example, can't be blamed for being in those jobs, and to be deprived of one's job by government policy is harsh treatment. To reduce the size of government can only be done piecemeal and takes a long time. Meanwhile, more debt is accumulated. It's a race to stop the runaway train before disaster. But something has to give.

One can differentiate, although there is some overlap, between social democracy and liberal democracy. Since the end of the end of the second world war, nations that were previously liberal democracies have become social democracies. This has been in response to forces such as the great depression and the sufferings of citizens during and as a result of the war. But social democracy chases a chimera, equality, together with prosperity, and spends apparently unlimited amounts of money it doesn't own to redistribute the wealth created by entrepreneurs and their employees to those who are unable or unwilling to be as productive. And the idea of "desert", as in the "deserving poor" is seen by social democrats as patronising, uncharitable and ignorant. Everyone is equally deserving now, it seems.

Probably nothing now can stop the runaway train of social democracy, other than catastrophe, and then we will be pulling ourselves back up by our bootstraps in a remnant society characterised by poverty and violence. Those who can will gate themselves in. Those who can't will have to re-establish the mechanisms for profitable industry, policing, charitable provision for those most vulnerable, schooling and discipline for the pre-adolescents, and incarceration for the anti-social. It'll be interesting times indeed, and it may be just around the corner.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." - Winston Churchill.

Unfortunately familiarity breeds contempt.

It would seem that in many countries where "democracy" of one form or another has prevailed for some time, the basic tenets are now unfamiliar to the rank and file and those who crave power over service are taking advantage of this.

Democracy is given lip service by many though few these days seem to grasp the fundamental principles of the concept.

So - democrats (with a small "d") - be afraid, be very afraid.....your institutions are getting coroded.

I have to agree with what you say. As governments get bigger in response to popular demand for benefits and services, then government becomes more complex and harder to fund at a high level, but it seems it can't go back. Any reduction in the size of government is met with substantial opposition and the likelihood of real suffering. People who have government jobs that are no longer required, for example, can't be blamed for being in those jobs, and to be deprived of one's job by government policy is harsh treatment. To reduce the size of government can only be done piecemeal and takes a long time. Meanwhile, more debt is accumulated. It's a race to stop the runaway train before disaster. But something has to give.

One can differentiate, although there is some overlap, between social democracy and liberal democracy. Since the end of the end of the second world war, nations that were previously liberal democracies have become social democracies. This has been in response to forces such as the great depression and the sufferings of citizens during and as a result of the war. But social democracy chases a chimera, equality, together with prosperity, and spends apparently unlimited amounts of money it doesn't own to redistribute the wealth created by entrepreneurs and their employees to those who are unable or unwilling to be as productive. And the idea of "desert", as in the "deserving poor" is seen by social democrats as patronising, uncharitable and ignorant. Everyone is equally deserving now, it seems.

Probably nothing now can stop the runaway train of social democracy, other than catastrophe, and then we will be pulling ourselves back up by our bootstraps in a remnant society characterised by poverty and violence. Those who can will gate themselves in. Those who can't will have to re-establish the mechanisms for profitable industry, policing, charitable provision for those most vulnerable, schooling and discipline for the pre-adolescents, and incarceration for the anti-social. It'll be interesting times indeed, and it may be just around the corner.

Interesting theory

unfortunately the "democracy" which I would consider to be under the most stress/threat is of course the US; which has the strongest support for what you refer to as "Liberal" democracy" (isn't that term invented by Fox news?)

Whilst pursuing it's own paranoia around the world the US is hipping - no hacking - away at it;s own democratic institutions.

"Liberal" democracy" (isn't that term invented by Fox news?)

Not really.

Liberal democracy traces its origins—and its name—to the European 18th century, also known as the Age of Enlightenment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

"Liberal" democracy" (isn't that term invented by Fox news?)

Not really.

Liberal democracy traces its origins—and its name—to the European 18th century, also known as the Age of Enlightenment. http://en.wikipedia....beral_democracy

Thank you. So much of our discussion requires clarification of terms.

By "liberal democracy" I have in mind the models that were put forward by people like Locke, Bentham and Mill, and perhaps (though I'm hazy on this) the early, pre-Jacobin phase of the French Revolution.

Bentham and Mill advocated Utilitarianism as a guiding principle in addition to their emphasis on individual freedom and caution over abstractions ("society", "the people", "natural rights", etc). Utilitarianism can be criticized for its passivity in the face of those who are genuinely disadvantaged even when the greatest happiness of the greatest number has been attained. It is to the credit of social democrats that they point this out; however, they in turn can be faulted for an over-emphasis on the rights and "entitlements" of not only those who suffer through no fault of their own, but also those who are irresponsible and often the quickest to be resentful and to assert their claims to public monies.

Having worked for many years in equity ("social justice") areas, I would argue strongly that, despite any professed admiration for John Rawls's "Fairness" criteria, utilitarianism is in fact the default position of responsible public servants, unless you want to waste taxpayers' money. Some things can be done by government for those most vulnerable, but they achieve little if not backed up by the person's family and voluntary civil society.

"Liberal democracy" is representative democracy (only "participatory" for most people in elections and referenda, and for some in the voluntary associations of civil society). Candidates are elected and then have to balance representing their electors' wishes, following party discipline, and providing some level of leadership in the community based on their standing and their access to information.

And Liberal democracy focuses on "rights as freedoms" rather than "rights as entitlements". The former include freedom of speech, of the press, of association, of movement, religious practice and the like. The latter include the right to a sufficient wage, health care, free education, and so on.

Rights as entitlements are the focus of social democrats, and many of the things that are seen to be social gains in western societies in the past century are of this kind. And they would be of undoubted benefit if there were a point at which the individual and entrepreneurial freedoms lost in order that these entitlements could be gained did not begin to outweigh the benefits, and if governments were able to keep the costs of these entitlements under control. But what we are witnessing in Europe and the United States is that the balance has been lost and needs restoration.

No easy task.