Is Liberal Democracy An Endangered Species?

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

“As we begin 2017, the most urgent threat to liberal democracy is not autocracy,” writes William Galston of The Wall Street Journal, “it is illiberal democracy.”

Galston’s diagnosis is not wrong, and his alarm is not misplaced.

Yet why does America’s great export, liberal democracy, which appeared to be the future of the West if not of mankind at the Cold War’s end, now appear to be a church with a shrinking congregation?

Why is liberal democracy losing its appeal?

A front-page story about France’s presidential election, in the same day’s Journal, suggests an answer.

In the final round next May, the French election is likely to come down to a choice of Marine Le Pen or Francois Fillon.

Le Pen is the “let France be France” candidate of the National Front. Fillon is a traditionalist Catholic from northwest France, home to the martyred resistance of the Revolution — the legendary Vendee.

Fillon won practicing and nonpracticing Catholics alike by a landslide, and took 3 in 5 votes of those professing other faiths.

Le Pen wants France to secede from the EU and move closer to Vladimir Putin’s Russia. The five million Arabs and Muslims currently in France, the prospective arrival of millions more, and recent Islamic terrorist atrocities have all propelled her candidacy.

Fillon succeeded in his primary by identifying himself as a man of Catholic beliefs and values and an opponent of same-sex marriage and abortion. He does not repudiate secularism, but believes that the France that was “the eldest daughter of the church” should also be heard.

Together, what do the Le Pen and Fillon candidacies tell us?

France and Europe may be moving inexorably away from a liberal democratic, de-Christianized and militantly secularist America. If we are the future, less and less do France and Europe appear to want that future.

While our elites welcome the Third World immigration that is changing the face of America, France and Europe are recoiling from and reacting against it. The French wish to remain who and what they are, a land predominantly of one language, one culture, one people.

America preaches that all religions are equal and should be treated equally. France does not seem to share that liberal belief. And just as the Middle East seems to want no more churches or Christians, France and Europe appear to want no more mosques or Muslims.

Where America’s elites may celebrate same-sex marriage and “reproductive rights,” more and more Europeans are identifying with the social values of Putin’s Russia. Pro-Putin parties are surging in Europe. Pro-America parties have been facing losses and defections.

“Because human beings are equal, any form of ethnocentrism that denies their equality must be rejected,” writes Galston.

That may well be what liberal democracy commands.

But the 24 nations that emerged from the disintegration of the USSR, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were all built on ethnonational foundations — Croatia and Serbia, Estonia and Latvia, Georgia and Armenia, Azerbaijan and Moldova.

And was it not their unique ethnic identities that caused South Ossetia and Abkhazia to break free of Georgia?

Indeed, if what America has on offer is a liberal democracy of 325 million, which is multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural, multilingual, which celebrates its “diversity,” then where in Europe can one find a great party preaching this as the future their country and continent should embrace?

European peoples are largely fleeing from the future America preaches and promises.

Europe’s nations are rising up against what liberal democracy has produced in the USA.

Galston contends correctly that, “few leaders and movements in the West dare to challenge the idea of democracy itself.”

True, so far. But worldwide, Caesarism appears on the march.

Russia, China, Turkey, Egypt and the Philippines exemplify the new popularity of the strongman state. Western liberals initially cheered the Arab Spring, but what it produced curbed their enthusiasm. Free elections in Palestine and Lebanon produced victories for Hamas and Hezbollah.

Though Galston chastises the Polish and Hungarian governments as illiberal democracies, they seem to remain popular at home.

What, then, does the future hold?

The present crisis of Europe has been produced by the migration of tens of millions of Third World peoples never before assimilated in any European nation, and by the pollution and poisoning of these nations’ traditional culture.

This has caused millions to recoil and declare: If this is what liberal democracy produces, then to hell with it.

And if Europe is moving away from what America has become and has on offer, what is there to cause Europeans to turn around and re-embrace liberal democracy? Why not try something else?

In Brexit, the English were voting against the diverse liberal democracy that their capital of Londonistan had become.

Donald Trump’s victory represented a rejection of Barack Obama’s America. And whether he succeeds, what is there to cause America to look back with nostalgia on the America Obama came to represent?

Our Founding Fathers believed that democracy represented the degeneration of a republic; they feared and loathed it, and felt that it was the precursor of dictatorship. They may have been right again.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Edward Morbius's picture

If Putin really did swing the election to Donald, then it means he he has more juice with the American public than Barry, Michelle, Bill and Hillary combined! He is the best campaign manager ever, and Donald should hire Vlad for the next election in 4 years!

bh2's picture

Given our bloated defense budget, perhaps we should be buying our fighters from Vlad, too. They produce superior fighters for a fraction of the cost paid by the US. :)

zuuma's picture

LOL!

Right! 

From a nation whose main contribution to the world in the last 30 years is Tetris & mail-order-brides.

HopefulCynical's picture

“Because human beings are equal, any form of ethnocentrism that denies their equality must be rejected,” writes Galston.

Wellll...not ANY form of ethnocentricism. Just YTs form of it.

Ethnomycologist's picture

And your nation? The Kardashians; IPhone zombies, BLM, crack cocaine, Two Broke Girls, Wally Mart shopping fat broads, etc.

SILVERGEDDON's picture

What the fuck you got against Tetris and mail order brides ? They stimulate both heads of the male American. 

Plus, you forgot about Russia's NASA support program, their successful anti terrorism campaign in the middle East, mob ownership of the American trucking industry, China deterrence, vodka, and caviar.

Russia is cool compared to the Free Shit Army, or the Mooslimes. 

SILVERGEDDON's picture

Are you fucking kidding me ? Liberal Democracy ?

What a fucking joke - the Democratic party has swung so far left towards extreme socialism that they make Putin look like George Washington by comparison.

Centrisim, the glue of politics, and the realm of reasonable people in either political party has been almost completely eliminated as a consensus builder, and progressive approach to governance at state and federal levels. 

Instead, it is now " We got elected, so we can do whatever the fuck we want to do, will of the People be dammed. "

Long on pitchforks and airport snow blowers to eliminate political gridlock forever.  

Urban Redneck's picture

How can a nation export something (liberal democracy) which it neither manufactures itself nor imports?

It cannot.

The USSA is exporting something other than liberal democracy.

 

Ghost of Porky's picture

California: 39 million people, 53 representatives, bipartisan gerrymandering, 2nd biggest city in the country (LA) had zero republicans on the ballot (except Trump).

 

If it ain't dead yet somebody should put it out of it's misery.

 

 

Paul Kersey's picture

"Is Liberal Democracy An Endangered Species?"

It doesn't exist, but the neoliberal demagoguery is alive and well.

Cloud9.5's picture

Liberal democracy was and is a plan to destabilize an existing regime. It touts popular rule as its intent but what it produces is a dictatorship of the majority. That worked out so well in Rwanda that it should be implemented everywhere.  The next place it will manifest itself is probably South Africa with the genocide of the remaining white tribes.

 

If you want stability, you need a republic as envisioned by the framers.  It is a government that is hamstrung intentionally with a predetermined division of powers.  Included in that division of powers is a bill of rights with bright line limitations on what the current majority may do to the ever changing minority.  Without those divisions and limitations of power you wind up with a very efficient dictatorship.  Dictatorships are highly efficient when it comes to killing people.  Once they kill their known enemies, they imprison a cowed population.  East Germany and North Korea are prime examples of this process.

Urban Redneck's picture

Liberal democracy has been working fine in Switzerland for over 700 years, even with the dangers of majority rule.  Be sure to send me an email reminding me of the fictitious strengths of a republic when the US makes it to 700 years old.

Bill of Rights's picture

First of all THERE IS NO SUCH THING! reason being no one ever voted for it and there was never a Constitutional convention for such a thing. ITS MORE FAKE SHIT.

Oldwood's picture

If progressivism has "taught" us anything, it is that there is no wisdom in history, especially anything old white men have wrote. Progress means the discard of everything in search for the "perfection" no matter who must suffer.

It's going to be great folks! Utopia is at hand!!

The Saint's picture
The Saint (not verified) Oldwood Jan 6, 2017 12:53 PM

The death of liberalism, Patrick?  Don't tease us with such hope.

Unfortunately, liberalism is a disease that has no cure.  It may go underground only to rear its ugly head from time to time but it will never be totally vanquished anywhere in the world where free men exist.

Reminds me of an old saying:

"If you aren't a liberal when you are young, then you have no heart."

"But, if you don't become a conservative as you grow older, then you have no brains."


falak pema's picture

Liberals like  "movement" in society. Fresh thoughts, "why not" solutions.

Conservatives like status quo and are scared of losing the past heritage. They prefer to be stoics.

As they say : after 50 your brain gets set and starts looking back with nostalgia.

Big cities where there is a lot of diversity are more liberal. Culture and being alone in the crowd makes it that.

Small towns and country living make you prefer what you have to what you don't, as you are more self reliant and have less "other" options.

Hope Copy's picture

Xanadu.. "Citizen Kane"  .. an unattainable myth

LawsofPhysics's picture

"Democracy" is mob rule, period. Fuck em.

piceridu's picture

The word "democracy" is not found in any of the founding documents: not in The Declaration of Independence, not in The Bill of Rights, not in The Constitution.

bh2's picture

Yes, and this needs to be repeated again and again and again at every possible opportunity.

falak pema's picture

One man one vote is foundation of democracy. Tell me that its not the mode of election in the USA.

Ever read Lincoln's speech "of government by, of and for the people?

Its the bedrock of the Republic and that's what one man one vote in a level playing field means.

You've bought into a utopian model that has never existed. Libertarianism is nihilism in fact or reversion to feudal Oligarchy which is what neoliberalism and neocon state of GOP/DEMOcrats since JFK's demise has become.

THe takeover of US government in 1964 was the factual loss of  true democracy and a Oligarchy/MIC deal to have "frontmen" representing their interests in Congress and Supreme; irrespective of Blue/Red divide.

Obama did not want to end up like JFK, RFK and Luther King. Shows he understands who pays his bills.

The Duck is on the same page.

But that is because the Imperial state of USA became in 1964 the very opposite of what a democracy is.

HillaryOdor's picture

LMAO!  Libertarianism is nihilism?  And this is what we've become since JFK?  No and No.

Libertarianism is simply the belief in liberty, real (i.e. negative) rights, and individualism.  This used to just be called liberalism, before the progressive communists co-opted that word.  And America is nothing like Libertarianism, and has only been drifting further and further away from that since JFK.  It is actually anti-libertarianism (i.e. statism, right or left, there is no difference) that rejects all good in humanity and denies their ability to self-govern and build functioning societies without the coercive threat of death forcing them to behave in a desirable fashion.  No oligarch can control your life without the power of the state behind them.  This is why all these billionaire scumbags push for socialism.  They don't want you to have any choices in their rule over you. You brain has been washed too hard.  You are truly lost.

This is why I NEVER use the word liberal to refer to communist progressives.  Which liberal is Pat talking about here?  The liberals of the classical sense of the word or the communist anti-liberals of the Orwellian sense of the word?  It can be confusing.  I get the feeling Pat is talking about the latter while the original quote is referring to the former, illiberal democracies meaning democracies where the freedoms are eroded through popular consent.

A. Boaty's picture

In a real democracy, the wisdom of crowds can make political policy consistent with majority public opinion. If you find the "tyranny of the majority" unacceptable, then you should suggest a better alternative. Anarchists, for example, believe freely associating individuals can settle their own affairs without democracy, or any other form of government.

bh2's picture

"Real democracies" exist only on paper or for relatively small political units. There is no historical precedent of any "democracy" governing countries of any size. It's literally a practical impossibility.

A. Boaty's picture

Of course, I meant an ideal democracy, i.e., not anything we have now.

Direct Democracy's picture

Switzerland has has a direct democracy for over 150 years.   It seems to work there, probably because the Swiss are more intelligent than the rest of us.

 

falak pema's picture

Nope its the end of Clintonista and Blairist debasement of "we the people" political heritage to that neoliberal debasement of past liberalism.

Amazing what money can do. Never fails.

If democracy is mob rule then Oligarchy is totalitarian rule of an aristocracy that only tolerates serfs.

We can do better than those two extremes. The past proves that.

RagaMuffin's picture

 "democracy represented the degeneration of a republic"  and republics degenerate into oligarchies - a hell of a choice

Alananda's picture

When Mr. Buchanan addresses the "Federal" Reserve System, fiat currency, usury, and -- according to some whose theses I have yet to see rebutted convincedly (attacks of "cons' piracy theory" only) -- the deliberately flawed construction of a "constitutional republic", then I shall read his puffery. His past is prologue. He was part and parcel of the process that got us from there to here. "Cuckservative", at best.

29.5 hours's picture

Clearly Buchanan has been reading a lot of history lately — and would like to show it off...

Seasmoke's picture

988. 989. 990. 991. 992. 993. 994. 995. 996. 997. 998. 999. 20,000 !!!!!!!!!!!

Batman11's picture

Francis Fukuyama talked of the “end of history” and “liberal democracy”.

Liberal democracy was the bringing together of two mutually exclusive ideas.

Economic liberalism – that enriches the few and impoverishes the many.

Democracy – that requires the support of the majority.

Trying to bring two mutually exclusive ideas together just doesn’t work.

What fucking dougnut thought liberal democracy would ever work?

The ideas of “Economic Liberalism” came from Milton Freidman and the University of Chicago. It was so radical they first tried it in a military dictatorship in Chile, it wouldn’t be compatible with democracy. It took death squads, torture and terror to keep it in place, there was an ethnic cleansing of anyone who still showed signs of any left wing thinking.

It was tried in a few other places in South America using similar techniques. It then did succeed in a democracy but only by tricking the people into thinking they were voting for something else, severe oppression was needed when they found out what they were getting.

Margaret Thatcher bought these ideas to the West and the plan to eliminate the welfare state has only recently been revealed. Things had to be done slowly in the West due to that bothersome democracy. The West has now seen enough.

It was implemented far more brutally in the developing world where Milton Freidman’s “Chicago Boys” were the henchmen of “The Washington Consensus”. The IMF and World Bank acted as enforcers insisting on neoliberal conditionalities for loans.

Global markets punished those not towing the neoliberal line and kept nations in their place. As Nelson Mandela was released from prison the South African Rand fell 10%, someone like this was going to be pushing up wage costs and would be bad for the economy.

Looking back it was a grand folly of an international elite whose greed overcame even a modicum of common sense.

Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" will take you through all the gory details.

Underlying neo-liberalism is a different economics, neoclassical economics, which is heavily biased towards the wealthy. Inequality and a lack of demand in the global economy were also guaranteed from the start.

Such a grand plan based on such a stupid idea, liberal democracy.

insanelysane's picture

Liberal Democracies eat themselves.  See French Revolution.

A Democratic Republic can only exist if it is conservative.  A government that is "of the people", "by the people", and "for the people" CANNOT EXIST with liberals.

Liberals look to the government for help, but they are the government, so they really looking to themselves for help.  It CAN'T WORK.

Liberals can only exist under Socialism because with socialists there is a group of providers and a group of takers.

Communism doesn't work for liberals because with true communism, the entire community needs to be working for the collective.  The hippie communes of the 60's collapsed because they would get community members that wouldn't do their "fair" share.  Communes are small and when a person is working their ass off looks over and sees another person lying in the sun smoking pot, the will to work for the collective is killed.

TeethVillage88s's picture

Founding Fathers were Liberals.

It was considered a very liberal idea I guess... to break with tradition: Rule by a King and a bunch of Lords.

Under the Manor system titles and lands were granted by the King... perhaps the person of influence provided men to fight for the king... in any case the people owed labor to the Manor or lord... they could only own commons, land held in common. This was the feudal system.

Or at least that is as much of it as I know.

What we call Germany was not a "One Germany", so things were different over there. Spain, France, Portugal, Nederlands, they all had kings.

But kings would pay for titles from the Catholic Church and perhaps later from the Church of England.

I never really like the royalty of England or whereever, so I don't know much history.

The Magna Carta was the great document, liberal document, that liberates man... from both church and nobility.

LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD's picture
LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD (not verified) TeethVillage88s Jan 6, 2017 1:45 PM

"Founding Fathers were Liberals."

But the term liberal has been redefined starting in the 1970s. Now liberals are hardcore statists who want nothing more than power for themselves so that they can, by use of ARMED FORCE is necessary, make people do what they want them to do. That is nothing like the desires of the founding fathers.

angry_dad's picture

Here is what the founding fathers said:

 

“Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”

With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” (Benjamin Franklin) 

Hope Copy's picture

Libertarian is not Liberal by today's standards and still this is not the case. 

 

The Founding Fathers came to America and by decree had been given certain rights to which then the Crown tried to take back those rights.  After winning the contest (war, as it would not go to court as decreed,) The Founding Fathers innumerate these rights to all as they represented the populous that was relied upon for liberation in a document called The Constitution of the United States, with further innumerate that could be annealed and expanded or contracted known as the Bill of Rights. 

  This should be the keystone to any US legal training as this is beyond just common law, this is court law and the basis for a cohesive marketplace where disputes are settled in a civil manner.  Nothing liberal to such, just a sound mechanism to keep a semblance of justice and order for a civilized and polite society.

Dark star's picture

The European rejection of mass immigration has nothing to do with rejection of Liberal democracy.

Europe is rejecting mass immigration because the immigrants reject Liberal democracy, gay rights, female emancipation and every other liberal tenet. They refuse to integrate, and consider Muslims as superior to any other religious followers, including their  hosts.

Europe has seen for itself that Liberal Democracy and Muslim immigration are incompatible.

insanelysane's picture

You are correct sir.  Once the Muslims have a majority in a country, they can easily vote democratically to criminalize behaviour that they find criminal.  A woman must be accompanied by a male in public, be covered, may not drive, and may not go to school.

Dr.Carl's picture

In answering the title, let's hope so.

Dr.Carl's picture

Finally a good analyst who does not accept liberals ...

 Lol

 

 

Former analysts from Goldman Sachs 

 

Can't argue with their preciseness and proven track record.

 

https://t.co/LM81DZlPyF

LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD's picture
LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD (not verified) Dr.Carl Jan 6, 2017 1:36 PM

TURN OFF THE SPAM MACHINE, ASSHOLE.

SchlongWave uses the following accounts to post TOS violating spam comment advertising on ZH: AliSONY, Babs.St.Louis, Billy G, Chi Juan, Dr.Carl, ErikE, FemDayTrader, Irvingm, John Beau, MexInvest, MikeM54, P Christmas Carole, RonnieM, Sonya B59, StevieTexie, Van G, and wisetrader224.

Any organization that uses spam comments to advertise is a dishonest, unethical, organization - at best. SchlongWave has set up 15 to 20 accounts to advertise via a slew of daily comment spam, often times causing comment threads to become unreadable. They often times use their multiple spam accounts to give themselves MANY thumbs ups, and "excellent analysis" responses to themselves, trying to convince people that their spam comments are appreciated.

SchlongWave, the ZH users are not the morons you think they are. You're not going to win them over by spamming the crap out of comment sections, begging for $39/month from people to "subscribe" to your crap. Please stop unethical comment spamming of ZH. Use your time to focus on making decent market calls instead. Then you just might be able to get, and keep, customers.

Dr.Carl's picture

Finally a good analyst who does not accept liberals ...

 Lol

 

 

Former analysts from Goldman Sachs 

 

Can't argue with their preciseness and proven track record.

 

https://t.co/LM81DZlPyF

LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD's picture
LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD (not verified) Dr.Carl Jan 6, 2017 1:36 PM

TURN OFF THE SPAM MACHINE, ASSHOLE.

SchlongWave uses the following accounts to post TOS violating spam comment advertising on ZH: AliSONY, Babs.St.Louis, Billy G, Chi Juan, Dr.Carl, ErikE, FemDayTrader, Irvingm, John Beau, MexInvest, MikeM54, P Christmas Carole, RonnieM, Sonya B59, StevieTexie, Van G, and wisetrader224.

Any organization that uses spam comments to advertise is a dishonest, unethical, organization - at best. SchlongWave has set up 15 to 20 accounts to advertise via a slew of daily comment spam, often times causing comment threads to become unreadable. They often times use their multiple spam accounts to give themselves MANY thumbs ups, and "excellent analysis" responses to themselves, trying to convince people that their spam comments are appreciated.

SchlongWave, the ZH users are not the morons you think they are. You're not going to win them over by spamming the crap out of comment sections, begging for $39/month from people to "subscribe" to your crap. Please stop unethical comment spamming of ZH. Use your time to focus on making decent market calls instead. Then you just might be able to get, and keep, customers.

European American's picture

 

Our present day "liberal democracy" is an endangered species because it's an invasive species. Eventually, Nature will move to correct the imbalance, one way or another.

Rich Monk's picture

As long as the Jews control money creation we are all in deep shit!

CoCosAB's picture

Liberal Democracy!!! Never existed.

LordDampNut's picture
LordDampNut (not verified) Jan 6, 2017 1:10 PM

There is no democracy. We gave up on Democracy with the advent of black box voting, and I don't see any liberals at all. Hillary Clinton had not had a Liberal idea in 30 years when she advocated for Universal Health care. Hillary and Obama where sell outs to the to the Ruleing class Elites. That does NOT make them Liberal that Makes them Criminal. Not all criminals are Liberal. Just like not all Trump Voters are Zombie Cult followers that have no grasp of the English language or the actual meaning of a particular that they like to throw around.

shovelhead's picture

Why is liberal democracy losing its appeal?

Easy.

Instead of live and let live, the ultraleft have taken a liberal democracy to mean they can force the rest of us to accept their perverted notions of equality and 'fairness' that are anything but what they claim.

Do I win the internet for the day?