The End of Democracy?

Twenty-five years ago, Francis Fukuyama argued that liberal democracy was the only viable political structure of our world and all nations would eventually adopt it out of their own interests. Some disagreed with Fukuyama, saying “the Western traditions of rights and limited government, which themselves had evolved out of Christian tradition, particularly Western Christian tradition,” were in no way universally adaptable. Democracy needs fertile ground in which to grow. Now, two political scientists are arguing that our rising generation is far less committed to democratic principles than any previous generation, even willing to accept authoritarianism in various forms. (via Prufrock News)

3 thoughts on “The End of Democracy?”

  1. I appears to me that the author of the article needs to work on defining terminology. There are great chasms between the traditional definition of liberalism and the Newspeak definition of liberalism. The article recognizes young people trending away from the components that are often identified with traditional liberalism while failing to recognize that these same people see themselves as the ultimate liberals, albeit in the newspeak definition. There is also a false dichotomy raised in offering only the alternatives of populist democracy and totalitarianism. Newspeak liberalism is better seen as Eliteism, a world where only the informed and knowledgeable are allowed to succeed or rule.

    1. You’re probably right. When I read the piece, I felt as if I was coming into the middle of a conversation, and perhaps that’s exactly how we should see this post. This author, if not this website, has a context of its own and maybe they defined their terms in the past. But you can’t always guard your readers against the way other people use particular words.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.