|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 07 2017 01:18 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 22:59 Acrofales wrote:On February 06 2017 22:22 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
An autocratic democracy is just a democracy in name only. How can you have a bottom-up autocratic society anyhow? By definition, in any autocratic society, power is concentrated at the top. One of the crucial ideaas of democracy is that everyone has equal rights. No class, no caste should have power in itself to rule over another. If it does, then it is no longer a democracy. There has only been a few examples of autocratic but liberal governments, but I am hard pressed to think of any democratic but authoritarian governments, simply by the expedient that an authoritarian government cannot be democratic in the first place. Plenty of Latin American autocracies were democracies that just went on for longer than intended. Look at Bolivia right now: Evo Morales is nearing the end of his 3rd term (constitution allows 2 terms, but he found a loophole that allowed him to be electable for a third term). There was a referendum about a change of constitution allowing him to run for a 3rd (4th) term, which voted against the change. Yet he is still making noises about wanting to run in 2019 (and I fully expect that he'll find a way to do it). Chavez in Venezuela was similar. No voter fraud was necessary, and the opposition wasn't forbidden (and isn't in Bolivia). It's just impotent in the face of a charismatic leader. Venezuela right now is, of course, a democracy in name only, but such is the slope from democracy to dictatorship (and even now, Maduro does not have absolute power, and has to deal with a democratically chosen parliament that opposes him). Not sure why you are using either of these countries as an autocratic democracy. Neither can be called democracies. Neither have a free media or freedom of speech as we understand it. Having some sort of parliament is hardly an indicator of democracy either. It's actually pretty normal for autocratic countries in the present and past, stretching all the way to the medieval ages, to have some sort of parliament/diet/council of some sort. Though I generally agree there is a slope, I think I place democratic/not democratic in a different place to you.
I think Bolivia is a lot more democratic than you give it credit for. If you don't consider Bolivia a democracy, you'll probably have to exclude quite a few countries you probably do consider democratic, based on your ideas for freedom of press. For instance, Hungary, Romania, and Mexico.
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2016/bolivia
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2016/hungary
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2016/romania
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2016/mexico
Or for that matter, Italy also scores worse than Bolivia:
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2016/italy
That said, lack of freedom of press is not Bolivia's greatest threat to democracy (that is obviously Evo Morales' authoritarian traits).
And that is part of the reason I pointed to Bolivia as a good example of an autocratic democracy. Evo Morales would love to centralize power on himself, and I believe he genuinely believes his vision is the best way for the country and he should be the one to implement it. There's a large number of the population who believe that too and would gladly hand over power to him. But it is currently not yet that way, and there are strong democratic institutions still standing in his way.
Venezuela is quite a few steps further down the slope to dictatorship. Chavez in his early days was like Evo Morales now: a hero of the people who implemented popular policies, and I am willing to believe that Chavez as well did what he thought was best for the country (although corruption will always be an issue in all of South America). At the end of his reign, however, Venezuela was mostly not a democracy anymore, and under Maduro it has given up any semblance of one. Which is why I referred to early days Venezuela, and not Venezuela now.
|
I see what you mean with Venezuela as that was the one I had the most objection to its characterization, but I would still say that Bolivia is not truly a democracy. Though I might be behind the times in that regard. I distinctively remember that in the past it gave very little accord to their people's freedom.
As for Hungary, there has been a clear slide towards authoritarianism over the recent years. It's pretty close to vearing to what I would call "not a democratic country". I'm not sure about Romania, but there appears to be massive corruption but it still appears to be a democracy judging from the success of protests. There's more to democracy than just freedom of press, though i regard it as an important component.
BTW, you got the scoring the wrong way round. It's the higher the better, judging from that Norway is 9/100.
|
Geert Wilders, the leader of the Netherland's populist Party for Freedom (PVV) party, has sparked angry recriminations from fellow politicians after posting a digitally altered image that falsely claimed to show a political rival at a rally with Islamists.
But the anti-immigration leader, whose party is leading in some polls ahead of nationwide elections in March, has refused to back down from his tweet — and dubbed his rival a "drama queen" for complaining.
At first glance, the image Wilders posted to Twitter on Monday morning appears to show Dutch politician Alexander Pechtold standing at a rally beneath a sign that said "Shariah for the Netherlands." In his tweet, embedded above, Wilders seemed to suggest that the photograph showed Pechtold, leader of progressive Democrats 66 (D66) party, at a demonstration with "Hamas terrorists," referring to the Palestinian Islamic movement.
It didn't take long for social media users to spot that the picture had been digitally altered and did not show Pechtold at all, however. Instead, the photograph showed a demonstration against Wilders in London from October 2009. Dutch news outlets noted that Pechtold had not been anywhere near the protests at the time.
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/06/dutch-far-right-leader-geert-wilders-tweets-a-fake-image-of-a-rival-with-a-shariah-for-the-netherlands-sign/
This kinda stuff really terrifies me to be honest. Not that the far-right guy is a scumbag liar, but that his supporters are so Islamophobic that they support him in spite of that. And it's also happening right now in my own country.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
This support didn't come out of nowhere. When your centrists ignore you, you are forced to push for more extreme and aggressive solutions for your problems.
|
On February 07 2017 04:48 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +Geert Wilders, the leader of the Netherland's populist Party for Freedom (PVV) party, has sparked angry recriminations from fellow politicians after posting a digitally altered image that falsely claimed to show a political rival at a rally with Islamists.
But the anti-immigration leader, whose party is leading in some polls ahead of nationwide elections in March, has refused to back down from his tweet — and dubbed his rival a "drama queen" for complaining.
At first glance, the image Wilders posted to Twitter on Monday morning appears to show Dutch politician Alexander Pechtold standing at a rally beneath a sign that said "Shariah for the Netherlands." In his tweet, embedded above, Wilders seemed to suggest that the photograph showed Pechtold, leader of progressive Democrats 66 (D66) party, at a demonstration with "Hamas terrorists," referring to the Palestinian Islamic movement.
It didn't take long for social media users to spot that the picture had been digitally altered and did not show Pechtold at all, however. Instead, the photograph showed a demonstration against Wilders in London from October 2009. Dutch news outlets noted that Pechtold had not been anywhere near the protests at the time. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/06/dutch-far-right-leader-geert-wilders-tweets-a-fake-image-of-a-rival-with-a-shariah-for-the-netherlands-sign/This kinda stuff really terrifies me to be honest. Not that the far-right guy is a scumbag liar, but that his supporters are so Islamophobic that they support him in spite of that. And it's also happening right now in my own country.
Funny, it reminds me that Le Pen actually made a fake Mélenchon tract when facing him for the legislative election back then in 2012.
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.huffpost.com/gen/625205/thumbs/o-TRACT-570.jpg?4) “There is no future for France without the Arabs and Berbers from Maghreb. + Show Spoiler + Let's vote Mélenchon!”
Everywhere they're the same filth. Lies, slander, hoaxes, manipulation.
Fun fact: those fools overlooked the fact that Arabic is written from right to left, so they got it wrong.
|
On February 07 2017 04:58 LegalLord wrote:
This support didn't come out of nowhere. When your centrists ignore you, you are forced to push for more extreme and aggressive solutions for your problems.
Maybe it's time to admit the centrists were correct the whole time, if the far-right are almost always lying scumbags?
Anybody who's more afraid of immigrants than a quasi-Orwellian egotist running the government isn't thinking rationally.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 07 2017 05:00 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 04:58 LegalLord wrote:
This support didn't come out of nowhere. When your centrists ignore you, you are forced to push for more extreme and aggressive solutions for your problems. Maybe it's time to admit the centrists were correct the whole time, if the far-right are almost always lying scumbags? Anybody who's more afraid of immigrants than a quasi-Orwellian egotist running the government isn't thinking rationally.
The centrists weren't right. They were ignoring the plight of an important portion of the population and forced them to make a populist choice. That is something that they are slowly starting to realize - and a few Trump-like winners later perhaps they will understand what has to change.
|
On February 07 2017 05:05 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 05:00 LightSpectra wrote:On February 07 2017 04:58 LegalLord wrote:
This support didn't come out of nowhere. When your centrists ignore you, you are forced to push for more extreme and aggressive solutions for your problems. Maybe it's time to admit the centrists were correct the whole time, if the far-right are almost always lying scumbags? Anybody who's more afraid of immigrants than a quasi-Orwellian egotist running the government isn't thinking rationally. The centrists weren't right. They were ignoring the plight of an important portion of the population and forced them to make a populist choice. That is something that they are slowly starting to realize - and a few Trump-like winners later perhaps they will understand what has to change.
If the far-right (I reject the term 'populist' because that ignores the gravity of their xenophobic policies) have to resort to lies and distortions to get elected, then they aren't correct either.
Again I say, anybody who's more afraid of immigrants/Muslims than of a narcissistic bigot as the head of government isn't thinking rationally.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 07 2017 05:10 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 05:05 LegalLord wrote:On February 07 2017 05:00 LightSpectra wrote:On February 07 2017 04:58 LegalLord wrote:
This support didn't come out of nowhere. When your centrists ignore you, you are forced to push for more extreme and aggressive solutions for your problems. Maybe it's time to admit the centrists were correct the whole time, if the far-right are almost always lying scumbags? Anybody who's more afraid of immigrants than a quasi-Orwellian egotist running the government isn't thinking rationally. The centrists weren't right. They were ignoring the plight of an important portion of the population and forced them to make a populist choice. That is something that they are slowly starting to realize - and a few Trump-like winners later perhaps they will understand what has to change. If the far-right (I reject the term 'populist' because that ignores the gravity of their xenophobic policies) have to resort to lies and distortions to get elected, then they aren't correct either. Again I say, anybody who's more afraid of immigrants/Muslims than of a narcissistic bigot as the head of government isn't thinking rationally.
People cast their votes for a wide range of reasons. Just because the far right appeals to Muslim resentment doesn't mean all their voters do.
|
Politics isn't some kind of food delivery service, if these people have problems they should rebuild their communities and address most imminent social problems personally. It is completely ridiculous to go on an anti-system binge because your life isn't going the way it's supposed to go and turn your anger towards Berlin, London or Washington. Politics, especially the federal administration does not exist to solve every problem of every individual.
I actually agree with you that it is not just xenophobic resentment, it's the cry for a kind of big daddy like figure that solves everybody's problem. That's not going to work out at all.
|
On February 07 2017 05:13 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 05:10 LightSpectra wrote:On February 07 2017 05:05 LegalLord wrote:On February 07 2017 05:00 LightSpectra wrote:On February 07 2017 04:58 LegalLord wrote:
This support didn't come out of nowhere. When your centrists ignore you, you are forced to push for more extreme and aggressive solutions for your problems. Maybe it's time to admit the centrists were correct the whole time, if the far-right are almost always lying scumbags? Anybody who's more afraid of immigrants than a quasi-Orwellian egotist running the government isn't thinking rationally. The centrists weren't right. They were ignoring the plight of an important portion of the population and forced them to make a populist choice. That is something that they are slowly starting to realize - and a few Trump-like winners later perhaps they will understand what has to change. If the far-right (I reject the term 'populist' because that ignores the gravity of their xenophobic policies) have to resort to lies and distortions to get elected, then they aren't correct either. Again I say, anybody who's more afraid of immigrants/Muslims than of a narcissistic bigot as the head of government isn't thinking rationally. People cast their votes for a wide range of reasons. Just because the far right appeals to Muslim resentment doesn't mean all their voters do.
The thing about those far-right parties is that they almost never have a coherent domestic or foreign policy besides being anti-immigrant. Is Le Pen a neoliberal or a social democrat these days? Same goes for Geert Wilders and Matteo Salvini.
|
On February 07 2017 05:13 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 05:10 LightSpectra wrote:On February 07 2017 05:05 LegalLord wrote:On February 07 2017 05:00 LightSpectra wrote:On February 07 2017 04:58 LegalLord wrote:
This support didn't come out of nowhere. When your centrists ignore you, you are forced to push for more extreme and aggressive solutions for your problems. Maybe it's time to admit the centrists were correct the whole time, if the far-right are almost always lying scumbags? Anybody who's more afraid of immigrants than a quasi-Orwellian egotist running the government isn't thinking rationally. The centrists weren't right. They were ignoring the plight of an important portion of the population and forced them to make a populist choice. That is something that they are slowly starting to realize - and a few Trump-like winners later perhaps they will understand what has to change. If the far-right (I reject the term 'populist' because that ignores the gravity of their xenophobic policies) have to resort to lies and distortions to get elected, then they aren't correct either. Again I say, anybody who's more afraid of immigrants/Muslims than of a narcissistic bigot as the head of government isn't thinking rationally. People cast their votes for a wide range of reasons. Just because the far right appeals to Muslim resentment doesn't mean all their voters do.
Yeah, but reject of immigration, and “recently” islam is the core message of the far right; and when you ask their voters about their main concerns (exact question is “what impacted the most your vote intention”), here's what they answer in France:
![[image loading]](http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/484109lecteursMLP.jpg)
1. Terrorist threat [read: 95% of Marine Le Pen's voters quoted the terrorist threat.]
2. Immigration
2bis. Security
3. The migrant crisis
So, well, when both the party and voters say more or less the same thing, it's safe to assume that it really is their main concern.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
not to speak lightly of the dead, but we can expect a lot of terrorist-y scaremongering and perhaps a few real incidents as french election approaches.
|
On February 07 2017 00:35 Sent. wrote:
Don't you think there is something wrong with getting angry at Assange instead of being sad because your prefered candidate doesn't have a clear conscience? Do you think people care who found this dirt on Macron? If those Russian funded fascists are so bad, maybe it's time to field a candidate who doesn't break the law?
As someone mentionned, you don't need any substance. Just releasing 10000+ emails and let conspiracy theorist do their job is enough.
Someone here is certain Clinton email contained plenty of terrible stuff. It really, really, really didn't. But every time the media says "LEAAAAK!" you are hurt because in people's mind, leak=scandal.
That being said, i think french public is generally less enclined to conspiracy theories and fake news than americans.
|
On February 07 2017 05:44 oneofthem wrote:
not to speak lightly of the dead, but we can expect a lot of terrorist-y scaremongering and perhaps a few real incidents as french election approaches.
Well the European football cup of nations last summer was a great opportunity too and nothing happened.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
with respect to leaks and their political repercussions, my obsession was always around 'activist media', the transmission mechanism, and the mood of the audience political faction, whether it is receptive to deep suspicion.
suppose there will be a 10000 email leak about macron two weeks before election time, whether it will turn out to be hillary mk2 depends on whether the same process that affected hillary is replicated. is there a rabid activist media network that cranks out representations of the leaks to reduce them into a negative narrative? is there an audience eager to confirm pre-existing notions of negativity? those familiar with french politics may have a better idea of how neurotic it is.
the advantage of the staged elections offers voters an opportunity to re-assess their threats. u.s. leftists that underappreciated trump's threat level for whatever reason did not have another chance, french people do.
|
On February 07 2017 05:44 oneofthem wrote:
not to speak lightly of the dead, but we can expect a lot of terrorist-y scaremongering and perhaps a few real incidents as french election approaches.
Well, to be honest, Fillon must be dying for a (decently big) terrorist attack to happen in France right now. Medias would talk about something else than his scandals, and it would give him some breathing room to re-launch his campaign based on security and national identity rather than firing 500K State employees and decreasing social protection.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
from a cursory reading of this fillon guy's economic platform, it's heavy on ideology and short on effective reforms.
primarily, cutting spending at this time is bad. you have a timing problem. okay, reducing public sector spending in the long run may be good, but the impact on domestic demand does not have any readily available replacements. this kind of public sector cutting is appropriate when the private sector economy is strong and growing.
labor market reforms and lowering corp tax rate are good. but given the large skills gap on the labor supply side, not sure if these changes are impactful.
the french left should really ditch the fear of 'competition' as a point of rhetoric but apply it to businesses instead. french corporate world is stratified and stilted. more competition and new business creation would be more impactful than labor market reforms even
|
On February 07 2017 05:21 Nyxisto wrote:
Politics isn't some kind of food delivery service, if these people have problems they should rebuild their communities and address most imminent social problems personally. It is completely ridiculous to go on an anti-system binge because your life isn't going the way it's supposed to go and turn your anger towards Berlin, London or Washington. Politics, especially the federal administration does not exist to solve every problem of every individual.
I actually agree with you that it is not just xenophobic resentment, it's the cry for a kind of big daddy like figure that solves everybody's problem. That's not going to work out at all.
Except when London, Berlin, or Washington stops you from doing things to rebuild your community (at least the things you think will do so).
You shouldn't complain about London, Berlin or Washington if you are in a small city in Brazil. however it is a potential legitimate complaint if you are in the US, UK or EU.
|
And how exactly is anybody being stopped or interfered with in pretty much any country? In fact most of the time those regions are actually by far net benefactors of welfare and other social contributions.
In the US it's also quite common for them to run low tax regimes while the evil city-dwellers can foot the bill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
