Mounk1_Jeff Swensen_Stringer_Getty Images_Trump Elections Democracy

Politics

不自由的民主还是不民主的自由？

Jun 9, 2016 Yascha Mounk

坎布里奇—怎么会变成这样？在短短几个月的时间里，唐纳德·特朗普成为总统的可能性就从荒唐的猜测转变为可怕的可能。一个政治经验如此缺乏、对事实如此漠视的人是如何如此接近白宫的？

在一篇广受讨论的文章中，安德鲁·苏利文（Andrew Sullivan）最近指出，“民主过多”是特朗普崛起的原因。在苏利文看来，政治建制被极右翼反智主义和极左翼反精英主义“拍死在沙滩上”。与此同时，互联网放大了愤怒和无知的影响力。如今，在政治中起作用的不是实质或意识形态；而是愿意表达出人们最肮脏的不满——而特朗普毫无疑问擅长这一点。

迈克尔·林德（Michael Lind）在其深刻的回应中指出，苏利文颠倒了逻辑：真正的罪魁是“民主过少”。他指出，特朗普在相信“像我这样的人根本没有话语权”的选民中最有市场。

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

The Donald Trump Show
Samuel Corum/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

Longer Reads 14

The Donald Trump Show

PS editors Carl Bildt, Richard N. Haass, Stephen S. Roach, and other <em>Project Syndicate</em> commentators take stock of how populist rebellion throughout the West is jeopardizing the international order and further undermining the global economy.
Springtime for Fascism?
Sean Gallup/ Getty Images

Politics 42

Springtime for Fascism?

Ian Buruma asks whether an overused epithet accurately describes many of today's populist demagogues.
Europe’s Rule-of-Law Crisis
Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

Politics 20

Europe’s Rule-of-Law Crisis

Guy Verhofstadt suggests what is needed to counter rising authoritarianism in Hungary and Poland.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 10 Comments on this article

buddha bagai Jul 19, 2016

Globalisation has raised all boats but only exacerbated relative inequality. The 80:20 rule will not go away but perceptible compensation by the state through progressive taxation and provision of public facilities of higher order and corporate social responsibility plus guaranteed decent incomes and adequate employment should help.
Buddha Bagai
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Brian Driscoll Jun 14, 2016

From its opening line, this column could serve as exhibit A as to why the Left will never understand the right; instead, it can only caricature and demonize it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Norm Winn Jun 14, 2016

Mounk's statement "if the political establishment becomes so spooked by the populists that technocrats end up with even greater control over public policy, liberal democracy is unlikely to survive. In that case, we may confront the political equivalent of Sophie’s choice: sacrifice our rights to save democracy, or abandon democracy to preserve our rights."

I believe that to be a false choice, at least for citizens of the United States. As a veteran, I swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign or domestic, an oath I still believe in and try to live by each day. Our constitution provides our citizens the mechanism, albeit of last resort, to protect both our rights and our freedom - it is the second amendment.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Zsolt Hermann Jun 13, 2016

In truth we are completely lost.
Those who claim Trump is undemocratic want to use any tools, many undemocratic ones among them to stop Trump being democratically elected.
Which means even for the "defenders of democracy" liberalism, freedom and democracy is only good as long as it serves their best interest.

Moreover our overwhelming, stubborn and blind efforts for "liberalism, democracy and completely misunderstood equality" managed to delete all previous traditional humane and moral foundations leaving behind "zero societies" which are now completely defenseless against extremism of any form.

We have been carefully tip toeing around the real problem.
It actually does not matter what social, economic or political ideology, system we try. As long as we do not correct our inherently self-serving, self-justifying and greedy nature we will always end up in the same dead-ends, crisis situations. We will always explode into revolutions, wars and then start building the next vicious cycle on the ruins of the last one.
Except if we exterminate ourselves in one of those explosions which we have a good chance today.

Thus we are truly at crossroads. The question is if we are brave and desperate enough to finally look into the mirror and accept that before we "change the world" we have to change ourselves.
Only after such honest revelation of the disease can we hope for a cure through a brand new global and integral education program.
Only such a program can correct, adjust us to our evolutionary conditions in a global and fully interconnected world.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Jun 12, 2016

Yascha Mounk says, we are at a crossroads where we must choose - either "to sacrifice our rights to save democracy, or abandon democracy to preserve our rights." He says the Trump phenomenon has sparked a debate among pundits like Andrew Sullivan, who recently argued that "too much democracy" were to blame for Trump’s advance. Others like Michael Lind countered that "Sullivan gets things backwards." He insisted there were “too little democracy,” emphasising the frustration of Trump's working-class supporters, who say, "people like me don't have any say." They tend to be less educated and resent that "most important political decisions are now made by technocrats. Even in policy areas where elected representatives still call the shots, they rarely reflect citizens’ preferences."
Although Sullivan and Lind seem to contradict each other, the author insists that their arguments are "actually complementary," and that we need to understand them in order "to make sense of the deepening crisis of liberal democracy – which has also emboldened far-right populists throughout Europe." The rise of Trump and his soul mates on the other side of the Atlantic has posed a huge challenge to "two core components," that are pillars of our Western political values. "They are liberal because they seek to guarantee the rights of individuals, including those of marginalized minorities. And they are democratic because their institutions are supposed to translate popular views into public policy."
In recent decades the political establishment has failed to provide for jobs and decent living standards, and it has been "shoved aside by the anti-intellectualism of the far right and the anti-elitism of the far left." The Internet has provided a forum for "the angry and the ignorant" to make themselves heard. Critics say "what matters in politics today is not substance or ideology; it is a willingness to give voice to the people’s nastiest grievances." This allows demagogues to magnify their bitterness and win popular support.
In times of economic hardships in the West, "anger at the political establishment has skyrocketed" and the "two fundamental components" are now at odds with each other. Hence, liberal democracy is divided, spawning "two new regime forms: 'illiberal democracy,' or democracy without rights, and 'undemocratic liberalism,' or rights without democracy."
An "illiberal democracy" enjoys popular majorities in elections, and populist regimes in Hungary and Poland had introduced reforms that significantly undermine the checks and balances of liberal democracy. People voted for their leaders, but their rights had been curtailed. Their politicians' black and white views are nationalistic, and their uncompromising stand had led to a polarised society. This majoritarian extremism denies legitimacy to opponents' views and weakens the rights of minorities.
People complain about "undemocratic liberalism," when they feel that "they are no longer masters of their political fate." They criticise the exclusion of important issues from the political agenda by the political establishment, saying they now "live under a regime that is liberal, yet undemocratic." This regime form is often linked with state paternalism, with "vast swaths of policy ... cordoned off from democratic contestation," and decisions made without consulting the citizens, whose rights are "mostly respected but their political preferences are routinely ignored."
While "undemocratic liberalism" is often less exclusionary than "illiberal democracy," the main difference between them is not whether they exclude, but whom they exclude, which is largely determined by their accompanying ideology - such as nationalism or socialism. The author makes the point that economic security is key to political stability. People don't mind state paternalism as long as their government provides for welfare and prosperity. When it begins to introduce austerity measures, people take to the streets. So "there is still some hope of avoiding the disintegration of our political systems into either illiberal democracy or undemocratic liberalism. Perhaps the main short-term priority should be to implement economic policies aimed at raising ordinary citizens’ living standards – and thereby soften widespread anger at the political establishment."
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Casper Pedersen Jun 12, 2016

It would have been refreshing if also left wing countries like Sweden would have been looked at in the article. As it's not only the right wing which is limiting, also the left is not always open to free thinkers.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Jun 11, 2016

Democracy is essentially nationally based, business is now globally based therefore supranational, therefore in conflcit with democracy. Conflict will therefore continue until multinational agreement occurs to deal with the transgressions by global business against democratic wishes. This has always been present, well from the 16th/17th century or so, but ony recently has impacted on developed countries to the current extent. The East India Compamy for example had standing armies but they were not deployed against Europe. There is no question that business is making a big mistake, as are governments in continuing the historic practice of trusting business simply because historically there has been a benefit.

This is not a question about the flavour of democracy, but a question or what flavour of business should be hosted by a democracy. Sustainable relationships are based on three key criteria - trust, mutual benefit and shared values. At present business is in breach of the criteria so the relationship is due to fail, any relationship specialist will tell you that. It will happen, process in place. It is not rocket science. Democracy has to win in the end, to businesses detriment. If people stop buying a product the business is gone in a matter of months and eventually it will come to that. But stupid does as stupid does and there is nothing more stupid than stupid people who think they are clever
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Fritz Mustermann Jun 9, 2016

Good piece. Couldn't agree more, except when it comes to the remedies. It's not about a little more participation here and there.
We all are living now under the dumb of powerful economic an financial forces. Forces even the political elite can and will not control.
Only when the political elite regains power over the organized money and powerful corporations more participation makes sense.
- Norm Winn Jun 15, 2016
  
  There is little difference, if any, between today's political elite and big business. David Rockefeller's statement at a 1991 Bilderberger meeting sums it up quite nicely:
  
  "We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
  
  How thoughtful! As a USAF veteran, I'm not particularly comforted by his words of thanks nor the basis of his argument. Yet take a good hard look at where we are today and it's pretty obvious why so many feel so betrayed by those they elected (or allowed to be by remaining silent). We are at a crossroads. We can either get informed and get involved, and start making better choices and holding our representatives accountable, or we will lose both our rights and our democratic republic.
  To quote Ben Franklin, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both".
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Walter Gingery Jun 13, 2016
  
  Yes, yes, yes. You've put your finger on it (pun intended). As Thomas Frank tells it in his book "Listen Liberal," a great part of the problem arose when politicians like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama promised "change you can believe in" and then did no such thing. In fact, they made things worse with financial deregulation and trade pacts.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/MoQP1Fbzh

不自由的民主还是不民主的自由？

Subscribe to PS Digital

The Donald Trump Show

Springtime for Fascism?

Europe’s Rule-of-Law Crisis

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

不自由的民主还是不民主的自由？

Subscribe to PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification