Reply to Democracy is overrated

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Democracy is overrated - China won "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]1. "American democracy is poorly suited to the 21st century."
Political scientists note that while modern democracies face polarization, research from institutions such as Freedom House and the Varieties of Democracy Project shows that democratic systems still outperform authoritarian ones on innovation, economic resilience, disaster response, and long‑term stability.
Authoritarian efficiency is often overstated; China’s own scholars have documented delays, corruption, and policy failures hidden by censorship.  And, some of the polarization is driven by disinformation injected into democratic societies by authoritarian ones such as Russia and China.[/quote]

The same political scientists operate in an academic environment suffering from a replication crisis.  Further, those scientists can't identify the causal variable because it'll get you fired.

[quote=Anonymous]
2. "China has a vision for national greatness and solves problems better."
Analyses from the World Bank and OECD show that aspects of China’s rapid infrastructure build‑out was poorly planned, and produced massive debt, unused projects, and local‑government insolvency.

Independent reporting has documented issues such as:
- ghost cities
- high‑speed rail lines operating at a loss
- demographic decline
- rampant youth unemployment
- local corruption that central authorities struggle to control

These are not signs of a system that "solves problems" more effectively; they are signs of a system where problems are harder to acknowledge publicly.

[/quote]

China has big issues.  I'm not defending its model, but pointing these out doesn't make the West stronger.  You don't understand the causal variable in #1, so you won't understand.  Of course, if you understand #1, you know the biggest and best retort to me.

[quote=Anonymous]
3. "Democracy only worked when the franchise was limited to certain people."
This claim contradicts the historical record.  Studies from the Brookings Institution, Stanford, and Harvard show that expanding the franchise correlates with higher economic growth, better public health, and more stable institutions.  Limiting voting rights based on subjective notions of who is "qualified" has been widely documented as a tool for entrenching power, not improving governance.
[/quote]

Again, you, like Brookings, are overlooking the causal variable.  Bet you like to cite Scando studies as evidence, too.

[quote=Anonymous]
4. "Diversity makes democracy fail."
Comparative political research does not support this. Countries such as Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, and India demonstrate that diverse democracies can function effectively when institutions are strong and inclusive.  The key variable is not diversity, it is institutional design, rule of law, and civic trust.
[/quote]

You're citing India?  Good grief, you added that because you don't understand their economic model.  Look to innovation.  Further, take Belgian and Canadian figures in whatever studies you're citing and update them for current numbers.  They ain't so pretty.  Diversity undermines the rule of law and civic trust.  Even the NYT printed that years ago.

[quote=Anonymous]
5. "The West is run by leaders who hate their own people."
This is a rhetorical assertion, not a factual one.  Political scientists classify such statements as delegitimizing narratives, common in polarized environments but unsupported by empirical evidence.  Democratic governments operate under transparency requirements, elections, judicial review, and independent media: mechanisms that ultimately make "hating their own people" an unsustainable claim.[/quote]
[/quote]

Sure, it's rhetorical, but the academic word salad you produced after that point means little.  You think Democratic governments operate under real transparency?  We don't know how many illegal aliens came into the US.  For example, politicians cited the 11m number for years when that was obviously wrong.  You trust Trump economic numbers?  I don't--he's lying just like Biden's administration did.  I can give examples such as the changes to CPI that understate the actual amount.

Epstein files sound like transparency?  How about the absurd options trading going on in Trump's White House where someone is making big money by trading on insider information regarding Iran before it is publicly released.  Anyone getting punished for these almost certain crimes?  Nope.  For the other side, a government attorney fabricated evidence in a political investigation and was not even disbarred.  How can you believe there is transparency when everyone lies and no one pays a price for it?

You are welcome to see this as a right-left issue, but it's a democratic failing.  There are alternative explanations (e.g., the West conquered the modern world, a certain group infiltrated and corrupted the government along historical patterns, other causes, or some combination thereof).  [/quote]

1. You're hilarious with your cowardly "causal variable" rhetoric that you want to wave around like a magic wand, but won't name out loud. As for your handwaving fluff about "replication crisis" you ignore that what I'm citing is based on actual macroeconomic datasets from OECD, World Bank and others that are not dependent on small-sample lab experiments of the sort that suffer from replicability issues.

2. Pointing out China's failures DOES matter, because your original claim has been "China solves problems better."

3. "You're ignoring the causal variable" isn't a counterargument to franchise expansion. Expanding voter rights does in fact correlate with things like higher GDP growth, and better institutional stability. Again, there's a ton of actual independent data to prove this, not little niche papers from obscure academics that suffer from replication issues.

4. Again, your diversity argument is pure rhetoric not backed by data. Canada and Switzerland are among the world's highest-trust, highest-functioning democracies. Belgium's political issues are linguistic and institutional, not racial. And I cited India because it is a large diverse democracy that still functions, not because it is a Scandinavian-style welfare state. And, citing a single NYT article as though it were proof of a universal sociopolitical law is far closer to your "replicatability issue" than my arguments are.

5. While you give examples as critiques, that's still not remotely proof that leaders of democracies "hate their own people." Democracies have things like FOIA laws, independent courts, independent investigative journalists, elections, legislative and executive oversight. Authoritarian systems have none of those. Nobody disagrees that democracies still have occasional flaws and scandals, but to try and frame that is "they hate their own people" is dishonest framing.

6. Your closing paragraph gave the game away. You jumped straight from "transparency is imperfect" to "maybe the West was infiltrated by a certain group following historical patterns." That’s not a causal variable. That’s a dog whistle. And it explains why you can’t name your "causal variable" outright: doing so would expose the argument for what it is.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics