What do the downfalls Somalia,Yugoslavia,Zimbabwe and Afghanistan all have in common? The establishment of socialist governments! Granting far-reaching powers to the state in the name of a greater good makes a government ripe for autocratic rule.
The downfall of Afghanistan and Somalia was that the government was too weak. The downfall of Yugoslavia was the death of its benevolent autocrat that held the multi-ethnic society together.
So much of this article's tone is self-defeating and at times downright contradictory.
- Telling people not to view those who vote differently from you as monsters while quite literally calling the winning candidates monsters themselves.
- Promoting a globalist view when the voter sentiment seems to indicate that is not the will of the people
- "Be inclusive" while lending credence to the west coast seceding to Canada.
- "Be optimistic" while peddling that "your opponent hack[ed] your nation’s electoral system to eke out a narrow win?"
A line in the final paragraph sums this article up nicely: "Many, many countries have voted in autocratic clowns, monsters, or narcissists. It’s a mistake". No. That is the great things about elections in a democracy: it is not a mistake. The mistake the author thinking his opinion is representative of the nation as a whole.
Here is a subheading absent from this, and every other negative analysis piece about a presidential election:
"Be open minded: When two groups of well meaning people believe different things, strongly, the best answer is often a compromise of the two. That compromise is impossible without each group viewing the other's opinions with empathy and appreciation."
Having an autocrat in and of itself isn't inherently a terrible outcome. Having a malevolent, corrupt, misguided, or sadistic autocrat is what is terrible. A benevolent autocrat on the other hand presents a viable or superior alternative to democracy.
6 comments
[ 0.23 ms ] story [ 27.0 ms ] threadlol is there anything else you want to be wrong about?
- Telling people not to view those who vote differently from you as monsters while quite literally calling the winning candidates monsters themselves.
- Promoting a globalist view when the voter sentiment seems to indicate that is not the will of the people
- "Be inclusive" while lending credence to the west coast seceding to Canada.
- "Be optimistic" while peddling that "your opponent hack[ed] your nation’s electoral system to eke out a narrow win?"
A line in the final paragraph sums this article up nicely: "Many, many countries have voted in autocratic clowns, monsters, or narcissists. It’s a mistake". No. That is the great things about elections in a democracy: it is not a mistake. The mistake the author thinking his opinion is representative of the nation as a whole.
Here is a subheading absent from this, and every other negative analysis piece about a presidential election:
"Be open minded: When two groups of well meaning people believe different things, strongly, the best answer is often a compromise of the two. That compromise is impossible without each group viewing the other's opinions with empathy and appreciation."