Linberg's assumptions are fake. Just look at Germany silencing free speech, and the whole of the EU attempting to control free speech in the digital realm, which the US has.
What do you mean by “scientific”? These concepts aren’t discoverable in nature. However, they’re transparently defined in the code book and the “opinions” are available for analysis in the expert coder-level dataset.
What if the things I don't like are anti-democratic? Like masked agents without warrants dragging people out of their homes and cars while ignoring federal court orders about using tear gas and other tactics? Or starting a war in the Middle East without consulting Congress and the American people.
The article points to “undercutting institutionalized checks and balances”, along with the deterioration of rule of law as issues - broader than civil liberties.
Article 2, section 3: “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
I don’t think this administration is either, nor did I ever say that it is. I asked why these institutions or organizations have such selective outrage over issues.
If the concentration of power in the presidency, as shown by an erosion of the Take Care Clause, is such a concern, where was the concern about the malfeasance of the last administration?
This index uses the word “democracy” when it really means “liberalism.” In an amazing use of doublespeak, most of this index is focused on liberal checks on democracy, not democracy itself.
Under a proper understanding of “democracy,” the massive backsliding happened in the 20th century. In Europe, with the advent of the EU, which shifted power away from voters to unelected bureaucracies seated in foreign countries. Or in the U.S. in the mid-20th century when vast power was delegated from the elected President and Congress to an unelected administrative state.
Nobody thinks that a president type figure appointing someone else to run a part of the government they are responsible for is an erosion of democracy.
What, specifically, is the alternative? The president does literally everything? We have elections for each dmv clerk?
Or maybe we draw some kind of line and say some jobs should have elections and others aren't worth the effort.
(And no, you can't just say "the job of dmv clerk should't exist" because someone has to do it and I'd much rather that person be answerable to an elected government than a corporation or worse)
What you’re describing is how administrative bureaucracies used to work in the U.S. before the 1920s and in Europe before the E.U. That’s consistent with democracy. The anti-democratic part is when the elected officials began delegating more and more power to those bureaucracies and those bureaucracies became more independent and insulated from elections. That when the backslide happened.
In the U.S. that happened because of legislation and new legal doctrines in the 1930s. In Europe it happened because of increasing delegation of power to the centralized E.U. bureaucracy.
We've seen pretty clearly that the unelected administrative state is totally subject to the policies and whims and terminally-online appointees of the executive.
It's just remained largely intact because the scary deep state is just people with careers who know more about statecraft than Joe Rogan listeners.
> In Europe, with the advent of the EU, which shifted power away from voters to unelected bureaucracies seated in foreign countries. Removing it would transfer power away from the people to EU's adversaries and large monopolistic entities.
The European parliament is elected. When people don't shoot themselves in the foot and put weird politicians in it, being a bigger group means more power to coerce large companies into behaving better. See: GDPR or small things like removal batteries or removal or roaming fees. So in a sense it allows people to recover some power over large companies.
Generally attacks on the EU sound like they come from other countries or large companies that would benefit from it being split so that individual countries can be better bullied into submission (though the EU has not been very competent at not bullying itself into submission to the recent new American leader).
The European Parliament has little actual power. With 375 million voters that are split by language and culture the electoral power is so diluted that most of the actual authority rests with the EU bureaucracy.
It votes on all laws so it has a strong power to stop bullshit. I fail to see how the amount of voters would remove that right. The power stands with the people who actually get out to vote.
At the same time democratic backsliding [1] occurs in cycles. We're probably not at a low point, but that doesn't mean it's permanent.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding
I read the actual report. It isn’t scientific. It’s just opinion masked in numbers.
Just because some is elected and does things you don’t like doesn’t mean democracy is ending.
Linberg's assumptions are fake. Just look at Germany silencing free speech, and the whole of the EU attempting to control free speech in the digital realm, which the US has.
Has this elected person said or done anything that specifically endangers voting rights? Or, say, federalizes voting?
What do you mean by “scientific”? These concepts aren’t discoverable in nature. However, they’re transparently defined in the code book and the “opinions” are available for analysis in the expert coder-level dataset.
What if the things I don't like are anti-democratic? Like masked agents without warrants dragging people out of their homes and cars while ignoring federal court orders about using tear gas and other tactics? Or starting a war in the Middle East without consulting Congress and the American people.
I don't think Trump is the cause, but he's an opportunist stepping into a vacuum that has developed over a lengthy period of time.
[flagged]
> an administration deliberately failing to enforce immigration laws
What civil liberties are being eroded there?
(I do agree that poor handling of the pandemic normalised the removal of civil liberties)
The article points to “undercutting institutionalized checks and balances”, along with the deterioration of rule of law as issues - broader than civil liberties.
Article 2, section 3: “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
Do you think the administration executing this faithfully in general, or just with regard to your one issue?
I don’t think this administration is either, nor did I ever say that it is. I asked why these institutions or organizations have such selective outrage over issues.
If the concentration of power in the presidency, as shown by an erosion of the Take Care Clause, is such a concern, where was the concern about the malfeasance of the last administration?
What is the correct term for this kind of bad faith attempt at seeming logical while at the same time being utterly and deliberately wrong?
Do you believe Biden enforced US immigration law in line with Article 2 Section 3 during his term?
This index uses the word “democracy” when it really means “liberalism.” In an amazing use of doublespeak, most of this index is focused on liberal checks on democracy, not democracy itself.
Under a proper understanding of “democracy,” the massive backsliding happened in the 20th century. In Europe, with the advent of the EU, which shifted power away from voters to unelected bureaucracies seated in foreign countries. Or in the U.S. in the mid-20th century when vast power was delegated from the elected President and Congress to an unelected administrative state.
Nobody thinks that a president type figure appointing someone else to run a part of the government they are responsible for is an erosion of democracy.
What, specifically, is the alternative? The president does literally everything? We have elections for each dmv clerk?
Or maybe we draw some kind of line and say some jobs should have elections and others aren't worth the effort.
(And no, you can't just say "the job of dmv clerk should't exist" because someone has to do it and I'd much rather that person be answerable to an elected government than a corporation or worse)
What you’re describing is how administrative bureaucracies used to work in the U.S. before the 1920s and in Europe before the E.U. That’s consistent with democracy. The anti-democratic part is when the elected officials began delegating more and more power to those bureaucracies and those bureaucracies became more independent and insulated from elections. That when the backslide happened.
In the U.S. that happened because of legislation and new legal doctrines in the 1930s. In Europe it happened because of increasing delegation of power to the centralized E.U. bureaucracy.
We've seen pretty clearly that the unelected administrative state is totally subject to the policies and whims and terminally-online appointees of the executive.
It's just remained largely intact because the scary deep state is just people with careers who know more about statecraft than Joe Rogan listeners.
How telling that in your version of events, "massive democratic backsliding" happened right after the conclusion of WW2. Yikes.
He's referring to FDR, who was inaugurated well before the end of WWII.
European integration did not happen before WW2, because you know, Europe was at war.
Moreover, criticizing FDR's response to the great depression while solely condemning Europe for its post-war policies isn't a great counterargument.
> In Europe, with the advent of the EU, which shifted power away from voters to unelected bureaucracies seated in foreign countries. Removing it would transfer power away from the people to EU's adversaries and large monopolistic entities.
The European parliament is elected. When people don't shoot themselves in the foot and put weird politicians in it, being a bigger group means more power to coerce large companies into behaving better. See: GDPR or small things like removal batteries or removal or roaming fees. So in a sense it allows people to recover some power over large companies.
Generally attacks on the EU sound like they come from other countries or large companies that would benefit from it being split so that individual countries can be better bullied into submission (though the EU has not been very competent at not bullying itself into submission to the recent new American leader).
The European Parliament has little actual power. With 375 million voters that are split by language and culture the electoral power is so diluted that most of the actual authority rests with the EU bureaucracy.
This is an argument I can support. We should definitely increase the number of MEPs and also give the parliament more power.
It votes on all laws so it has a strong power to stop bullshit. I fail to see how the amount of voters would remove that right. The power stands with the people who actually get out to vote.