Did Trump win or a failure of democracy?

December 2023, time Preview 2024 is the “Final Election Year”. It counts programming elections in “at least 64 countries (plus the EU).” In the final count, there were over 64, two of which won serious headlines.

Although his official deadline for the election is January 2025, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has advanced the election six months. Similarly, French President Emmanuel Macron panicked in a panic after a disastrous European Parliament election, saying the June general election. For Sunak and Macron’s fragile power base, the results were just as catastrophic.

Many other elections made headlines without major surprises. Russia was re-elected with a very comfortable majority, even though few people think that Russia is a model of democracy. Mexico elected its first female president, Claudia Sheinbaum, who also happens to be Jewish, which shows a significant cultural shift in Mexico’s electoral tradition. Many people think it is a victory for democracy.

But the “big” elections that everyone is waiting for in 2024 are held this week in 50 U.S. (It failed during the presidential election to calculate the “election votes”). This game is touted as a touchstone test for American democracy and health (no pun intended). Democrats have consistently claimed that former President Donald Trump would abolish democracy if elected. Now that he has won the election vote easily, and may also be a universal vote, few Trump has questioned the democratic process that has led him to elect, and is now the second time he has been elected.

Therefore, we might assume that almost all observers are ready to conquer the vitality of democracy, the fact that most elections, including Trump, appear to be conducted in a peaceful, orderly manner. Alas, some experts and pollsters insist on promoting the belief of ordinary citizens that the merits of democracy seem to be marked.

In a post Democracy MagazineCY In 2015, Larry Diamond, a senior researcher at the Hoover Institution, said bluntly: “Democracy has been in a global recession for much of the past decade.” Two years later, in 2017, the Pew Research Center Democracy Report released this terrible warning: “Scholars have documented the global ‘democratic recession’, and now some warn that even long-standing “consolidated” democracies may lose their commitment to freedom and tend toward more authoritarian politics.”

June 2023, Financial Times Two sections were published, “Martin Wolf Saves Democratic Capitalism: “Democratic Recession.”

Today’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Democratic recession:

A concept borrowed from economics by political analysts to raise complaints about the difficulty of dominating voices is difficult to scientifically.

Context Comments

One can make a contradictory case that what experts call “democracy return” is a form of democratic progress. Those who use the term to propose indicate a loss of confidence in the democratic process. But who committed this crime of losing faith? They believe that it is not the leader now, and that the parties and marketing experts play an important role in the election. No, they are innocent. The guilty party is… Demo. People and democratic citizens enjoy the right to vote. They seem to be using a form of critical thinking to assess the democratic failure of the electoral system, which emerges in the political outcomes it produces to ignore or betray the interests of ordinary citizens. Instead, what they see corresponds to what the wolf says: not democracy, but “democratic capitalism.”

To be fair to Wolf, he asserted, reversing what he called a democratic recession and connecting with a Trump-like populist movement, demanding that the administration benefit the wider population, not just the elite, by developing more inclusive economic policies.

But, as any classic capitalist theorist might remind him, by design, capitalism is an institution that concentrates economic power among the elite. As the economic elite consolidates its wealth, it distributes it systematically to the public, but to the political elite that not only possesses its values, but also to allow the same economic elite to decide their policies. All sober populists complain that politicians respond to voters rather than to the “donor class.”

Economic power secretes political power, embrace it and effectively control it. If voting is the only concrete and extremely restrictive tool of expression that people have, then political movements and corporate-controlled media will form a common tool for the elite. The power of the representative is meticulous and professional.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zchftp2qlaq

The U.S. Supreme Court’s citizens jointly ruled that “money is speech”, which is the logic behind this “power sharing” system. Voting is a simple purpose: to elect individuals of political elites who are destined to merge with economic elites. The vote changed the name on the roster. Money can get the job done. No one who loses confidence in democracy is misunderstood when they think they are seen as audiences of pre-recorded performances.

History

The Pew study appeared in 2017 after two dramatic historical events a year ago. The Brexit vote was held in June 2016. That November, Trump was shocked by a world that expected Hillary Clinton bona fide Members of the political elite went to Waltz to enter the White House. The study provides the following analysis: “Only one-quarter of the 38 countries surveyed (median 23%) are respected Democrats. About twice as many Democrats (median 47%) as (median 47%). Relatively few (13%) are non-democratic. A small percentage (8%) do not have any of these forms of governance.”

The cautious reader is not shocked, and he may have concluded that 70% (23 + 47%) more or less loyal Democrats sound reassuring. However, this statistical analysis deliberately ignores the most basic and seemingly obvious reality: the wavering of the population’s belief in democratic beliefs may be proportional to the view that the established democratic institutions experienced by these citizens do not operate democratically. They did not lose their faith, but were awake.

No one can pretend that Trump is a political thinker, or even a democratic theorist anymore. The democratic process is a game he learned to play. He was bold enough to invent his own rules, just like the American Basketball Association (ABA), which disappeared in the startup league being confined to the NBA fold before it was confronted with the established National Basketball Association (NBA), a thriving three-pointer that he enthusiastically adopted. Similarly, Trump’s rules seem to pull the fundamental demographic orientation of the Democratic rulebook out of the committee.

Trump’s political behavior reflects the fact that he is the “artist” of the deal, a businessman who is combined with the artist. But how democratic is it to use Kamala Harris as the only viable alternative to honest and honest American citizens who might vote? After a major process, she was selected for all serious competitors. She was fixed as a victory after a traditional demographic analysis of the minority voter group. The Democratic National Committee relies on locking votes.

Our collaborator Anton Schauble reviewed the philosophical history of democracy in an article published earlier this week, reminding us that “the United States is not democracy, but oligarchy, is no longer a secret.” A 2014 study conducted by Princeton University provides statistical evidence by reviewing legislation passed by Congress and comparing it reflects the interests of the elite rather than the preferences of the people. Rather than viewing Trump as an outlier of democracy, we should realize: “He is an oligarch of the American oligarch…but an oligarch like the United States has produced Donald Trump, such as the cherry tree has produced cherries.”

Journal Southern Life Tell us, “in the United States, about a thousand different types of cherries grow”, some are more delicious than others. Harris and the Democrats obviously left a bad taste in the mouths of many people. Trump may be a vulgar person, but no one can deny that the taste he offers is strong.

* (In the time of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of ironic definitions, ironic definitions of common terms, illuminating their hidden meaning in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published it as a book and used it as a book, and he mastered his depliment in 1911, and in the continuous effort, his title was ongoing, his title was shame, and his title was ongoing effort. Fair Observer Devil Dictionary)

((Lee Thompson-Kolar Edited this. )

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of fair observers.