Okay. I didn’t hear a comparison to China in that manner, rather he seemed to not want to be categorized into the either or binary argument. He is in the West so he obviously prefers here over China.
Side note: I have recently been studying the current American shift from terrorists and rogue states as the enemy back to a near peers (China Russia) enemy. A great deal of the problems with American thought grew out of the cold war and the demonization of all things socialist or communist. Our revitalizing the cold war may have biased my view.
Interesting you bring up Tucker Carlson. Does his style of “news” – misinformation that targets emotional reactions etc. serve authoritarianism or democracy?
Well, EVERY government makes rules/laws, and everyone has to follow them.
And has the authority to do so.
So, authoritarian? Sure. By definition.
We’re just not at the China level of authoritarianism, which exiled his father and which detained him for years. So, who cares?
I think it does a disservice to much of what democrats would argue in favor of (particularly moderate democrats) to conflate socialism and communism, but do agree that communism in particular has become a boogeyman due to the cold war.
I don’t think it’s too unreasonable for communism to be a boogeyman (although it’s certainly something people like to debate) but socialism being a boogeyman is a shame. You can insert elements of socialism into a market-based economy, we have already, such as single payer healthcare for the elderly.
In terms of whether Tucker Carlson serves authoritarianism or democracy, I suppose the former? He certainly doesn’t encourage informed discourse.
I agree that the US has some authoritarian tendencies. I agree that Donald Trump would prefer being the head of an authoritarian state instead of a president.
My problem, and this may just be language, is “the” authoritarian state. No. Having some tendencies is not the same as being entirely gone.
Yep that’s the point. All ideologies have pros and cons, winners and losers. Using socialism to correct the failings of capitalism or using capitalism to correct the failings of socialism leads to a healthy nation.
From the context of the interview I think it is a language issue, he meant the indefinite article. Unless he we using the definition of state as a condition of being which would fit.
I’m reading so many bullshitty buzzwords and equivocations that this is hard to make sense of this. Like there’s lots of grains of truth but wrapped up in a weird hotdog shape.
OHH he’s a modern artist. Now it all starts to add up.
My favorite Democratic activist living in exile is Gary Kasparov.
Because obviously chess masters talk a lot more actuaries.
He says some similarish things here:
Wealthier democracies had to begin dealing with a public backlash to automation, immigration, an increasingly interconnected world and rapidly evolving social values. In most industrialized democracies, this has led to the rise of radicalism on both the left and right, though the far right has enjoyed a particularly powerful resurgence. Ultimately, both sides promise simple answers to the complex problems facing liberal democracies. Their answers are more satisfying and easier to understand than the answers offered by more moderate groups. That’s what makes them so dangerous.
The current situation in America is a local version of the broader global crisis. Each nation has its own unique history and culture which helps determine the exact contours its conflict will take. But the underlying forces remain the same.
Rubin: What can we learn from other countries about the necessity for and means of forging cross-partisan coalitions in defense of democratic institutions and values?
Kasparov: Dictators know that divided societies are easier to subdue, so their goal is to sow dissension. Unfortunately, they often succeed. The key is for us to recognize three things: First, that we are going to have to work with people we may not like; second, that we’ll have to prioritize the broader struggle for democracy over our personal policy preferences; and third, ego is the enemy of unity.
The Spanish Civil War offers us a cautionary tale. In the late 1930s in Spain, moderates were essentially sidelined and society was ripped apart at the seams by fascists and communists. This reminds us that any movement we build in defense of democracy must be inclusive. We need to avoid purity tests and welcome people with a wide range of political views. Ultimately we need to prioritize the survival of democracy over all else. In chess, when your king comes under threat, you don’t think about what you’re going to do during the endgame; you focus on dealing with the immediate danger. We should approach democracy the same way.