Hacker News Reader

Comment by amalcon | Hacker News Reader

The fundamental issue is that a liberal democracy can't indefinitely survive a majority of the people prioritizing other things over continued democracy and rule of law. This is almost by definition. Democracies have failed in that way before, and they will do so again.

A strong liberal democracy, however, can endure that condition for longer than a weaker one. The US is a strong liberal democracy. The goal must, therefore, be to get out of the danger zone before it's too late. That means changing the hearts and minds of your fellow citizens.

(If you're asking how to do that... I am not remotely the right person to answer)

View on HN

The US might have been a the strongest liberal democracy, but it in 2024 it was ranked 28th on the Economist Democracy list. I am worried that people in the US are over estimating the strength of their democracy and that that might be an important reason for its rapid decline.

They don't have a majority. They have a small and shrinking plurality.

Only voters count, and they have a majority of those. There are a great many people who choose not to vote, and as far as I can tell they haven't changed their minds about that.

It's not a large majority; it's a narrow majority with somewhat of a thumb on the scale. But that thumb is substantial, and it's why they've controlled the government for the vast majority of the 21st century.

Democracy requires compromise. That's long gone. The "two" sides are far apart from compromise.

Maybe Abraham Lincoln should have let the South go. There's just too much difference in world views.

No, the original sin here is pretty clearly that reconstruction didn't go nearly far enough.

Treason was treated as a difference of opinions before, and people to this day think it's a cute cultural quirk. We need to do a better job of stamping it out this time, once the dust settles.

≥stamping it out

Sounds authoritarian not authoritative.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com