Liberal democracy isn’t done. But it’s also far from safe. This is going to be a long fight.
That’s the lesson I take from the last year or so of election results around the globe. Trump returned to office and he’s now doubling down in his effort to destroy any semblance of democracy or human decency. But, on the other hand, hard-right populists have been defeated in Canada, Australia, Romania, France and Germany. In Britain, the conservatives lost control to a chastened Labour Party.
And now the most recent results, fresh from yesterday, bolster the split story. Poland took a disheartening step back by electing Karol Narocki, a hard-right Trumpy character, as their next president. On the other hand, the more powerful office of prime minister remains for now in the hands of a moderate liberal, Donald Tusk. In South Korea, the moderate liberal candidate, Lee Jae my-ung, emerged as the winner as voters took out their frustrations on the far-right after its president tried to impose martial law last year.
Liberal democracy may be coming and going in a long struggle. That’s the conclusion of a June 3rd piece in the New York Times by Polish historians Jaroslaw Kuisz and Karolina Wigura: “On Sunday MAGA won in Poland. After voters rejected Trumpist candidates in recent elections in Canada, Australia and Romania — enough to suggest an international anti-Trump bump — Polish voters went the other way. Mr. Nawrocki, a conservative historian and a former boxer, narrowly defeated Rafal Trzaskowski, the liberal mayor of Warsaw, who was backed by Prime Minister Donald Tusk in a runoff election. Just two short years after electing Mr. Tusk, Poland has once again swung right. Like the U.S. election in 2024, it was a bruising reminder that populism is resilient and sticky, and that liberal democracy has yet to find a reliable formula to defeat it… Now the last two years in Poland, like Joe Biden’s four years as president after Mr. Trump’s first term in the United States, seem like little more than a liberal intermezzo in which some institutions were restored and some democratic norms reasserted. But voters’ deep dissatisfaction and polarization had not simply disappeared; what looked like a restoration was just a narrow opening — and one that may be closing now.”
So, what appears to be true is that neither side is running the table. The electorate in developed countries is pretty much evenly split. A decade ago that would have been inconceivable to me. I always thought the far-right made up maybe 5% of the American electorate. Turns out it’s more like 50%.
What’s so discouraging about that is that so many people don’t care about freedom. I don’t honestly think that most Trump supporters are Stephen Miller type little Nazis. I think most Trump voters are angry and frustrated (somewhat justifiably) over their place in society. Others have concerns that trump (sorry) things that feel abstract to them, like freedom of speech, the rule of law and pluralism. The laws, standards and norms of a liberal society, which are central to me and about half of Americans, seem like trivial niceties to the other half of America. It’s not that they don’t care about democracy, they just care about other things more.
That’s now just the reality we have to deal with. And it seems the best way to navigate this long struggle is with understated center-left moderates. The new South Korean president was once a liberal activist, but he toned down his views to win over the center. All of the new leaders in Britain, Australia, Germany and Canada are low-key politicians. Even here in Wisconsin, Tony Evers — who proclaimed “boring wins!” after his last victory — fits the mold.
The last thing we need is more “Resistance!” The last thing we need is more Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Bernie Sanders. The hard-right can win with dynamic, charismatic candidates. Those of us who care about liberal democracy can only win with understated technocrats. That’s fine by me. Give me more Evers.
Yellow Stripes & Dead Armadillos 
Do you find it convenient that the only candidates you think can win are the ones you prefer? It may not be AOC or Bernie but at least they are doing something. I sincerely doubt the American electorate is in the mood for more technocrats and I think the answer is something new and not going back to Bill Clinton. I would look more toward the Chris Murphy mold than to anything previous. If democrats keep putting forward boring technocrats then we are in for President Vance followed by President Hawley.
LikeLike
More than just convenient, I find it gratifying, fulfilling even.
LikeLike
Well I wouldn’t count your chickens at least 3.75 years before they hatch…unless you find all outcomes gratifying, including the prospect 8-12 years more of Republican governance.
LikeLike
No, I’m just looking at the odds. What’s consistent about all of the candidates who have won on the side of liberal democracy is that they are low key. Macron may be the one exception. I guess having your wife slug you in the door of your plane disqualifies you as low key. But he’s French, so you have to discount for that.
LikeLike
To be fair I think Chris Murphy, or a Democrat in his mold, would be a good blend of a change candidate and a boring technocrat. Fingers crossed we still have fair elections.
LikeLike
Maybe so. Murphy does not drip with charisma, that’s for sure.
LikeLike
“Democracy basically means: Government by the people, of the people, for the people…. but the people are retarded.”
― Osho
IMO the people are mostly ignorant. It’s a big reason we have a national debt that will eventually lead to ruination. It’s too fuzzy and far away for most people. Except for the poors who feel the effects of inflation more acutely than asset holders. And the incentives for the elites in charge are to keep the people ignorant. I’m shocked there are any Ron Johnsons and Rand Pauls left.
LikeLike
I agree that the intent of the elites in charge is to keep the majority ignorant. But I fail to agree with calling the majority an insulting slur implying that they are physically incapable of intelligence. (Aside: we’d be better off if “retarded” people ran the country)
What do you even advocate? In one breath you criticize the situation the elites got us in, then in the next advocate that we get rid of democracy (which results in a dictatorship of these same elites). Regular people would be quite fine with balancing taxes and spending. It’s the rich elites that aren’t – they only want to reduce government spending and further consolidate their power. Johnson and Paul aren’t brave heroes, they just want to consolidate oligarch power faster by bringing both taxes and spending as close to zero as they can. It’s only the power of regular people through democracy that they’re being held back from their goal. Get rid of democracy and we’ll be there right quick.
I’m quite clear that I believe in the wisdom of regular people and support increased and improved democracy. You’ve tip toed around support for dictatorship. Again, what do you actually want?
LikeLike
Okay. So, a little refereeing here. I have to agree with Rollie that use of the term “retarded” is out of bounds. God knows, I struggle with politically correct language. But the boundary does move and, generally I think, it moves in the right direction. “Retarded” needs to be retired simply because it has negative connotations directed at people who don’t deserve it.
LikeLike
Rollie, if the exercise of Democracy led you to “dictatorship” what good was it in the first place?
I don’t have a problem with democracy per se but what we have is a glorified popularity contest. Our fiat monetary system makes it a lot worse. Do you think the average citizen understands any of that?
What do I want? I don’t think a well functioning democracy is in the cards right now. The incentives are all against it. I’ve asked this question before and never got an answer: how do you fix the debt problem under a democracy? I don’t think you do. Probably don’t do it under a dictatorship either.
Dave similarly how do you fix the judge problem? The masses are perfectly with our hyper partisan judges and it’s just going to get worse. As for the R word, I wasn’t about to change the quote. To clarify what I said, I think the people are ignorant not stupid. FWIW I do some self censoring already but your blog so moderate away.
LikeLike
One Eye,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate that you don’t think the majority incapable of intelligence, but simply ignorant, and I understand not altering a direct quote. (Maybe too nuanced, but I think the difference between ignorance and incapability is an important one in this context)
I don’t think it’s possible for a well functioning democracy to lead to dictatorship (short of limited times of literal emergency). As you point out, unfortunately we don’t have a well functioning one.
I repeat, we have had budget surpluses in recent history. This occurred at the dawn of the modern right wing propaganda revolution, before it had really developed into what it is now. It would be quite simple to balance spending and taxes to draw down the debt, and Ds would be willing to, but it would take debt-minded Cons to be willing to work with Ds and raise taxes. It would also be greatly easier if Cons would be willing to submit just a tiny slice of authority to a reformed UN, which could allow us to reduce our death machine spending.
And for a chance at the kinds of coalitions and compromises that are needed, we need to improve upon this 2 party system that’s wholly fixed by the rich elites. This is priority #1. I believe the chances for these types of reforms are better if we consistently elect Ds instead of Rs. The fundamental definition of “conservative” means resistance to change. Progressives, by definition, are open to change. We need a democratic (small d) change in the way we govern ourselves, and that won’t happen under Rs (by definition). Regular people understand balanced budgets, and they are willing to balance the budget.
LikeLike