One thing that's worthwhile to understand, but very difficult to mentally reconcile, is the way in which Americans have the ability to redefine words to meet the need of branding.
In a very real and genuine sense, to most Americans "democracy and freedom" is simply whatever the USA does. This sentiment is then, after the fact, stitched into acceptability by these sorts of intellectual deflections.
It is understandable. The Netherlands is democracy to comes closest to ancient Athens. Twenty different political parties represented in parliament. A people who for 500 years have never agreed upon anything.
Americans want a strong leader. It is understandable.
Is it? It seems incredibly stupid to me. It's putting 'strength', or intensity and effectiveness of action, above whether the action is a good idea or even makes sense. It seems to make competence secondary.
If Athens is legitimately a democracy then I am confused how you can come to the conclusion "one thing is for certain, a democracy can't be authoritarian by definition."
Athens killed Socrates using an authoritarian law after all.
I think we're using two different meaning of authoritarianism. It means both "undemocratic/rule of the few" (my statement) and tyrannical (your position).
Any state, democracy included, can be a tyrant (i.e. cruel and oppressive) against its perceived enemies.
Comments
One thing that's worthwhile to understand, but very difficult to mentally reconcile, is the way in which Americans have the ability to redefine words to meet the need of branding.
In a very real and genuine sense, to most Americans "democracy and freedom" is simply whatever the USA does. This sentiment is then, after the fact, stitched into acceptability by these sorts of intellectual deflections.
Americans want a strong leader.
It is understandable. The Netherlands is democracy to comes closest to ancient Athens. Twenty different political parties represented in parliament. A people who for 500 years have never agreed upon anything.
Is it? It seems incredibly stupid to me. It's putting 'strength', or intensity and effectiveness of action, above whether the action is a good idea or even makes sense. It seems to make competence secondary.
IIRC ancient Athens was a direct democracy, which the Netherlands are not (and is technically a constitutional monarchy).
Liechtenstein and some Swiss cantons are the few remaining examples of direct democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#Examples
If Athens is legitimately a democracy then I am confused how you can come to the conclusion "one thing is for certain, a democracy can't be authoritarian by definition."
Athens killed Socrates using an authoritarian law after all.
I think we're using two different meaning of authoritarianism. It means both "undemocratic/rule of the few" (my statement) and tyrannical (your position).
Any state, democracy included, can be a tyrant (i.e. cruel and oppressive) against its perceived enemies.