RE: Austria may elect Europe's only far-right president
Tigre said:
Anti-democratic is in the eye of the beholder.
Sure.
The phrase itself, in terms of how you use it, presumes that democracy is the ideal structure for government in a multicultural society.
If I were to use it, I would only use it in the context of tribal self-determination, which by definition will always be realized through a proper functioning democracy in a monocultural nation (though i still see democracy as too corruptible in that situation). In essence, you could judge the democratic legitimacy in that environment by its ability to bring self-interested results for the majority.
In essence, your "anti-democracy" refers to process in any environment. Mine refers to a result in a specific environment (that of a majority tribal set of interests).
"Anti-democratic", as you use it, merely refers to the observable corruption of a process. Never mind the un-observable corruptions.
I don't see this situation as anti-democracy as you might use the term. I see this situation being democracy as it was designed to malfunction. It isn't anti-democratic, it is merely democracy outside of the short sighted idealism of the way people imagine that it works.
What this situation is is anti-freedom / anti self-determination, as it always is when the contest is between two polar opposite politicians and points of view. It is as democracy is supposed to work in a multicultural nation, and it works predictably to its inherently corruptible nature as it inevitability manifests in most nations given enough time. In that sense, it is "anti-democratic". It is "anti-democratic" in the context of the ideal that most of us still divinize democracy over, subconsciously or otherwise. It is how democracy is supposed to work, in reality.
If you don't view this as a negative result in terms of how the mechanics of government is structured, then you likely hold democracy to an unrealistic ideal of what it is advertised to be versus how what it actually is.
The people cast their votes. The result is the result.
See above.
Let's consider the US general election, which works differently. Suppose an independent candidate from the right runs in the race, purely to spoil Trump's chances. This forum would also be complaining about it being anti-democratic. Because maybe Trump would have won in a two candidate field.
Where would his funding come from? If such a candidate is put forth by an aristocracy, in spite of having a relatively low voter approval, then that is the definition of anti-democratic (assuming for a second that we hold democracy to be ultimately a good thing).
Usually, anti-democratic effect of the funding reality always exists in the U.S.A.. Candidates depend on elite approval before the population votes on them; and so the anti-democratic environment exists all of the time. Elite funding of a third party candidate would hypothetically be a secondary anti-democratic detail in comparison to the overall anti-democratic funding requirement needed just to play.
Trump largely had his own funding for the primary, making him inherently the better embodiment of democracy because he could run and win in spite of elite funding. He is the pure democratic choice, one that has rarely been available. Thus, any "anti-democracy" criticism would be pretty valid in this case, should a third party candidate run. It would not be as valid normally. I'm not sure that calling "sour grapes" on critics of a hypothetical third party candidate in this election holds up.
You can't have it both ways.
What ways are those?
Le Pen won the first round voting tallies but lost the run off. So did Hofer. That is the system. I don't see it as inherently unfair.
See my first post. See my above criticisms of holding democracy to be an inherently good choice for government. Why do you think that it is pushed at the point of hot metal the world over?
My criticisms, and those of people like me, are also more highlighted in elections such as this between two politicians at the opposite ends of the political gamut: which have not occurred in a long time. Though, just because others are now watching the predicted outcome of democracy does not mean that these criticisms were less valid when the two candidates were more indistinguishable. It simply means that it was a matter of time that this "anti-democratic" result, in the sense of tribal self determination, was inevitable. Some people could see it and some could not. Now, everyone can see it. The criticism was not sour grapes then, and it isn't sour grapes now. It's an over-arching criticism of democracy that exists in "good times" and in bad.
But I see most of this as just whining about the result.
All of politics is, in essence, "whining at the result". That's the nature of human conflict. Telling someone to stop "whining", and in this case categorizing it as "whining", shows a bias in my opinion.
That is ultimately what's most anti-democratic, as you have difficulty accepting the mandate as spoken by the voters.
I don't see multicultural democracy to be as ideal as you do, which was the entire point of my first post.
I strongly wanted Hofer to win too. It's disappointing that he didn't. But at a certain point, you have to be rational and accept the result of the game.
So which is it: are we playing a legitimate "game" that we should accept the outcome of or is the system prone to fraudulent outcomes? If the latter, then don't you have some further cognitive dissonance at your acceptance of multicultural democracy as an ideal? "Be rational" sounds defeatist, and again dissonant, to me in the face of an admittedly fraudulent outcome.
Even (especially) when the result didn't go your way.
Sure. And everyone with your remark can ignore the people who are consistent critics of democracy in good times and in bad. I'm cursed with being able to see the effects of things past the next five years. Because a sham system might come up for someone I approve of now does not mean that I don't see what the eventual permanent result will be; the long term result that I
clearly predicted in my first post. But here you are, anyway, accusing me of my view being election dependent.
You don't know me, but I've been criticizing democracy for almost a decade to whomever will listen. Your comment simply doesn't apply to me. Accusing someone of being petty is an easy argument to make, though. I'll give you that.
Anyway, my argument sounds more impassioned than I actually feel about the issue given that I don't predict anything different. This isn't a disappointment for me, this is merely a predicted outcome. I understand your bias towards fairness in the game. I'm merely not convinced of its structure, overall, not merely fairness specific to this election.
