Quo Vadis, Democrats?

[crazy canuck]

I am not sure Chile is a good example of internal politics. But for the US involvement it would likely not have occurred.

Japan 1930 might be the best historical example

I think that the US role in the coup in Chile has been overstated, not east because some of the CIA types involved wrote books that were designed to show how important they were. We have to remember that Allende was elected after winning only a third of the votes in a highly polarizing election. I think that it is probable that a coup would have occurred regardless of US involvement. However, US involvement definitively increased the opposition to Allende and damaged his legitimacy, so definitely improved the chances of a coup.  We will never know for sure.

I agree that parliamentary Japan is a better example.

I agree that the role in the 73 coup itself is overstated. There is good evidence the CIA was not aware of what was about to happen on that day. But the involvement of the US leading up to the coup, and the efforts to undermine the government after the election of Allende is well documented. Including the US involvement in the unsuccessful coup which resulted in the murder of the Commander in Chief who, if he had lived, would likely have prevented the 73 coup.

[Jacob]

My understanding is quite lacking, but I believe a large  part of the reason for the military turning on the government was the disastrous colonial wars. So while not a war against a democratic enemy it still involved war.

*edit* in the carnation revolution that is.

I didn't realize, but it makes sense. The correlation between difficult wars and the end of authoritarian regimes was the reason I thought Putin would be unlikely to follow through on the invasion of Ukraine. I was wrong, obviously, but I hope the correlation holds.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

It took over 13 years for it to happen in Portugal, though the wars were more of a slow burn than the meat grinder in Ukraine.

[Jacob]

Bear in mind that a lot of these events took place in a time when the dominant power of the West, the United States, expressed at least nominal concern for democracy - even if only as a tool against the Soviet bloc, it served to nurture hope and fuel principled opposition.

In a world where democracy is discredited (as was the case in Europe in the 1930s), finding inspiration is going to be harder.

No doubt about that in my mind at all, unfortunately. There's no shining, powerful exemplar for democracy (liberal or otherwise) and its benefits right now. Europe at its best might aspire to such a status, but it's certainly not there now and it's very much at risk itself.

[Jacob]

a pro-democracy military coup

Screwing for virginity rarely achieves the purportedly intended goal.

Yeah, the success rate is not high.

Ideally, of course, civil society and the population at large pushes back to such a degree that democracy is restored/ implemented. I haven't quite given up on the American people yet, though I'm not overly optimistic either. Mainly I was speculating on what the best hope would be if a popular movement for democracy fails to save the American republic.

[crazy canuck]

About as long as it took to save the Roman republic

[Norgy]

I'd say Portugal has been one success story in Europe after the carnation revolution.

They are very aware of their history under Salazar. The colonial wars took a lot out of them.

I visited Lisbon this early summer, and went to the museum of the victims of the Salazar regime. It was an eerie experience. It is in the old police station where they held suspects of being against the regime. I admit, I cried a few times.

I have learnt some, not much, Portuguese, as I was dating a Brazilian woman.

The Spanish learnt very little after Franco and his Opus Dei lackeys. The PP is still strong. I've had several visits to Spain as well, various regions.

If Felipe Gonzales' government hadn't been so corrupt, Spain might have been saved too.

As for Chile, they have the highest gini coefficient in the world. That means the most wealth inequity. Don't make light of the 73 coup. A military coup is usually not just for fun. Allende either shot himself when they could not weather the storm or was killed. And then thousands were taken to the main stadium in the capital for internment.

Kissinger had blessed the coup, but American involvement with Pinochet and his cronies really only once victory was certain.

[Razgovory]

Or alternatively, the affluent professionals that make up a good portion of the population justify their wealth by voting left as a sort of Noblesse Oblige.  It wasn't he very poor who voted for Mamdani, it was the affluent professionals.  Perhaps envy played a part, but by the middle and the upper middle envying the very top.

The numbers don't support that.

Mamdani's core based of support was the middle class, earning 50K-150K.  These are not affluent professionals, not in NYC.  They are teachers, police, fire, small shop owners, uber drivers, gig economy workers, etc. People who are being squeezed by rising rents and food costs.  Mamdani had a big lead in people who rent their housing; he led among whites, Hispanics, and Asians.

Cuomo did win a lot of the less affluent, primarily African-American neighborhoods.  But he also won the very richest districts in the city - the Upper East and Upper West sides. There is a very high concentration of affluent professionals in those neighborhoods.

People with a combined household income over 100,000 are affluent.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

People with a combined household income over 100,000 are affluent.

That's a distorted Midwestern perspective.  $100,000 per year is not affluent in a major coastal city.

[Valmy]

Raz is just a peasant filled with rage and resentment about the peasants with two peanuts to rub together. Some day he will purge the Kulaks. 

It is amazing the pretzels he will bend himself into to insist the poor and impoverished in this country are all centrist status quo warriors and only the insane rich want anything to change is rather remarkable.

[The Minsky Moment]

Or alternatively, the affluent professionals that make up a good portion of the population justify their wealth by voting left as a sort of Noblesse Oblige.  It wasn't he very poor who voted for Mamdani, it was the affluent professionals.  Perhaps envy played a part, but by the middle and the upper middle envying the very top.

The numbers don't support that.

Mamdani's core based of support was the middle class, earning 50K-150K.  These are not affluent professionals, not in NYC.  They are teachers, police, fire, small shop owners, uber drivers, gig economy workers, etc. People who are being squeezed by rising rents and food costs.  Mamdani had a big lead in people who rent their housing; he led among whites, Hispanics, and Asians.

Cuomo did win a lot of the less affluent, primarily African-American neighborhoods.  But he also won the very richest districts in the city - the Upper East and Upper West sides. There is a very high concentration of affluent professionals in those neighborhoods.

People with a combined household income over 100,000 are affluent.

Look at housing in the megacities and cost of living.  It just isn't.

A money income tells you nothing unless you know what that money buys.

[Razgovory]

Raz is just a peasant filled with rage and resentment about the peasants with two peanuts to rub together. Some day he will purge the Kulaks. 

It is amazing the pretzels he will bend himself into to insist the poor and impoverished in this country are all centrist status quo warriors and only the insane rich want anything to change is rather remarkable.

It's amazing how you don't read my posts and still decide to characterize them whatever way you want.  My difference with Minsky appears on how we characterize the urban professionals.  I see them as affluent elites.  He does not.  We appear to agree on the fact the actually impoverished poor did not go for the Socialist.  The situation is typical of revolutions.  A group of Elites want to remove the Elites above them by mobilizing the poor.  Or at least strike out against the Super Elites in the name of the poor, even if the poor are not particularly interested in helping the change in management.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think that's quite fair but also Raz's argument isn't that odd. If anything I think it's fairly standard and there's bits I'd agree with. It's Ehrenreich and the PMC or Piketty and the Brahmin Left v Merchant Right.

There's a very rich who want to get richer (people around Trump). There's a class who are not as rich but have high cultural capital and to some extent or other benefit from existing economic/class structures and who often work in high status sectors (often compared to a clerisy or Piketty's Brahmins) such as academia, media, the professions - but also as the managers of major corporations/companies. That second group often signal their radicalism through causes that, bluntly, don't change anything in their own lives: nationalism for other people's nations (Ukraine, Gaza), intersectionality and liberation best expressed through lanyards and changes to HR policies etc. But also broadly cultural issues that don't change underlying economic structures - and in fact suggest we should perhaps look to, say, experts, academics, professionals, journalists, HR personnel to explain, understand and change the world. In both cases, of Brahmin Left and Merchant Right their behaviour is reinforcing their own position and to an extent a lot of politics is a fight between these elites - one based on capital capital, one cultural and social capital.

But often the Brahmin Left side of politics also plays as/can be received as contempt for people who are on the outside (I think this is actually really visible in the language of: "do the reading" or not being your job to explain as that indicates a politics that is not interested in persuasion, at best, I'd say a cul-de-sac in a Democratic society at worst "do your own research" with a grad school reading list). In the face of that and in reaction to it the mainstream of society is put off by the respect gap but also the Merchant Right's language is basically one of chauvinism - if you belong you get your cut (I think this is very literally the message of mob boss politics like Trump). But the Brahmin Left message is more technocratic, expert-focused, socially and culturally focused etc.

I don't actually think that diagnosis really works for Mamdani (or for that matter Sanders or AOC) but think it does for some other strands of the left. And I think I disagree with Raz on parts of it and how it's applied but it's not a very odd analysis.

Look at housing in the megacities and cost of living.  It just isn't.

Also from a quick Google median income in New York City is $80,000 and median household income is around $105,000 so certainly not affluent.

[DGuller]

My first job out of college paid $60,000 in 2005 in NYC area, which is exactly $100,000 today.  I didn't feel affluent, but I also didn't feel strapped for cash.  I could satisfy all my material desires, although it helped that they were never extravagant.

[Norgy]

Is there a Western democracy and world order anymore? 

I would say no. This is new. This is unknown to all of us.

The Democrats were also quite soft-handed on what became the oligarchs of America.

Get money out of politics.

The Democratic party of today is not something like Roosevelt's New Deal coalition, it is a shitty version of a big tent that probably leaks when rain comes.
Charles Schumer looks like he is surprised every time something goes wrong, and dons his reading glasses, and says something so inane, you would not think it possible.

No Western democracy?  What you talking about about Willis?

That our world order fell apart.
There is obviously democracy in Canada, Scandinavia, and most countries in Europe, but the Orban rule of Hungary made a good playbook for how to dismantle it.

Democratic rule for the people by the people is becoming a scarce commodity.