What Is a Liberal Democracy?

A question worth asking is, what is a liberal democracy? That's because a recurring topic in the media is that liberal democracy is being threatened. If you think the culprits are countries like China, Russia, and Iran, you'd be wrong. Most of this negative commentary on this subject is directed to the rise of populism in Europe, especially in the eastern part. America is not left out of the mix, either, as President Trump is often painted as the head ogre in this tale that is said to be the path to authoritarianism. 

If this sounds ominous, it's because such is the intent of those propagating this message. But before taking it seriously, let's first examine what is meant by the term "liberal" democracy, at least in the eyes of those who say it's under attack. 

To begin with, the adjective 'liberal' is needed in this narrative for two reasons. One is for the connotation that what is "liberal" is good and whatever deviates from that is necessarily bad. Second, all the leaders of the so-called illiberal democracies of the West have come to power through free and fair elections, i.e., democratic means. That's true in Poland, Hungry, Austria, Italy, and certainly in the United States, notwithstanding the fantasies of Hillary Clinton, Robert Mueller, and the media. So the concession has to be made that they are indeed democracies, albeit not liberal ones.

What do these non-liberal democratic countries have in common with each other that sets them apart from, say, the western half of European and the America of Barack Obama's aspirations? First, they tend to be much more religious than their liberal counterparts. To the elite, religion is toxic because it is the essence of intolerance -- intolerance against things like homosexual marriage, abortion, transgenderism, gender flexibility, radical feminism, and other socially destructive innovations. 

Also, religious citizens steadfastly refuse to believe that government is a god that must be bowed down to and worshiped. This is heresy against the reigning liberal dogma which views Christianity -- true Christianity, not the version the left has bastardized -- as medieval and an impediment in furthering globalism. Throughout liberal democracies, Christian believers who venture into the public square and show their values are subjected to ridicule and harassment. The prevailing view is that if you must have religious beliefs, keep them in the closet and definitely out of the public discourse... unless, of course, the religion in question is Islam.

That's a segue into the next point. The non-liberal democracies all resist open borders and uncontrolled immigration into their countries. Liberal democracies, on the other hand, welcome it. Poland, Hungary, America, etc. are proud of their countries, cultures, and histories and are intent on keeping them. In contrast, countries like Germany, Sweden, Canada, and others in the West have overdosed on the Kool-Aid of multiculturalism and seem intent in committing national suicide with their immigration policies. Hanging the pejorative of 'illiberal' around the necks of sane countries is a way of trying to coerce them to join the suicide pact, holding hands and singing Kumbaya for as long as the light lasts.  

Then there's the democracy deficit. The EU, the epitome of liberal democrat governance, was always meant to be undemocratic. That is, unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats were intended to call the important shots, not the people. This is not a bug in the EU's design but a feature. If any group is non-democratic, it is those criticizing the populist movements. Some irony, isn't it?

Now look at minorities. In non-liberal democracies they enjoy the same rights as everyone else. But his is not good enough. In the liberal democracies, minorities must be granted special rights. Racial quotas under the euphemism of affirmative action is a formal example of this set in law. But in addition, there's also the constant activity of the thought police, which debases the national culture as an indirect way of empowering minorities.

It's the same with assimilation. Liberal democracies see assimilation as an affront to the sensitivities of immigrants and minorities and don't encourage it while the 'illiberal' democracies see assimilation as an absolute necessity for national cohesion.  

To be a liberal democracy, it is said that a country need not have merely free and open elections, but also for the leaders to disavow absolute control of politics, of the economy, of the judiciary, and the media. This is deceptive rhetoric. 

On the courts, Hungary is a case in point. It's denigrated by the EU as not being acceptably democratic because Prime Minister Viktor Orbán wants to reform the courts and purge, by legal means, a number of lifetime appointed ex-communist on the bench. That's a no-no. To the liberal mind, judges must be free to pursue their own agenda un-tethered from the will of the people. If, in the United States, there was ever a concerted effort to impeach lawless progressive judges by constitutional means, you'd hear the waling all the way to the moon. It would be proof positive to the elite opinion shapers that the U.S. was on the way to becoming an authoritarian country. 

As for the media -- which in reality is comprised of a few large conglomerates controlled mostly by liberals -- it should be free to be as progressively one-sided as it pleases. This is wrong. If the press is to serve a legitimate purpose in a true democracy, it must be a watchdog on government activities, not a monolithic lapdog for leftist political parties. When President Trump, rather than lying down before the media like a typical Republican, instead points out its biased coverage and fake news, this is a sign to the elite that he is an authoritarian and the U.S. is morphing into an illiberal democracy. 

What is currently meant by liberal democracy is, if not rule by the elite, then at least giving the elite a heavily disproportionate say or even a veto power over the main issues of governance. This is the antithesis of how a democracy is meant to function. America was designed to have a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Anything else is offensive.

So it is actually true that liberal democracy is threatened, when one understands what a liberal democracy actually is. And that threat is coming not from fascists or dictators but from the proponents of true democracy as practiced in the lawful, constitutional and representative form. 

For the longest time, the liberals have been having their way in lassoing countries into their fold, including America. All this is in jeopardy now what with the rise of nationalism -- healthy nationalism -- and especially the election of Donald J. Trump. So the elite try to play every trick in the book to keep their agenda moving forward, like this word game with what is and what is not a suitable democracy. These efforts are doomed to fail. Globalism and its twin of liberalism have reached their high-water mark. That tide is now receding. Hence the desperation. 

A question worth asking is, what is a liberal democracy? That's because a recurring topic in the media is that liberal democracy is being threatened. If you think the culprits are countries like China, Russia, and Iran, you'd be wrong. Most of this negative commentary on this subject is directed to the rise of populism in Europe, especially in the eastern part. America is not left out of the mix, either, as President Trump is often painted as the head ogre in this tale that is said to be the path to authoritarianism. 

If this sounds ominous, it's because such is the intent of those propagating this message. But before taking it seriously, let's first examine what is meant by the term "liberal" democracy, at least in the eyes of those who say it's under attack. 

To begin with, the adjective 'liberal' is needed in this narrative for two reasons. One is for the connotation that what is "liberal" is good and whatever deviates from that is necessarily bad. Second, all the leaders of the so-called illiberal democracies of the West have come to power through free and fair elections, i.e., democratic means. That's true in Poland, Hungry, Austria, Italy, and certainly in the United States, notwithstanding the fantasies of Hillary Clinton, Robert Mueller, and the media. So the concession has to be made that they are indeed democracies, albeit not liberal ones.

What do these non-liberal democratic countries have in common with each other that sets them apart from, say, the western half of European and the America of Barack Obama's aspirations? First, they tend to be much more religious than their liberal counterparts. To the elite, religion is toxic because it is the essence of intolerance -- intolerance against things like homosexual marriage, abortion, transgenderism, gender flexibility, radical feminism, and other socially destructive innovations. 

Also, religious citizens steadfastly refuse to believe that government is a god that must be bowed down to and worshiped. This is heresy against the reigning liberal dogma which views Christianity -- true Christianity, not the version the left has bastardized -- as medieval and an impediment in furthering globalism. Throughout liberal democracies, Christian believers who venture into the public square and show their values are subjected to ridicule and harassment. The prevailing view is that if you must have religious beliefs, keep them in the closet and definitely out of the public discourse... unless, of course, the religion in question is Islam.

That's a segue into the next point. The non-liberal democracies all resist open borders and uncontrolled immigration into their countries. Liberal democracies, on the other hand, welcome it. Poland, Hungary, America, etc. are proud of their countries, cultures, and histories and are intent on keeping them. In contrast, countries like Germany, Sweden, Canada, and others in the West have overdosed on the Kool-Aid of multiculturalism and seem intent in committing national suicide with their immigration policies. Hanging the pejorative of 'illiberal' around the necks of sane countries is a way of trying to coerce them to join the suicide pact, holding hands and singing Kumbaya for as long as the light lasts.  

Then there's the democracy deficit. The EU, the epitome of liberal democrat governance, was always meant to be undemocratic. That is, unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats were intended to call the important shots, not the people. This is not a bug in the EU's design but a feature. If any group is non-democratic, it is those criticizing the populist movements. Some irony, isn't it?

Now look at minorities. In non-liberal democracies they enjoy the same rights as everyone else. But his is not good enough. In the liberal democracies, minorities must be granted special rights. Racial quotas under the euphemism of affirmative action is a formal example of this set in law. But in addition, there's also the constant activity of the thought police, which debases the national culture as an indirect way of empowering minorities.

It's the same with assimilation. Liberal democracies see assimilation as an affront to the sensitivities of immigrants and minorities and don't encourage it while the 'illiberal' democracies see assimilation as an absolute necessity for national cohesion.  

To be a liberal democracy, it is said that a country need not have merely free and open elections, but also for the leaders to disavow absolute control of politics, of the economy, of the judiciary, and the media. This is deceptive rhetoric. 

On the courts, Hungary is a case in point. It's denigrated by the EU as not being acceptably democratic because Prime Minister Viktor Orbán wants to reform the courts and purge, by legal means, a number of lifetime appointed ex-communist on the bench. That's a no-no. To the liberal mind, judges must be free to pursue their own agenda un-tethered from the will of the people. If, in the United States, there was ever a concerted effort to impeach lawless progressive judges by constitutional means, you'd hear the waling all the way to the moon. It would be proof positive to the elite opinion shapers that the U.S. was on the way to becoming an authoritarian country. 

As for the media -- which in reality is comprised of a few large conglomerates controlled mostly by liberals -- it should be free to be as progressively one-sided as it pleases. This is wrong. If the press is to serve a legitimate purpose in a true democracy, it must be a watchdog on government activities, not a monolithic lapdog for leftist political parties. When President Trump, rather than lying down before the media like a typical Republican, instead points out its biased coverage and fake news, this is a sign to the elite that he is an authoritarian and the U.S. is morphing into an illiberal democracy. 

What is currently meant by liberal democracy is, if not rule by the elite, then at least giving the elite a heavily disproportionate say or even a veto power over the main issues of governance. This is the antithesis of how a democracy is meant to function. America was designed to have a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Anything else is offensive.

So it is actually true that liberal democracy is threatened, when one understands what a liberal democracy actually is. And that threat is coming not from fascists or dictators but from the proponents of true democracy as practiced in the lawful, constitutional and representative form. 

For the longest time, the liberals have been having their way in lassoing countries into their fold, including America. All this is in jeopardy now what with the rise of nationalism -- healthy nationalism -- and especially the election of Donald J. Trump. So the elite try to play every trick in the book to keep their agenda moving forward, like this word game with what is and what is not a suitable democracy. These efforts are doomed to fail. Globalism and its twin of liberalism have reached their high-water mark. That tide is now receding. Hence the desperation.