Liberal Democracy - what's at stake

“Then as today, the world torn apart… In such times the problems of life merge for man into a single problem: How can I remain free?” 

- Stefan Zweig, 1941

It merits repeating and comprehending during these fraught times, what's at stake: Liberal Democracy is the only truly legitimate form of governance. It's the only form of government designed to protect the rights of individuals. And if you believe that the rights of the individual, to speak, to think, to believe whatever he/she may choose, and to pursue whatever path to fulfillment and contentment he/she decides in life, is the essence of life, then you are committed to the principles of liberal democracy. 

Liberal democracy protects the rights of individuals through the mechanism of consent of the governed by free and fair elections. Every other known form of governance protects the rights and interests of either certain privileged groups, or certain privileged individuals (monarchy, autocracy, oligarchy, theocracy, plutocracy etc.) over the general population. 

The ultimate litmus test of legitimacy of any sovereign political entity is the question of when to go to war, because going to war entails the ultimate sacrifice - one's life. Only a liberal democracy can claim to provide adequate consent for the potential sacrifice of the lives of citizens. Only the governed are in a position to be able to decide when making the ultimate sacrifice is warranted for political reasons. This is one of the main reasons democracies do not go to war with each other.  

Another reason is free enterprise. Liberal democracies embrace principles of private ownership and trade. Countries that trade with one another build mutual economic interests, and tend to foster similar values. Even countries that purport to represent different systems of government, will over time, if not philosophically, then for all practical purposes, pursue many of the same values. Take China for example. As it traded globally and increased its economic ties to the west, western values necessarily began to permeate Chinese culture and society to the point where today China is a vastly different country from the rigid one born out of Mao’s cultural revolution only a few decade ago. This does not mean that China will never revert back to more authoritarian tactics, as growth from free enterprise begins to decline, but the link is clear, trade integration tends to promote a harmonization of values, and more international harmony in general. 

The development and spread of liberal democracy has been the most potent and universally beneficial revolution in human history. Unlike other failed political revolutions - think of 20th century communism (Russia), fascism (Germany) or theocracy (Iran) -  the liberal democratic revolution has cost relatively few lives, endured longer and spread wider than any of them. Liberal democracy has proven flexible and durable, because it responds to people where they live first and foremost, as individuals, not as members of a tribe, a party, a group, a religion etc. It allows individuals to pursue their individual paths of fulfillment based on their individual desires, qualities, talents and skills. This does not mean that individuals can not find fulfillment by identifying as members of one or more groups. People need to have a sense of belonging. However, groups do not possess rights. Thinking so is the foundation for tyranny. Rights are the exclusive purview of individuals - whether people identify as part of the minority or the majority. Liberal democratic institutions by definition must protect the rights of all individuals equally, and not favour some individuals because they identify with one group or another.   

Liberal democracy is based on a social pact of mutual agreement and trust. When there is an epidemic of distrust in society, liberal democracy becomes threatened. When people don't believe that institutions protect their individual rights and freedoms, they naturally retreat into groups in order to better exercise raw power. A kind of factionalism ensues and politics becomes a battle between groups, because when there is a sense of disorder and threat, there is safety in numbers. This is the reason that anti-democratic politicians gin up distrust, fear and threat in order to achieve their personal (or group) political objectives. 

A word on the international system. The United Nations was founded on liberal democratic principles, as expressed in and embodied by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a privilege, not a right, to be a member of the institutions that constitute the international community. The UN can expel members, although it has never done so. Member states who fail to uphold liberal democratic principles should not be treated as equal global citizens. 

The Kids Are Mixed Up

Violent protests in Montreal at a NATO conference. Broken shop windows, cars lit on fire and three people arrested for assaulting cops. They were pro-Palestine and anti-NATO protests joined together. This follows a student strike to ‘free Palestine’ at two of the city’s main universities and a college on Thursday. Chants for a ‘final solution’ were heard. Contrary to the Who song from the 1960s, in 2024 the kids are not alright. 

Most probably have no idea what they’re protesting. For them it’s vaguely understood performative social justice. I mean, anti-NATO? But does it matter? They know one thing: the adults in charge have screwed things up and they’re gonna pay a price for it. The world is overheating, environmentally and politically. The cost of living is out of control. The American dream has turned into a nightmare. As my daughter, a late 20s Justice Department lawyer two years into her career and living in Toronto said to me this week, ‘I talk with my friends. We all feel the same. Like I’ve done everything ‘right’ in my life, worked my butt off, but still have no hope of purchasing a home in the foreseeable future. 

There’s an undeniable sense of frustration veering into anger, and particularly among young people. Partly because there’s the equivalent of a car accident happening on their smart phones every minute. Some tragedy or catastrophe somewhere in the world to keep them worried and watching constantly. For example, a work colleague whose son and grandchildren live in northern Israel has an app on his phone that alerts him every time there’s a warning siren for an incoming rocket anywhere in Israel, meaning dozens and dozens of times a day, every day. I ask him why he subjects himself to this? He answers, I can’t help it, I’m concerned. Is there any wonder he’s a nervous wreck? 

So we're already on edge. The violent protests this week were in some measure spurred on by the sham ICC arrest warrants (see my earlier post) for the PM and former Defence Minister of Israel. No doubt the protesters felt emboldened to lash out and wreak havoc by the support of the so-called 'international community'. It feels like the moral guideposts are falling down around us. The leader of the free world is an adjudicated rapist, criminal felon and fraudster, who was given immunity from prosecution, and now international legal authorities are treating the democratically-elected Prime Minister and Defense Minister doing their utmost to defend their citizens from the threat of a multi-front war, as if they were criminal fugitives. The failures of the UN have been particularly galling to me, someone who did graduate studies in Geneva, and researched at the UN. It’s gotten much worse than I could have imagined. Not just the fundamental legal and moral lapse of the ICJ and the ICC, and not just that UNRWA and UNFIL have been unqualified disasters, but that they’ve actually aided, abetted and provided cover for transnational terrorism to operate. They’ve made a bad situation far worse. The international system of assistance and law are in a shambles, partly because of them. 

So Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau came out with a statement that Canada would abide by the illegitimate ICC warrants, along with Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Finland, Portugal, Australia, The Netherlands and Slovenia, who made similar public statements. Notably Hungary, the Czech Republic and Argentina, said they would not enforce the warrants. Never thought I could be siding with Orban, Milei, and trump for that matter.

I don’t blame the kids for not being alright. And mixed up. It feels like a lot of people are.

An Argument For the Defence

The constant impulse 

to say what you think,

express how you feel—

like an argument for the defence

before the court

of some universal creator,

supposed and abstract,

or one less abstract:

a parent.

And that's what I'm thinking,

standing over an ironing board

in the living room,

focused on not burning myself

with the hot metal boat

that calms the waves

of tomorrow's work shirt.

My daughter sits at the kitchen table,

scribbling algebraic expressions

in a Hillroy,

doodling in the margins

when the answer

doesn't come out right.

"It's not fair," I want to tell her—

the feeling of mistake,

the shadow of unworthiness—

it never leaves you.

But I say nothing;

walk over,

wrap her in a hug,

and she knows why.

How The System Breaks

The system is already broken, to some extent. Here's how we know this. 

Trump ran possibly the worst political campaign in American history. His speeches were rambling, incoherent and dull. His 'policy' statements, insofar as any could be deciphered, were fanciful and provided no actionable details. His debate performance was lacklustre, with his most memorable moment being the bizarre claim that legal Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating the community's pets.

And yet he won the election. That's how we know the system is already broken. 

One clear takeaway from this election is that Presidents today are primarily media figures. We relate to them as we would to characters on television—as avatars for our feelings. It matters little what they say; Trump, in particular, is a master of speaking a lot while saying very little. What truly matters is what they represent and how they make us feel.

Let's just admit one thing, Harris made a lot of people feel uncomfortable. This discomfort stemmed from various factors: her identity as a woman, her racial and cultural diversity, her perceived "unfamiliarity," and her campaign's tightly controlled nature. Yet equally alienating for some voters was her positivity, joy, and celebratory tone, which felt inauthentic or out of touch with their own struggles. This isn’t a critique of Harris herself—there was likely little she could have done differently. However, it underscores how many voters gravitated toward Trump, not for his policies or unimpeachable character (pun intended), but because he embodied their feelings: anger, grievance, and victimhood. In contrast, Harris's nurturing and supportive approach did not resonate with them. 

The core of trump's messaging is really very simple. It has three components: How bad things are, how mad you should be about it, and who to blame for it. Every issue—be it the economy, crime, immigration, or global affairs—is framed in hyperbolic, apocalyptic terms. The world teeters on the brink of World War III. Boys are returning home from school as girls. Immigrants aren’t just arriving—they're invaders, murderers, rapists, and, apparently, pet-eaters. While the specifics are absurd, the hyperbole serves a purpose: it’s not about what’s said but how it’s said. It’s about stirring feelings.

Rally signs reading "Trump Will Fix It" encapsulate his appeal. To fix things, though, Trump’s implicit promise is to dismantle and destroy first. There’s a visceral, almost ritualistic thrill in destruction—bonfires have long been communal bonding events for a reason. Populist autocrats exploit this, portraying themselves as avatars of the public’s desire for destruction. Ironically, when this destruction inevitably brings pain and suffering, it only reinforces the belief that the system is broken and needs further dismantling. For instance, if voters believe the economy is failing, actions that worsen it—like imposing sweeping tariffs—become self-fulfilling proof that the economy doesn’t work, fueling even greater anger and victimhood.

Thankfully, breaking the system isn’t easy. It requires deliberate steps: Step one is appointing unqualified incompetent leadership. Step two is to purge upper and mid-level employees committed to agency missions, replacing them with loyalists or leaving positions vacant. Step three is implementing policy designed to undermine the agencies core purpose and functions. This process doesn't happen overnight, but trump’s cabinet selections reflect this strategy: Tulsi Gabbard (DNI), Pete Hegseth (Defense), and the particularly unqualified, alleged drug-using statutory rapist Matt Gaetz for Attorney General. Trump’s weakness was exposed when the Senate chose John Thune over his pick, Rick Scott, as majority leader. The Senate has historically maintained an independent streak—John McCain’s decisive thumbs-down on ACA repeal comes to mind. However, Gaetz’s nomination will test its resolve. The Supreme Court’s decision implying that criminal actions by a President could be shielded if coordinated with the Attorney General heightens the stakes. 

We should know a lot more about how resilient the system is in the next couple of weeks, even before inauguration. 

__________________________________

PS. Gaetz has withdrawn. That was fast. A positive sign for institutional resilience.

The Sliver Who Decide

I think I'm starting to figure out what's happening in America.

Traditionally, the United States was a 30/30/30/10 electorate: thirty percent registered Republicans, thirty percent registered Democrats, thirty percent registered Independents, and about 10 percent unaffiliated. However, the thirty percent of Independents weren’t truly independent—they usually leaned toward one party or the other. This effectively created a 45/45/10 split, roughly speaking. This balance has become increasingly tribalized since the 1990s, coinciding with the rise of cable news and the segmentation of information consumption.

Over the past 20 years, social media’s algorithmic influence through personal devices has further hardened this fragmentation. Social media ensures that people consume information from sources that reinforce their beliefs, rarely exposing them to alternative perspectives. As a result, the 45/45/10 divide has solidified. The results of the 2024 election bear this out: as of Monday afternoon, Trump stood at 49.94% of the popular vote, while Harris was at 48.26%. As late ballots from California are counted, this margin will likely shrink, but the election, as most polls predicted, was essentially a coin toss.

It all comes down to turnout—and not just any turnout, but specifically the turnout of the 10% who decide elections. The question is: who are they, and what motivates them?

This 10% represents the lowest-propensity voters—individuals who are least interested, least informed, and least engaged. They are just as likely to skip voting as they are to participate. These voters often glean information passively from the "informational ether" rather than actively seeking it out. They are particularly susceptible to rumor over fact because rumors spread more easily in today’s fragmented information environment. They are more likely to be influenced by emotional appeals, fear, and anxiety and to favor familiar names over the unfamiliar.

Many commentators point to the educational divide in American politics as a key factor, and while education plays a role, it’s not simply about distrust of elites. Less educated voters are often less likely to seek out diverse information sources. The familiarity of a candidate like trump, combined with his simple, emotionally charged messaging, contrasted sharply with Harris’s substance-driven style. This dynamic favored trump, especially with the low-propensity voters who now hold outsized sway.

Two facts from the 2024 election illustrate this:

Lower Turnout: Approximately 5 million fewer votes were cast in 2024 (153.5 million) compared to 2020 (158.5 million). Lower turnout tends to favor Republicans, partly because of targeted voter suppression efforts in swing states. The turnout numbers suggest that Harris struggled to motivate low-propensity voters.

The Rise of Bullet Ballots: A "bullet ballot" is a vote cast only for the top of the ticket, with no down-ballot selections. Historically, these have accounted for less than 1% of total votes, even in recent elections like trump’s win in 2016 or Biden’s in 2020. In 2024, however, bullet ballots surged in swing states, making up 7.2% of votes in Arizona (123,000 votes) and 5.5% in Nevada (43,000 votes). These numbers are significant enough to determine outcomes. While some suggest foul play, it’s equally plausible that disengaged voters only chose the most familiar candidate—trump—at the top of the ticket.

It’s not that Americans are "getting dumber" as some claim; in fact, this is the most educated and literate population in its history. The issue is that elections are increasingly decided by the least engaged and least informed segment of the electorate. Reaching and motivating this group has become the entire game. This isn’t their fault—it’s the result of systemic polarization. However, the locked and hardened nature of the two major voting blocs creates a "tyranny of the minority." This dynamic poses a serious threat to democracy, paving the way for autocracy.

The challenge is clear: finding ways to engage this disengaged segment is critical to preserving democratic institutions. Without systemic changes, the influence of the least-informed voters will only grow, creating a fragile and volatile electoral system.

No One Turns Me Madder Than You

CLICK HERE TO HEAR THE SONG

You say you love me, 

So why am I blue?

You think you own me,

But that aint true.

No matter what I try to do,

No one turns me madder than you. 

I give you money,

And all of my time. 

But it don’t stop you, 

From all your lyin.

No matter what I try to do,

No one turns me madder than you.

You talk about me, 

To all of your friends.

And what I’m hearing,

Deeply offends.

No matter what I try to do,

No one turns me madder than you. 

I ain’t done nothin,

To cause you pain.

But all your talkin,

Drives me insane.

No matter what I try to do,

No one turns me madder than you. 

So please I’m beggin,

Stop all your games.

Puttin me down,

With your false claims.

No matter what I try to do,

No one turns me madder than you.

I say I’m leaving,

You knew I would. 

And I say this time, 

That it’s for good.

No matter what I try to do,

No one turns me madder than you. 

The Buggy-Whip's Revenge

One of the Allan Lichtman's favourite claims about his 13 Keys to the White House system is that it's robust and time-tested, developed from looking at 165 years of presidential elections, he claims, 'since the days of the buggy whip.' He uses 'the buggy-whip' phrase in response to critics who ask if it's possible whether technology will force him to change the system, for example, because of the way information is conveyed today compared to earlier years. Lichtman has argued that the Keys cannot be changed on the fly. He says, 'the Keys worked before there was radio, before there was television, before there were computers and the internet.' Actually no it didn't. 

The Keys have actually only worked since 1984, Reagan's reelection, the first election he predicted correctly. Exactly forty years later, with the unexpected result of the 2024 election which the Keys (or more accurately Allan using the Keys) got wrong, he is forced to reconsider his position and claims. And I began to think about what he missed and why. 

Lichtman has come to the conclusion that the main reason the Keys failed this time was because of the  impact of disinformation, which he calls 'unprecedented'. His reasoning is that the Keys are based on the performance of the incumbent government not the campaign. But that basis gets called into question when voters are unable to accurately assess the performance of the governing party. If they are besieged by misinformation and disinformation it makes a fair assessment impossible. The speed and pervasiveness of disinformation is why he believes we are living through 'unprecedented' times. 

But are we?  

If disinformation is the problem, then first off, he'd have to admit that his correct predictions going back to at least 2016 were just lucky. Disinformation was certainly prevalent back then. Lichtman has argued that it wasn't as prevalent as it is today, which may or may not be true. But then he'd have to explain exactly when the disinformation tipping point occurred and why.

I began to think that Lichtman actually has it backward. He's wrong today because he is right, in a way. He's right to diagnose the problem of the Keys as being the disinformation environment. But he's wrong to say that it's unprecedented. In fact, disinformation and bias was much worse a hundred years ago, and even worse at the time of 'the buggy-whip'. My guess is that the Keys would not have worked as a predictive system back then. I'd argue that the only reason why his system has worked at all since the early 80s is because most information was consumed in a centralized and more or less homogenous way since the advent of television. The era of mass-media through television was the first time that most Americans got their information in the same way and through only a handful of trusted sources that adhered to journalistic standards. The 'Walter Cronkite' era of news and information has not been the rule in American history, it's actually been more the exception.     

There have been several distinctive eras when Americans have lived with pervasive disinformation and inside information silos, and they were associated with political and social upheaval:

1. The Era of Radio (1914 - 1945)

The first massive technological shift in the widespread dissemination of information. With the rise of radio, governments and media outlets heavily regulated and censored news to rally public support and maintain morale during the two wars. News outlets leaned into nationalistic and, at times, propagandistic tones. War-time propaganda often left out nuanced perspectives, leaning heavily toward the government’s stance on both domestic and international issues. During World War II, news coverage was patriotic and promoted the Allies’ goals, with critical information about the war effort or allied mistakes often downplayed or omitted.

2. The Era of "Yellow Journalism" (1890s - early 1920s)

Yellow journalism was characterized by sensationalized stories, exaggerated headlines, and little regard for factual accuracy, with newspapers competing for readership, especially in rapidly growing cities. This era’s reporting often shaped public opinion through dramatic and often misleading coverage. For instance, yellow journalism played a significant role in stirring public support for the Spanish-American War in 1898.

3. The Partisan Press of the Early Republic (1780s - 1860s)

Newspapers during the early years of the United States were explicitly partisan. Papers were often funded by political parties or prominent politicians, and their primary role was to advocate for a particular political viewpoint rather than objective news reporting. Partisan newspapers played an essential role in political mobilization, with many acting as mouthpieces for emerging political parties (e.g., Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists, then later Federalists vs. Democratic-Republicans).

Many argue that today’s era represents a peak in news bias due to the sheer speed, reach, and personalization of information through social media and digital platforms. It's perhaps more accurate to say that information bias has ebbed and flowed throughout history. Rather than thinking our time is 'unprecendented', perhaps it's more instructive to take a deep dive into the preceding eras to explore how they have been impacted by information bias, and how they have responded to it.