"The era of liberal democracy is over" (not my words, just to be clear)

[Vouthon]

"The era of liberal democracy is over."

​

So said Viktor Orban in May 2018, after being elected for his fourth consecutive term in office as Prime Minister of Hungary, a member state of the European Union.

The words are ominous, alarming even, yet the signs worldwide for those of us who consider ourselves to be staunch liberal democrats are far from encouraging.

In the USA, the world's most powerful constitutional republic and traditional liberal-democratic standard-bearer throughout the Cold War era, we now have a President who argues that he is effectively above the law, with full power to pardon himself of any wrongdoing and going so far as to claim that he, as the nation's chief law law enforcement officer, is akin to a monarch who cannot be convicted.

Added to this, he has tried to impose religiously-based and nationality-based discriminatory citizenship policies that flout liberal conventions and is moreover inciting illiberal trade wars globally. And he's flirted with nativism, birtherism and every other illiberal ideology humanely imaginable.

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) has demoted the U.S. (for the second year running) from the category of "full democracies" to the category of "flawed democracies". More worrying still however, and by far, is the fact that polling data has recently been suggesting that young Americans are increasingly losing faith in the democratic system.

In a 2017 national survey, when asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 10 how “essential” it is for them “to live in a democracy,” 72% of Americans born before World War II check “10,” the highest value. But, the millennial generation (those born since 1980) “has grown much more indifferent.” Less than 1 in 3 hold a similar belief about the importance of democracy.

And, the New York Times reports that while 43% of older Americans thought it would be illegitimate for the military to take power if civilian government was incompetent, only 19% of millennials agreed. Yes, really.

As a millennial myself (25 going on 26), I find this quite chilling, actually, that so many of my fellow millennials over in the States (and likely in other Western countries) apparently feel so disillusioned with liberal democracy, that they are willing to flirt with hypothetical situations in which authoritarian regimes take hold.

So, what do you think of Viktor Orban's statement? Sensationalist nonsense from a would-be Putin-style authoritarian? Somewhat true? Or other?

Do illiberal democracy and authoritarianism have the wind in their sails?

 

[Twilight Hue]

"The era of liberal democracy is over."

​

So said Viktor Orban in May 2018, after being elected for his fourth consecutive term in office as Prime Minister of Hungary, a member state of the European Union.

The words are ominous, alarming even, yet the signs worldwide for those of us who consider ourselves to be staunch liberal democrats are far from encouraging.

In the USA, the world's most powerful constitutional republic and traditional liberal-democratic standard-bearer throughout the Cold War era, we now have a President who argues that he is effectively above the law, with full power to pardon himself of any wrongdoing and going so far as to claim that he, as the nation's chief law law enforcement officer, is akin to a monarch who cannot be convicted.

Added to this, he has tried to impose religious-based and nationality-based discriminatory citizenship policies that flout liberal conventions and is moreover inciting illiberal trade wars globally. And he's flirted with nativism, birtherism and every other illiberal ideology humanely imaginable.

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) has demoted the U.S. (for the second year running) from the category of "full democracies" to the category of "flawed democracies". More worrying still however, and by far, is the fact that polling data has recently been suggesting that young Americans are increasingly losing faith with the democratic system.

In a 2017 national survey, when asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 10 how “essential” it is for them “to live in a democracy,” 72% of Americans born before World War II check “10,” the highest value. But, the millennial generation (those born since 1980) “has grown much more indifferent.” Less than 1 in 3 hold a similar belief about the importance of democracy.

And, the New York Times reports that while 43% of older Americans thought it would be illegitimate for the military to take power if civilian government was incompetent, only 19% of millennials agreed. Yes, really.

As a millennial myself (25 going on 26), I find this quite chilling, actually, that so many of my fellow millennials over in the States (and likely in other Western countries) apparently feel so disillusioned with the very idea of liberal democracy, that they are willing to flirt with hypothetical situations in which authoritarian regimes take hold.

So, what do you think of Viktor Orban's statement? Sensationalist nonsense from a would-be Putin-style authoritarian? Somewhat true? Or other?

Well we're not a liberal democracy, we are a representative republic. Ideally a balanced mix of reasonable socialism and free market capitalism.

 

[Vouthon]

Well we're not a liberal democracy, we are a representative republic.

You weren't founded as a democracy but you certainly were the product of an Enlightenment liberal revolution which then gradually transformed into a democracy after the Jacksonian period of franchise enlargement.

Ergo, you became the world's leading liberal democracy.

Likewise the UK was the result of a liberal upheaval known as the Glorious Revolution of 1689, and started out as a constitutional monarchy. Gradually, it became more and more democratic throughout the 19th-early 20th centuries, until it became a liberal democracy after World War 1 in 1918.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You weren't founded as a democracy but you certainly were the product of an Enlightenment liberal revolution which then gradually transformed into a democracy after the Jacksonian period of franchise enlargement.

Ergo, you became the world's leading liberal democracy.

Likewise the UK was the result of a liberal upheaval known as the Glorious Revolution of 1689, and started out as a constitutional monarchy. Gradually, it became more and more democratic throughout the 19th-early 20th centuries, until it became a liberal democracy after World War 1 in 1918.

I guess it's the term liberal that's getting me confused here, what exactly would liberalism entail in the 1700s?

 

[Sunstone]

I suspect the remarkable lessening of faith in democracy that we are seeing among the young and others has much to do with the publicly known efforts of the right wing in American politics to undermine faith in democracy and democratic institutions. For at least some of the players here, those efforts are self-serving. Some billionaires correctly perceive advantages for themselves in weakening democracy and promoting privatization of public services, such as social security -- among many other things.

 

[Stevicus]

So, what do you think of Viktor Orban's statement? Sensationalist nonsense from a would-be Putin-style authoritarian? Somewhat true? Or other?

Does illiberal democracy have the wind in its sails?

I don't think it's over, although I sometimes wonder if liberal democracy isn't an illusion.

Thomas Jefferson once said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants," but I don't think very many people think in those terms anymore. A lot of Americans have become insular, pampered, hyper-individualists, hyper-materialists, as well as complacent, apathetic, and myopic.

As Americans, I think we've been fooling ourselves for the past several decades, such as during the Reagan-Bush era where consumerism reigned (just as today), with "Don't Worry, Be Happy" as their theme song. There are those who have warned of the consequences that we're on the wrong path, only to be scoffed at and ridiculed by arrogant elitists and their blind followers.

Even liberals, who once fought the good fight - they've sold out and have no credibility whatsoever anymore. Even at best, they're weak and indecisive.

I'm at the point now where I believe that we deserve whatever we get from here on out. If liberal democracy comes to end, it's because we didn't care enough about it to save it. Principles mean nothing to most people nowadays. I'm just resigned to sitting and waiting for the end. I feel as if I'm on a ship of fools waiting for the end.

I doubt you'd remember this song (from your own countrymen), since it was released before you were born, but there's something prophetic about it. At the time when Millennials were infants or only a twinkle in their parents' eyes, a few people knew what was going on and that there would be consequences. Why nobody listened is inexplicable, but this could be our epitaph:

We're setting sail to the place on the map
from which no one has ever returned
Drawn by the promise of the joker and the fool
by the light of the crosses that burned.
Drawn by the promise of the women and the lace
and the gold and the cotton and pearls
It's the place where they keep all the darkness you need.
You sail away from the light of the world on this trip, baby.
You will pay tomorrow
You're gonna pay tomorrow
You will pay tomorrow
Save me. Save me from tomorrow
I don't want to sail with this ship of fools. No, no
Oh, save me. Save me from tomorrow
I don't want to sail with this ship of fools
I want to run and hide right now
Avarice and greed are gonna drive you over the endless sea
They will leave you drifting in the shallows
or drowning in the oceans of history
Traveling the world, you're in search of no good
but I'm sure you'll build your Sodom like you knew you would
Using all the good people for your galley slaves
as you're little boat struggles through the warning waves, but you don't pay
You will pay tomorrow
You're gonna pay tomorrow
You're gonna pay tomorrow
Save me. Save me from tomorrow
I don't want to sail with this ship of fools
Save me. Save me from tomorrow
I don't want to sail with this ship of fools
Where's it comin' from?
Where's it goin' to now?
It's just a It's just a ship of fools

 

[Estro Felino]

What Orbàn means is that liberism has allowed criminals like Soros to finance NGOs that want to upset Europe through massive immigration...by speculating billions € on it

You speak of authoritarianism...very well. An authoritarian government is absolutely necessary to fight wild capitalism, Freemasonry, the Bankers' selfish interests...which are not compatible with the common good.

Likewise the UK was the result of a liberal upheaval known as the Glorious Revolution of 1689, and started out as a constitutional monarchy. Gradually, it became more and more democratic throughout the 19th-early 20th centuries, until it became a liberal democracy after World War 1 in 1918.

Well...rather than democratic, it became more and more ruled by Freemasons.

 

[whirlingmerc]

"The era of liberal democracy is over."

​

So said Viktor Orban in May 2018, after being elected for his fourth consecutive term in office as Prime Minister of Hungary, a member state of the European Union.

The words are ominous, alarming even, yet the signs worldwide for those of us who consider ourselves to be staunch liberal democrats are far from encouraging.

In the USA, the world's most powerful constitutional republic and traditional liberal-democratic standard-bearer throughout the Cold War era, we now have a President who argues that he is effectively above the law, with full power to pardon himself of any wrongdoing and going so far as to claim that he, as the nation's chief law law enforcement officer, is akin to a monarch who cannot be convicted.

Added to this, he has tried to impose religious-based and nationality-based discriminatory citizenship policies that flout liberal conventions and is moreover inciting illiberal trade wars globally. And he's flirted with nativism, birtherism and every other illiberal ideology humanely imaginable.

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) has demoted the U.S. (for the second year running) from the category of "full democracies" to the category of "flawed democracies". More worrying still however, and by far, is the fact that polling data has recently been suggesting that young Americans are increasingly losing faith with the democratic system.

In a 2017 national survey, when asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 10 how “essential” it is for them “to live in a democracy,” 72% of Americans born before World War II check “10,” the highest value. But, the millennial generation (those born since 1980) “has grown much more indifferent.” Less than 1 in 3 hold a similar belief about the importance of democracy.

And, the New York Times reports that while 43% of older Americans thought it would be illegitimate for the military to take power if civilian government was incompetent, only 19% of millennials agreed. Yes, really.

As a millennial myself (25 going on 26), I find this quite chilling, actually, that so many of my fellow millennials over in the States (and likely in other Western countries) apparently feel so disillusioned with liberal democracy, that they are willing to flirt with hypothetical situations in which authoritarian regimes take hold.

So, what do you think of Viktor Orban's statement? Sensationalist nonsense from a would-be Putin-style authoritarian? Somewhat true? Or other?

Does illiberal democracy have the wind in its sails?

Liberal democracy had some pretty rocky times with the Clintons and Obama
Truth was sold too cheaply and promises made too easily.
A health care plan that was supposed to save everyone everywhere lots of money including the government and almost drove the insurance businesses into unsustainable territory
Then again Obama got a Nobel peace prize for election promises?
but is that a plus, really?

 

[Vouthon]

An authoritative government is absolutely necessary to fight wild capitalism

Allow me to correct the sentence for you:
An authoritative government is absolutely necessary to entrench wild capitalism.

There!

Liberal democracy should be viewed as the check, not the facilitator, of unrestrained capitalism.

One of the grave dangers today, actually, is that global capitalism might be morphing into a crony capitalism that is irreconcilable with true, representative democracy.

 

[Vouthon]

I guess it's the term liberal that's getting me confused here, what exactly would liberalism entail in the 1700s?

The 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen began with these two articles laying out the broad contours of 18th century liberalism:

Article I - Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be founded only on the common good.

Article II – The goal of any political association is the conservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, safety and resistance against oppression.
​

It continued later with:

Article IV – Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the fruition of these same rights. These borders can be determined only by the law.

Article V – The law has the right to forbid only actions harmful to society. Anything which is not forbidden by the law cannot be impeded, and no one can be constrained to do what it does not order.​

Also consider your own Declaration of Independence.

So...


Representative (albeit in some cases with property qualification) and limited government, popular sovereignty; the rule of law; equality before the law; constitutionalism; belief in social progress; separation of powers; open borders and immigration policies; no taxation without representation; freedom of speech, religion and of the press; right to a fair trial; laws to uphold and protect public institutions or public works etc.

These were all ideals of 18th century liberal philosophy.

 

[Estro Felino]

I am not for Crony Capitalism...I am for state intervention in the economy.
That is what Italy did in the 30s. It created the IRI, the Institute of Industrial Reconstruction, that saved many enterprises and it started creating huge state assets made up of public banks, factories, air companies.


Btw,..reading your signature...if Pope Pacelli really said that, it means the Vatican is and has always been an Unchristian, unholy, entity.

 

[robocop (actually)]

"The era of liberal democracy is over."

​

So said Viktor Orban in May 2018, after being elected for his fourth consecutive term in office as Prime Minister of Hungary, a member state of the European Union.

The words are ominous, alarming even, yet the signs worldwide for those of us who consider ourselves to be staunch liberal democrats are far from encouraging.

In the USA, the world's most powerful constitutional republic and traditional liberal-democratic standard-bearer throughout the Cold War era, we now have a President who argues that he is effectively above the law, with full power to pardon himself of any wrongdoing and going so far as to claim that he, as the nation's chief law law enforcement officer, is akin to a monarch who cannot be convicted.

Added to this, he has tried to impose religiously-based and nationality-based discriminatory citizenship policies that flout liberal conventions and is moreover inciting illiberal trade wars globally. And he's flirted with nativism, birtherism and every other illiberal ideology humanely imaginable.

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) has demoted the U.S. (for the second year running) from the category of "full democracies" to the category of "flawed democracies". More worrying still however, and by far, is the fact that polling data has recently been suggesting that young Americans are increasingly losing faith in the democratic system.

In a 2017 national survey, when asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 10 how “essential” it is for them “to live in a democracy,” 72% of Americans born before World War II check “10,” the highest value. But, the millennial generation (those born since 1980) “has grown much more indifferent.” Less than 1 in 3 hold a similar belief about the importance of democracy.

And, the New York Times reports that while 43% of older Americans thought it would be illegitimate for the military to take power if civilian government was incompetent, only 19% of millennials agreed. Yes, really.

As a millennial myself (25 going on 26), I find this quite chilling, actually, that so many of my fellow millennials over in the States (and likely in other Western countries) apparently feel so disillusioned with liberal democracy, that they are willing to flirt with hypothetical situations in which authoritarian regimes take hold.

So, what do you think of Viktor Orban's statement? Sensationalist nonsense from a would-be Putin-style authoritarian? Somewhat true? Or other?

Do illiberal democracy and authoritarianism have the wind in their sails?

I think liberalism is even lauded in the Bible. Check out the words Churl and liberal in the King James Version.

 

[Vouthon]

Btw,..reading your signature...if Pope Pacelli really said that, it means the Vatican is and has always been an Unchristian, unholy, entity.

Pope Pius XII absolutely did utter those words in the following address, delivered the year that the EU's founding Treaty of Rome was signed (1957):

DISCORSO DI SUA SANTITÀ PIO PP. XII AI PARLAMENTARI COMPONENTI L'ASSEMBLEA DELLA COMUNIT | PIUS XII

I have simply truncated his extended remarks.

I am proud of the Vatican's long and enthusiastic support for the EU. Indeed the EU is the fruit of both Catholic Social Doctrine and liberalism. See:

zenit.org/en/articles/catholic-origins-of-the-european-union

The original idea of the European Union has deep roots in Catholic social teaching, according to the author of a book on Robert Schumann, one of the founders of the institution.

Historian Alan Fimister, author of “Robert Schumann: Neo-scholastic Humanism and the Unification of Europe,” published by Peter Lang, affirms that Schuman’s actions in 1950 to found what would later be the European Union were, to a remarkable degree, the conscious implementation of the Neo-Thomistic project of Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903).

In this interview with ZENIT, Fimister discusses the Catholic vision of the European Union’s founders and what it means for a Catholic understanding of the European Union today.

The political leaders who founded the ECSC were overwhelmingly Catholic: Robert Schuman was intensely loyal to the faith and affirmed publicly that papal encyclicals “define Catholic doctrine and bind in conscience” Konrad Adenauer and Alcide de Gaspari were also particularly important.

Adenauer and de Gaspari were both strongly influenced by Leo XIII’s teaching and its intellectual legacy. Schuman was directly influenced by Maritain’s conception of supranational democracy as the foundation for a New Christendom​

The European Union, as the world’s only true and thus far working example of a supranational regional authority, was originally conceived by Catholic politicians (Robert Schuman, Konrad Adenauer, Alcide De Gasperi, Jean Monnet etc.) at the behest of Pope Pius XII and would not exist except for our Church’s social doctrine - indeed without Thomistic scholasticism - hence why the foundational principles of the Union are “solidarity, subsidiarity and unity”.

Consider Luigi Taparelli D’Azeglio (1793–1862), who was a Jesuit priest, celebrated theologian and political philosopher of the nineteenth century.

He coined the terms "Social Justice", "solidarity" and "subsidiarity" that have since been widely employed in a wide variety of magisterial documents; incorporated into EU treaty law, official UN declarations and which also feature in the discourse of politicians up till this day across the world. To this end, he cofounded the journal Civiltà Cattolica in 1850 and wrote for it for twelve years.

Taparelli was particularly concerned with the problems arising from the industrial revolution. He was a proponent of reviving the philosophical school of Thomism, and his social teachings directly influenced Pope Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical, Rerum novarum (On the Condition of the Working Classes). For this reason and not without justification he is often remembered as the "Father of Modern Catholic Social Teaching".

Taparelli had great foresight, and he identified natural tendencies towards the unification of nations, which he believed would ultimately coalesce into a saggio cosmopolitanismo or Universal Society of Nations, a supranational association of sovereign states.

If that makes the Vatican unholy in your eyes, then I'm happy for you to see me as the unholiest of the unholy

 

[Estro Felino]

Pope Pius XII absolutely did utter those words in the following address, delivered the year that the EU's founding Treaty of Rome was signed (1957):

DISCORSO DI SUA SANTITÀ PIO PP. XII AI PARLAMENTARI COMPONENTI L'ASSEMBLEA DELLA COMUNIT | PIUS XII

I am proud of the Vatican's long and enthusiastic support for the EU. Indeed the EU is the fruit of both Catholic Social Doctrine and liberalism.

Consider Luigi Taparelli D’Azeglio (1793–1862), who was a Jesuit priest, celebrated theologian and political philosopher of the nineteenth century.

He coined the terms "Social Justice", "solidarity" and "subsidiarity" that have since been widely employed in a wide variety of magisterial documents; incorporated into EU treaty law, official UN declarations and which also feature in the discourse of politicians up till this day across the world. To this end, he cofounded the journal Civiltà Cattolica in 1850 and wrote for it for twelve years.

Taparelli was particularly concerned with the problems arising from the industrial revolution. He was a proponent of reviving the philosophical school of Thomism, and his social teachings directly influenced Pope Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical, Rerum novarum (On the Condition of the Working Classes). For this reason and not without justification he is often remembered as the "Father of Modern Catholic Social Teaching".

Taparelli had great foresight, and he identified natural tendencies towards the unification of nations, which he believed would ultimately coalesce into a saggio cosmopolitanismo or Universal Society of Nations, a supranational association of sovereign states.

I think the EU is a marvelous, excellent project...if by EU we mean free trade, cooperation, common goals.

I cannot agree on limitations of sovereignty of any kind.
What I studied in International Law is that, de jure, states cannot be subject to any other juridic entity, because no entity is juridically superior to states.

If that makes the Vatican unholy in your eyes, then I'm happy for you to see me as the unholiest of the unholy

Well...actually it's me who is the heretic here

 

[Vouthon]

@Estro Felino Pope St. John Paul II wrote in his 2003 apostolic exhortation Ecclesia in Europe:

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_20030628_ecclesia-in-europa.html

POST-SYNODAL
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION

ECCLESIA IN EUROPA

OF HIS HOLINESS

POPE JOHN PAUL II

Mutual recognition, forms of cooperation and exchanges of all sorts are being developed in such a way that little by little, a culture, indeed a European consciousness, is being created.This we hope will encourage, especially among the young, a sense of fraternity and the will to share. We note as a very positive factor that the whole of this process is developing according to democratic procedures, in a peaceful way and in the spirit of freedom which respects and fosters legitimate diversity, encouraging and sustaining the process leading to the growing unity of Europe…

More than a geographical area, Europe can be described as “a primarily cultural and historical concept, which denotes a reality born as a continent thanks also to the unifying force of Christianity, which has been capable of integrating peoples and cultures among themselves, and which is intimately linked to the whole of European culture”.(169)

In the process of transformation which it is now undergoing, Europe is called above all to rediscover its true identity. Even though it has developed into a highly diversified reality, it needs to build a new model of unity in diversity, as a community of reconciled nations open to the other continents and engaged in the present process of globalization…

The European Union continues to expand. All peoples who share its same fundamental heritage have a vocation to take part in it, on a short-term or a long-term basis. ​

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2002/june/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20020622_costituzione-europea.html

MESSAGE OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE EUROPEAN STUDY CONGRESS
ON THE THEME: “TOWARDS A EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION?”

The expansion of the European Union or rather, for the process of “Europeanization” of the whole continental area, that I have fostered, is a priority to be pursued courageously and quickly in order to respond effectively to the expectations of millions of men and women who know that they are bound together by a common history and who hope for a destiny of unity and solidarity… ​

 

[Vouthon]

I think the EU is a marvelous, excellent project...if by EU we mean free trade, cooperation, common goals.

I cannot agree on limitations of sovereignty of any kind.

Firstly, a mere free trade deal cannot hope to provide anywhere near the same kind of benefits as the EU Single Market.

Within NAFTA Canada can, and still does, pass different laws relating to competition as well as in other areas from the US because they are two wholly independent countries. As such, there could never - even by design - be entirely frictionless trade. The only way you can ensure complete harmonisation and removal of all barriers to trade is if you have a single economy under a uniform legal system.

The EU fulfils this requirement since it has a “single market” as opposed to a mere “free trade area” such as NAFTA, MERCOSUR or ASEAN. A single market enables people, goods, services and capital to move around a union as freely as they would do within a single country, instead of being obstructed by national borders and barriers. It abolishes all so-called “non-tariff barriers”: that is, differing regulations on packaging, safety and standards, with the exact same laws applying throughout the Union. As such there are EU-wide regulations covering everything from food standards and the use of chemicals to working hours and health and safety.

This is a far more integrated economic zone than a simple free trade area that abolishes some tariffs in negotiated sectors.

Right now, a firm based in London - let’s say for talking’s sake - can sell goods and services in Frankfurt without (1) fearing a tariff being imposed (courtesy of free trade within the EU); (2) without needing to pass through border controls (because the EU operates as a customs union) and (3) without having to meet different quality standards (due to the harmonization of rules within the Single Market).

It can also open a branch in Frankfurt without fearing any restriction as to the amount of capital it can move because there are no exchange controls. A worker at that firm can take up a job in Frankfurt without obtaining a work permit because the EU enshrines free movement and he/she will enjoy equal treatment with nationals in access to employment, working conditions and other tax advantages due to the legal principle of “non-discrimination” of European citizens.

You simply cannot derive these same benefits from any kind of “looser”, downgraded free trade area or the like. You need the supranational law-making institutions and continental-wide legal system of the EU.

Secondly, and no less importantly, the EU was never intended, from its formative years in 1950-1957, to be a “simple free trade area” like NAFTA. When the founding members signed the Treaty of Rome in 1957, they committed themselves to “lay the foundations of an ‘ever closer union’ among the peoples of Europe”, after the Second World War, based upon a supranational model of unification.

To understand why the EU came into existence, and more particularly in the unique way in which it did, you need to understand the founding fathers: Robert Schuman, Alcide de Gasperi, Konrad Adenaeur, Jean Monnet, Paul-Henri Spaak, Joseph Bech and the rest. Of that number of founders - five out of the six were Catholics, four of them (Schuman, Gasperi, Adenaeur and Bech) were devout Catholic statesmen explicitly influenced by the revival in Thomism under Pope Leo XIII and intellectually indebted, in part, to the social teachings of Pope Ven. Pius XIII.

Consider, in this respect, the Italian founding father Alcide de Gasperi:


newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Alcide_De_Gasperi

Alcide De Gasperi (April 3, 1881 – August 19, 1954) was an Italian statesman and politician. He is considered to be one of the founding fathers of the European Union, along with the Frenchman Robert Schuman and the German, Konrad Adenauer…

De Gasperi was guided throughout his life by the social and moral teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, especially by the encyclical Rerum Novarum…

He has been declared a “servant of God” by the Catholic Church, an early stage in the beatification process, an honor afforded few other twentieth century politicians.[3]

He spoke about a “supranational civilization” whose members transcended the particularities of their own nationality to affirm their common humanity and shared values:

Which road are we to choose if we are to preserve all that is noble and humane within … national forces, while coordinating them to build a supranational civilization which can give them balance, absorb them and harmonize them in one irresistible drive towards progress? …It can only be done by establishing a meeting point where those experiences can assemble, unite by affinity and thus engender new forms of solidarity based on increased freedom and greater social justice. It is within an association of national sovereignties based on democratic, constitutional organizations that these new forms can flourish.[6]
​

For Gasperi, the Community of Coal and Steel was a first step towards pan-European institutions that would include a common currency, a common Bank, a common defense force, a European army to replace national military forces, as well as a customs union and a single market. The selfish aspect of national interests, he argued, had to be overcome, questioning whether peace could be achieved as long as the “nation” was perceived in moral terms as an “absolute entity.”

He envisaged a federation of European States…​

 

[sayak83]

"The era of liberal democracy is over."

​

So said Viktor Orban in May 2018, after being elected for his fourth consecutive term in office as Prime Minister of Hungary, a member state of the European Union.

The words are ominous, alarming even, yet the signs worldwide for those of us who consider ourselves to be staunch liberal democrats are far from encouraging.

In the USA, the world's most powerful constitutional republic and traditional liberal-democratic standard-bearer throughout the Cold War era, we now have a President who argues that he is effectively above the law, with full power to pardon himself of any wrongdoing and going so far as to claim that he, as the nation's chief law law enforcement officer, is akin to a monarch who cannot be convicted.

Added to this, he has tried to impose religiously-based and nationality-based discriminatory citizenship policies that flout liberal conventions and is moreover inciting illiberal trade wars globally. And he's flirted with nativism, birtherism and every other illiberal ideology humanely imaginable.

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) has demoted the U.S. (for the second year running) from the category of "full democracies" to the category of "flawed democracies". More worrying still however, and by far, is the fact that polling data has recently been suggesting that young Americans are increasingly losing faith in the democratic system.

In a 2017 national survey, when asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 10 how “essential” it is for them “to live in a democracy,” 72% of Americans born before World War II check “10,” the highest value. But, the millennial generation (those born since 1980) “has grown much more indifferent.” Less than 1 in 3 hold a similar belief about the importance of democracy.

And, the New York Times reports that while 43% of older Americans thought it would be illegitimate for the military to take power if civilian government was incompetent, only 19% of millennials agreed. Yes, really.

As a millennial myself (25 going on 26), I find this quite chilling, actually, that so many of my fellow millennials over in the States (and likely in other Western countries) apparently feel so disillusioned with liberal democracy, that they are willing to flirt with hypothetical situations in which authoritarian regimes take hold.

So, what do you think of Viktor Orban's statement? Sensationalist nonsense from a would-be Putin-style authoritarian? Somewhat true? Or other?

Do illiberal democracy and authoritarianism have the wind in their sails?

You are incredibly well informed for one who is only 25. Congratulations, how did you do it? Good school, good college, self education, excellent church group...what's the secret?

 

[David T]

"The era of liberal democracy is over."

​

So said Viktor Orban in May 2018, after being elected for his fourth consecutive term in office as Prime Minister of Hungary, a member state of the European Union.

The words are ominous, alarming even, yet the signs worldwide for those of us who consider ourselves to be staunch liberal democrats are far from encouraging.

In the USA, the world's most powerful constitutional republic and traditional liberal-democratic standard-bearer throughout the Cold War era, we now have a President who argues that he is effectively above the law, with full power to pardon himself of any wrongdoing and going so far as to claim that he, as the nation's chief law law enforcement officer, is akin to a monarch who cannot be convicted.

Added to this, he has tried to impose religiously-based and nationality-based discriminatory citizenship policies that flout liberal conventions and is moreover inciting illiberal trade wars globally. And he's flirted with nativism, birtherism and every other illiberal ideology humanely imaginable.

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) has demoted the U.S. (for the second year running) from the category of "full democracies" to the category of "flawed democracies". More worrying still however, and by far, is the fact that polling data has recently been suggesting that young Americans are increasingly losing faith in the democratic system.

In a 2017 national survey, when asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 10 how “essential” it is for them “to live in a democracy,” 72% of Americans born before World War II check “10,” the highest value. But, the millennial generation (those born since 1980) “has grown much more indifferent.” Less than 1 in 3 hold a similar belief about the importance of democracy.

And, the New York Times reports that while 43% of older Americans thought it would be illegitimate for the military to take power if civilian government was incompetent, only 19% of millennials agreed. Yes, really.

As a millennial myself (25 going on 26), I find this quite chilling, actually, that so many of my fellow millennials over in the States (and likely in other Western countries) apparently feel so disillusioned with liberal democracy, that they are willing to flirt with hypothetical situations in which authoritarian regimes take hold.

So, what do you think of Viktor Orban's statement? Sensationalist nonsense from a would-be Putin-style authoritarian? Somewhat true? Or other?

Do illiberal democracy and authoritarianism have the wind in their sails?

Well youngster all societies have roots. I love the millennials. As a youth myself long ago I was absolutely convinced my generation was the most superficial generation ever and that it was impossible for any generation to be more superficial than us. And guess what your generation is making our generation seem like the most wise ever!!!!!! That's amazing.... That said you even posting here on RF gives me hope! What's wrong with you....

 

[Estro Felino]

Vouthon...I really thank you for your historical analysis about the creation of the EU. It's really enlightening.
I do agree on the fact that the founding fathers of the EU were working for the good of Europe. I firmly believe in a European Union that belongs to the peoples, not to the banks.
In my vision of EU, it's Theresa May that decides the destiny of her own country...not the ECB, or the European Commission or the markets.

Today all the debate revolves around Brexit.
If we rewrite some treaties, conceding more sovereignty and exemptions to the UK, Brexit wouldn't be necessary any more.

My country will ask for the revision of some treaties...if the UK does the same, we can change things and make a better EU.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't think it's over, although I sometimes wonder if liberal democracy isn't an illusion.

Thomas Jefferson once said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants," but I don't think very many people think in those terms anymore. A lot of Americans have become insular, pampered, hyper-individualists, hyper-materialists, as well as complacent, apathetic, and myopic.

As Americans, I think we've been fooling ourselves for the past several decades, such as during the Reagan-Bush era where consumerism reigned (just as today), with "Don't Worry, Be Happy" as their theme song. There are those who have warned of the consequences that we're on the wrong path, only to be scoffed at and ridiculed by arrogant elitists and their blind followers.

Even liberals, who once fought the good fight - they've sold out and have no credibility whatsoever anymore. Even at best, they're weak and indecisive.

I'm at the point now where I believe that we deserve whatever we get from here on out. If liberal democracy comes to end, it's because we didn't care enough about it to save it. Principles mean nothing to most people nowadays. I'm just resigned to sitting and waiting for the end. I feel as if I'm on a ship of fools waiting for the end.

I doubt you'd remember this song (from your own countrymen), since it was released before you were born, but there's something prophetic about it. At the time when Millennials were infants or only a twinkle in their parents' eyes, a few people knew what was going on and that there would be consequences. Why nobody listened is inexplicable, but this could be our epitaph:

We're setting sail to the place on the map
from which no one has ever returned
Drawn by the promise of the joker and the fool
by the light of the crosses that burned.
Drawn by the promise of the women and the lace
and the gold and the cotton and pearls
It's the place where they keep all the darkness you need.
You sail away from the light of the world on this trip, baby.
You will pay tomorrow
You're gonna pay tomorrow
You will pay tomorrow
Save me. Save me from tomorrow
I don't want to sail with this ship of fools. No, no
Oh, save me. Save me from tomorrow
I don't want to sail with this ship of fools
I want to run and hide right now
Avarice and greed are gonna drive you over the endless sea
They will leave you drifting in the shallows
or drowning in the oceans of history
Traveling the world, you're in search of no good
but I'm sure you'll build your Sodom like you knew you would
Using all the good people for your galley slaves
as you're little boat struggles through the warning waves, but you don't pay
You will pay tomorrow
You're gonna pay tomorrow
You're gonna pay tomorrow
Save me. Save me from tomorrow
I don't want to sail with this ship of fools
Save me. Save me from tomorrow
I don't want to sail with this ship of fools
Where's it comin' from?
Where's it goin' to now?
It's just a It's just a ship of fools

An Aussie band I like (Something for Kate) have a more stripped back version of that song available on Spotify.
Worth a listen.