While what you are saying may be true, you shouldn’t look to the west for answers. The idea that we pick our leaders based on political debates is ridiculous. Just look at how our debates are structured. If they are lucky, candidates have two minutes to describe their approach to fixing something like income inequality or climate change which have been around for decades. Certain candidates are purposely given more airtime than others, more positive press coverage than others, etc.
Western news media has the opposite problem of Russian media in that it is mostly propaganda too, but it hides behind the veil of a “free press”. The defense contractors, Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Wall Street control the news cycles and the politicians, but they do it from behind the curtain. If you ask me, this is much more sinister. A wolf in sheep’s clothing, if you will.
I would actually prefer a media where you KNOW it is propaganda from the get-go cause then it puts you in a mindset to think critically about everything being presented. Here in the U.S. people inherently trust the media and the government as being the arbitrators of truth and righteousness, despite the fact that they lie to us constantly.
Our “leaders” are also tied to intelligence agencies like the CIA, but again they often go to great lengths to hide these connections. Most politicians here could note engage in a serious debate with anyone who challenges their positions either. We are given a “choice” between the candidate on the left who works for Big Pharma and the military industrial complex and the candidate on the right who works for Big Pharma and the military industrial complex.
The power of democracy isn't the debates and election campaigns. That's mostly theater. The power of democracy is the peaceful way to change the government after it fucks up.
When McCarthy did red scare he lost without a revolution. When Nixon did Watergate he lost without a revolution. When Bush lied about Iraq WMDs - he lost without a revolution.
They could lie for a while, but eventually they lose power. It's assumed they will. People know they will. So if there's an order to do something that will look bad after they lose power - people think many times before they do it. This changes EVERYTHING.
When Putin invades Ukraine - he stays in power, and the whole world wonders how to let him think he won something so he won't nuke the world, without sacrificing a whole country in the process.
Autocracy has no safeties built in, no feedback mechanism (other than revolution/assasination which is possible in democracy too and has big risks involved). So they usually fuck up big time and fall.
> I would actually prefer a media where you KNOW it is propaganda
You say that now, but you don't realize how insidious even obvious propaganda is. Over time it changes what ideas are mainstream, fringe, considerable, even thinkable. It makes you self-censor not because you fear punishment, but because you know some trains of thought are "pointless" because you cannot do anything with them. And then that self-censorship becomes unconscious. And you no longer have these thoughts. Wait 20 years and you're a different man.
It's sad to look at westerners so cynical they don't realize how lucky they are.
> The power of democracy is the peaceful way to change the government after it fucks up.
This is a very important point I didn't understand before thinking about some things David Deutsch said. Debates don't convince many people, only clearly terrible policies do. And being able to peacefully switch out the goverenment is a great advantage.
It's a very important point, because all political careers end in failure. Why? Because those bent on the having and holding of power never willingly take their hands of the levers of power. They must be removed, and the great advantage of democracy is that is has made that process peaceful.
> The power of democracy isn't the debates and election campaigns. That's mostly theater. The power of democracy is the peaceful way to change the government after it fucks up.
This is also an illusion democracy is also tyranny of majority in which minority or minority views trampled. Shining example is USA, India. US waged war killed scores of civilians in so many countries and still a beacon of democracy, India an incompetent govt which bring economic ruin in the country continue to get majority because it appeals to majority religious group.
In US to fight presidential elections need billions of dollars. However the rules be made, most politicians need to seek money from rich which needs to be paid back directly or indirectly. Nothing comes free in this world.
So democracy to survive needs to transform itself first.
> Better tyranny of the majority than tyranny of the one.
There is nothing like tyranny of one. Its always Tyranny of interest groups, which is true in any system including democratic system where rich and powerful controls most.
Today most of the US elections are controlled by billionaires and who is going to win depends on their blessings. Same is true for India.
US, India represent the majority of the human population under democratic system and how it works.
Look at any HDI or UN statistics that matter and see the conditions on largest human population on one side represented by democratic India and on another side by a closed system in China (people call it authoritarian, although its a mixture of many systems). Examine closely and you will notice both the systems work in some areas and fail in others, no one can claim superiority over other system. But a narrative of good vs evil, superior vs inferior is a root cause of conflicts. If people began to see things from humanity’s perspective with respect of each other world would be a different place.
An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. Solution to armed conflict is not more armed conflict by supporting one group against another with weapons of destruction.
> There is nothing like tyranny of one. Its always Tyranny of interest groups
The "interest groups" that rule Russia is less than 100 people. It's not the same as interest groups in democracies.
> Look at any HDI or UN statistics that matter and see the conditions on largest human population on one side represented by democratic India and on another side by a closed system in China.
India would have to kill millions of its own citizens to get equally bad as China. But you probably don't consider how it was created, just the end effect, right? What's a few millions dead here and there if they can build cheap factories :)
> But a narrative of good vs evil, superior vs inferior is a root cause of conflicts.
Killing innocent people is in fact evil. Systems where you can do that with no consequences are in fact inferior.
And the root of all conflict is politicians starting wars because they think they can get away with it. The narratives are always there, with any implication you want, you just have to choose one and decide to go with it.
The big advantage of democracy is that you don't (in general) get away with it. You can for a while, but not forever.
West is closer. You’re not 100% wrong. But “ Here in the U.S. people inherently trust the media and the government as being the arbitrators of truth and righteousness” has not been true for quite a long time. I was stunned that anyone believed Colin Powell’s obvious b.s., now with Colin Powell and Mike Pompeo the crap about West Point being related to “honor” is clearly visible as crap too. If you are a Trumpian you trust Q more than MSM, if you are a Bidenite you trust your CNN more than Fox.
Yeah, I was going to make a similar response. Like you pointed out, if anything 'trust in the media and government' has eroded so much its fallen into complete absurdity. Of course skepticism should always be exercised when consuming anything --media, politicians, etc-- but how the eff phenomena like 'Q', Sandy Hook deniers, 'stop the steal' (etc etc) could possibly gain traction as movements suggests parts of society are so preemptively distrustful they're actually losing grip on reality.
Western news media has the opposite problem of Russian media in that it is mostly propaganda too, but it hides behind the veil of a “free press”. The defense contractors, Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Wall Street control the news cycles and the politicians, but they do it from behind the curtain. If you ask me, this is much more sinister. A wolf in sheep’s clothing, if you will.
I would actually prefer a media where you KNOW it is propaganda from the get-go cause then it puts you in a mindset to think critically about everything being presented. Here in the U.S. people inherently trust the media and the government as being the arbitrators of truth and righteousness, despite the fact that they lie to us constantly.
Our “leaders” are also tied to intelligence agencies like the CIA, but again they often go to great lengths to hide these connections. Most politicians here could note engage in a serious debate with anyone who challenges their positions either. We are given a “choice” between the candidate on the left who works for Big Pharma and the military industrial complex and the candidate on the right who works for Big Pharma and the military industrial complex.