Why spite could destroy liberal democracy
Very concise observations.<p>But I disagree with the perspective of the article. Because the political isle advertising for the considered positions, Brexit and Trump were primarily reactionary.<p>Spiteful was the other side, or at least it was perceived as such. Remember old white men or the sexism&#x2F;racism discussions? The &quot;right side of history&quot;? There is a lot of spite here without much merit.<p>The mistake was to try to appease said spite and many people thought only Brexit and Trump could help to change this disastrous course, which would indeed undermine liberal democracy. And they would be correct, because leadership failed on that account multiple times. The reactionary side will of course develop the same symptoms. The motivation will degrade that anything is good if it just spites those &quot;libs&quot;, what other means would they have?<p>Furthermore the EU does indeed have democratic deficits. It also lessens sovereignty (you can argue higher order effects on influence of international policies and the ability to shape them, but those are merely badly argued conjectures).<p>These arguments were plainly denied, which is ludicrously stupid. Denying the sky to be blue doesn&#x27;t help if you want to craft an argument why a supranational institution could indeed be helpful despite of this. There is a compromise here, denying that is again either dishonest or incompetent.<p>So I think the trigger was indeed trying to appease spite. Again denying the color of the sky. If a policy is motivated by spite, it should not be implemented. In policy, culture and values some people tried to extend to the wider population. There will be no improvement from this.<p>But don&#x27;t misunderstand it in a way that you should not appease the argument of those that voted for Brexit or Trump. They weren&#x27;t the source of the spite, this is just a reactionary defense against those that allowed it in the first place.<p>&gt; people would no longer risk their lives for causes once deemed sacred<p>Of course not, this is probably already the case today. Because those that do would be further subjected to the appeased spite. Like the police in the US in some cities or an EU army. I guess they will get into trouble recruiting forces. This is a failure of leadership, not a failure of voters.<p>Another factor is how people respond to symbolism. Some people do, other don&#x27;t care at all. There is a trust issue underlying this, but that cannot be tackled. So try not to create too dishonest martyrs or symbols for liberal democracy. If it is sacred and you want to convince people, you have to live it.<p>Both Trump and Brexit argued for freedom. You should think about why that is the case and where things got wrong.