[gsf_emergency]

Couple of quick addendums before (an attempt at) elaborating "my" "humane policing" strategy..

1. Swiss might have what you call an "authentic democratic tradition". Insofar as it's doubly unique-- few Swiss seem to question its uninterrupted efficacy (at managing the historical catholic/proddy/ethnolinguistic divisions,eg)

(their geographical demarcation from the rest of Europe helps, while America's relative isolation works against a "common defence" mechanism. Conscription in CH is a nonissue, even helps to build solidarity. Possible to de-confound this?)

>71% of respondents said that Switzerland’s direct democracy was the most effective way of promoting social cohesion. According to Sotomo, it gives the population a sense of self-empowerment.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/identities/cohesion-in-switzerl...

2. Otoh, in the US there is still a comparable sense of local solidarity, e.g., when disaster strikes the NYC or LA (compared to the 1980s)

Dually, the sense of strife seems to be strongest in artificially compressed geographic spaces: e.g. when representatives of the different values-based USian tribes converge to jostle for an advantage (contrast with the Superbowl!)

(Fuelled by your "elite pusillanimity"? Lack of actual violence make national politics brutal as academia haha. For the US, 3 (sadly) impedance-matched jungles: tribal, federal, international)

[nis0s]

> 71% of respondents said that Switzerland’s direct democracy was the most effective way of promoting social cohesion. According to Sotomo, it gives the population a sense of self-empowerment.

I agree, which is why I am not entirely convinced by the Neofedualism arguments of late. But it’s undeniable that increasing polarization makes some parts of the democratic tradition infeasible.

[gsf_emergency]

>not entirely convinced

But you're somewhat convinced? Interesting .. (if I didn't miss the sarcasm) would like to hear your arguments for (arab-style?) neofeudalism.. are they along the lines of de Maistre/Yarvin?

[nis0s]

I just think uninformed opinions can dilute democracies, and can make nation states fragile when external actors can opinion shop to create support for, or against, some point of view. The internet makes this especially easy since anyone’s profile can be popularized by external actors at little to no expense.

But this is a game which all nations play to some extent. I understand the importance of this gameplay for statecraft, but I don’t like the way it can impact democratic institutions, like journalism and free speech.

I don’t think the cure to any of these, for the sake of preserving democracies, is authoritarianism, instead I think it’s better to proliferate “moderate” thinking. If someone isn’t fully-aligned with one ideological tribe or another, it’s harder to sway them to any self-destructive position, like civil war-type conflict.

[gsf_emergency]

It's hard to have moderate thinking in a 2-party (federal) system, where both are of comparable strength. Even if each start off equanimous on any given stance. Trying to think of a counter-example. Elites will have to be brought up with the doctrine that moderation is strength? Easy to blame character but prevailing cultural attitudes are also impt (aside from the ones towards misinformation, bad faith etc).

[nis0s]

You’re right, but only if voters have an obligation to vote along party lines (tribalism). If, however, they’re encouraged to vote for purple or independent representatives, then no one party can hope for sustained majority control. I think the selling point of moderate politics is cultural stability, but maybe there’s something I haven’t considered, and this is not the most ideal solution for factionalism.