"Of all the geopolitical transformations confronting the liberal democratic world these days, the one for which we are least prepared is the ideological and strategic resurgence of authoritarianism. We are not used to thinking of authoritarianism as a distinct worldview that offers a real alternative to liberalism. Communism was an ideology — and some thought fascism was, as well — that offered a comprehensive understanding of human nature, politics, economics and governance to shape the behavior and thought of all members of a society in every aspect of their lives.

We believed that “traditional” autocratic governments were devoid of grand theories about society and, for the most part, left their people alone. Unlike communist governments, they had no universalist pretensions, no anti-liberal “ideology” to export. Though hostile to democracy at home, they did not care what happened beyond their borders. They might even evolve into democracies themselves, unlike the “totalitarian” communist states. We even got used to regarding them as “friends,” as strategic allies against the great radical challenges of the day: communism during the Cold War, Islamist extremism today.

Like so many of the theories that became conventional wisdom during the late 20th and early 21st centuries, however, this one was mistaken. Today, authoritarianism has emerged as the greatest challenge facing the liberal democratic world — a profound ideological, as well as strategic, challenge. Or, more accurately, it has reemerged, for authoritarianism has always posed the most potent and enduring challenge to liberalism, since the birth of the liberal idea itself. Authoritarianism has now returned as a geopolitical force, with strong nations such as China and Russia championing anti-liberalism as an alternative to a teetering liberal hegemony. It has returned as an ideological force, offering the age-old critique of liberalism, and just at the moment when the liberal world is suffering its greatest crisis of confidence since the 1930s. It has returned armed with new and hitherto unimaginable tools of social control and disruption that are shoring up authoritarian rule at home, spreading it abroad and reaching into the very heart of liberal societies to undermine them from within..."

Much more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2019/03/14/feature/the-strongmen-strike-back/?utm_term=.81ae5c11652e

had not ignored hate radio for over three decades. It spawned Fox News & now we have social media. Which maybe wouldn't be such a sewer if it weren't for 35+ years of hate radio. At the same time you dumb down your population with cuts to public education. I don't think dem leadership has ever taken hate radio as a serious threat & they still don't.

ever needed our permission, or the government's, to listen to whatever they wanted. It's in the constitution. Plus, all through this period they've always held more power and for longer periods than Democrats did. Courtesy of America's electorate.

I've felt for almost as long that we have an existential need for a national "no yelling fire in a crowded nation" law that would allow some limited constraints on toxic free speech -- a protection of free speech by constraints on its weaponization against democracy -- but there's never been a moment when that would have been even remotely possible.

Btw, to fight effectively, we need to first correctly identify what to fight so we don't end up shooting off our own heads by mistake. No to false equalization. We're not the ones.

but rather that we not let hate speech go unchallenged like it currently is on AM radio. The dems/left should have produced alternative programming, even at a loss. The dems have conceded the narrative to the GOP on so many issues it's embarrassing. When they rant about how evil socialism is, we should counter by asking if it was evil to bail out the banks or to subsidize certain industries. Is socialism only for corporations? We let the GOP control the narrative over & over. Maybe you don't think that the narrative is important, but I do.

We do not control them or their speech. They own their behavior.

But it seems you feel you failed a duty, so go to it. Maybe come back and let us know if you have any successes.

We have a difference of opinion. Can't you express yourself with tact?

racial, sexual and cultural enmities providing a great deal of hateful and destabilizing energy. In the U.S. the reaction to just too much change and too much broadening and equalization of rights will calm down -- either by burning itself out or being ruthlessly suppressed -- but after it does, what kind of government might we be living under?

Many are increasingly seeing authoritarianism as the only way to stop losing at the polls and would vote to cancel our democracy. And many among our new centimillionaire and billionaire classes feel democracy is a serious impediment to not just their freedoms but eventually their survival.

Governments have never had the horrifying tools of oppression they do now. They literally only need to turn off water and power to neighborhoods, counties, geographic regions and block the roads out to change talk of insurgence to scrabbling for survival. New electronic location and identification capabilities are horrifying. The vast majority of individuals could be picked up long before being stopped trying to climb a fence at the border.

UK - rising terror attacks and hate crimes, Brexit, and Rupert Murdoch.

US - rising terror attacks and hate crimes, Trump, and Rupert Murdoch.

Australia and New Zealand - rising terror attacks and hate crimes, the Christchurch shooting, and Rupert Murdoch.

Not to point fingers, but there is a common link among all these elements here.