The State of Marriage

The state of marriage and its success rate have constantly declined in the last decades. Based on recent data, the marriage rate in the West has felt somewhat 40% over the previous 30 years. While data shows the rate of divorce felt, the data is misleading as it represents a crude number that does not take into account the marriage decline rate. To make it simple, if the number of divorces stays the same while the number of marriages diminishes by half, it means that the true amount of failing marriages doubled. Based on recent stats, half of all first marriages end in divorce, and the rate of second and third marriages is drastically higher.

Moreover, a recent study shows that nearly 25% of kids under 18 grow up in single-parent households in the US. In her book “You Can Be Right, or You Can Be Married,” Dana Adam Shapiro wrote that as few as 17 percent of couples are content in their marriage. Vicki Larson, journalist and co-author of “The New I Do, Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists, and Rebels,” cites that six of every 10 married couples are unhappy, and four out of 10 have considered leaving their partner.

This by itself is troubling. It reflects a deep problem in our current Western society. One that affects the level of happiness and productivity of our adult generation and will directly impact the next one. The reasons given for reaching this point vary. Women's liberation, the fall of Christianity, the internet, and the general Disney model of love contribute to this trend. Couple therapy became a flourishing industry together with lawyers who specialize in divorce. YouTube is full of channels that cover all topics related to these issues, giving each unhappy person the exact answer he or she was looking for to validate their perspective. As a person who took part in numerous couples therapies and spent some time searching for answers online, I can attest to that fact. It is an industry of misery, one that is probably based on a lot of good intentions and some profit-seeking.

After hearing many professional talking points about the subject of couple problems and the web of possible solutions, I realized that most, if not all, of the current conversations on the topic are based on the capacity of couples to develop healthy communication. One that will allow them to share and accept each other, feel safe, and become one happy cell. The focus on this topic is normally more demanding from men as, by nature, women have a higher capacity to connect to their emotions, give names to them, and speak about them. Some new development psychology movement has started recently to popularize the topic of attachment problems, promoting the idea that by understanding and focusing on this topic, couples could understand each other better and heal together into a better-shared future.

After giving it some thought, I came to realize that the main issue with our current mating world can be referred to as a “Problem of first principle.” Let me explain. In essence, people today don’t enter into relationships knowing consciously what they are searching for. Most of the generation that grew up on Disney just want to be in love, search for a magical mystic connection, and want to be understood. By itself, those are all noble causes, but there is no clear understanding of what a person wants and needs in a relationship in the long run. Many people will search to be understood and fall in love more for the sake of being in love than anything else. Disney and Hollywood's dream of happiness ever after played a big part in this. Eventually, in most of the movies, the story concentrates on the meeting process, the shared struggle of two people against the world, and finishes at the wedding. Doing so made us all unconsciously programmed with a clear vision of how things should look from the start. We all search for and create it by acting as closely as possible to this model. By doing so, we concentrate on the wrong thing. We choose our mates based on an emotional reaction based on a fictional dream nobody lives in.

Like all the good magic stories, it is a question of time until the magic disappears, and we are left with the reality we put ourselves into. It is part of any long-term relationship. For some, it requires time, and for others, a baby or a misfortune. Eventually, all relationship reaches this point. It is the moment one realizes that the person he is spending his time with is no longer reflecting the image one has built for himself in his head when the magic is up. This happened for several reasons. First, when we fall in love, we do so by creating an image of the other person that is half based on the actual reality and half on what we would like and want the other person to be. It is never really based on the actual person. We develop feelings toward a representation that mixes what we need, dream, and wish for. Secondly, as time passes, people change. It is part of life.

Sometimes, people change in a manner that fits the other person's mental image. Those are by far a minority of cases that do not represent the experience of most couples. This change process repeats itself many times during any long-term relationship, building one on top of the other. In this process, not only does one partner change, but the person itself changes simultaneously. As both partners are changing, it is just a question of repetition before the couple reaches a point in which they can no longer be recognized as the one at the beginning of the process. It is an inevitability of life. Third and most importantly, we are creatures that excel in adapting to living in a world where we get bored very easily. The good and exciting traits that we find so unique in a person become the norm, and we start taking them for granted, making only the problematic aspect of the other person float. This is all part of a normal relationship that started based on emotionally Disney-structured love.

Eventually, after a certain period of marriage, many couples reach a point where they see their partner for who they are. Not because they were hiding it but because the magic of being in love diminishes. In many cases, a person will become highly aware of the other person's true nature and mainly focus on his partner's undesirable traits. It is a kind of Bias to the negative. At this point, sentences such as “You changed so much,” “Where is the person I married,” and “Why are you so…” start to appear. In reality, those are natural stages of any long-term relationship. It is the hard part. The part that actually builds strength and true meaning in the relationship itself. Only by overcoming it can a couple start to create a real relationship built on trust, appreciation, and acceptance. One that is not based on uncontrollable feelings but meaning, shared purpose, and acceptance based on both partners' actual personalities and needs. It is part of any maturation process. One that is not easy requires courage and, as we see around us, fails many times.

Many couples divorce at that stage, while others live miserably together. Circling and spiraling around frustration with a hidden wish, the other side will understand and finally change. I will tell you something right now: your partner will not change and will not become the person you wish him or her to be. Not because he won’t but because he can’t. He or she was never this person and never planned to be. The memories of a different person are probably more of an inner construction of the story you told yourself when you were in the middle of the ecstasy stage of being in love. It never actually reflected the person standing before you – (well, on some metaphysical level). I will add a caveat and say that, in some cases, people actually change over time following a traumatic event. In these cases, pushing aggressively into the face of the person how unhappy the partner is with the change and insisting he should come back to what he was is genuinely destructive and unhelpful.

There is nothing wrong with growing apart. We all experience it in our life. Friends in the early period of life don’t always fit the person we become when we grow up. It is part of life and evolution. Regardless, it should be seen differently when it comes to marriage. Marriage is a different game with a different purpose. Especially when kids are involved. Marriage is a commitment. One that is built to maintain structure for the creation of a family. Divorce without kids is a bureaucratic hustle that should make any person think twice before entering into it if no wish for kids exists. Kids are the reason for the commitment to holding an accountable structure that will allow them to survive and even flourish. We enter into marriage for that purpose, which should be the most important reason to ensure it works well.

When presenting this topic to many people, the argument I encountered many times was – “It is better for kids to have a happy divorced marriage over unhappy married parents.” While I agree with this argument on many levels, it is not what this conversation is about. As parents, we are the first and most important example kids grow into. They absorb and imprint some unconscious ideas. The parents' structure, love, availability, and happiness will guide kids into adulthood and be their north star. Without a true example of responsibility, happiness, and good communication, kids grow up in a world where they are unaware of what a healthy relationship looks like. Moreover, The idea that life is hard but that it can and should be handled with the utmost courage and responsibility is lacking in a divorced family. Concepts such as compromising for the greater good, overcoming difficulties, and the notion that life is not perfect can all be learned from parents who manage to create a healthy and stable household, regardless of all the hardships.

Good things are hard to get and require hard work in the process. Marriages are not different. We can choose the wrong people for the right reasons or the right people for the wrong reasons. Marriage is not about what we did and who we were, but what we have right now and how we can make it work. It is unavoidable that a couple will grow apart at a certain point in time. The needs of both of the people involved will certainly change. It is undoubtedly true that in certain periods, it will feel as if it will be better to be alone than together. But this is not the game played in a long-term marriage. Love is something you build! There are no bad reasons to fight for love. It is hard, demanding, and sometimes seems impossible. But nothing worthwhile is easy, and children are the biggest, if not the only, real responsibility we have in life.

If you find yourself unhappy in your marriage, please remember that it is normal. It happened to all married couples. The difference between the one that survives and the one that fails is not that hardship doesn’t come their way. It is all about their capacity to understand what they are fighting for and their willingness to sacrifice for it. Your partner will not change in the way you wish for just because you do, but if you are lucky, he or she will be willing to listen to your needs, express their own, and find a way to make it better together. In the long run, you deserve a good marriage worth fighting for. And if you don’t find it to be true, your children definitely do. This is the purpose of marriage in the first place.

 If you like the content please consider subscribing to my email list. By doing so, you are helping me taking another step in my wonderful journey. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Reflection on Power and Democracy

 Power, is not a bug but a fundamental function of human existence, nature, and the universe. It can be observed all around us. In nature, it is the strong that dominates the weak, and it is the violent natural event that changes the structure of nature. Gravity is another example that can be seen as an example of strength. The fact that a bigger mass has the natural effect of attracting a smaller mass is an effect of Power. After all, Power is the capacity to dominate your surroundings and make them move based on one need.

In this conversation, we will explore why the concept of power is currently seen in a negative light in western society, and how it is connected to the type of democracies ruling these nations. The widespread concepts of aggression, micro-aggression, and toxic masculinity are all part of the growing culture in the West. Dictating that Power should be eradicated for the purpose of the common good. For those who hold this view, it makes sense on many levels, as it is an unavoidable feature of the mental structure hold in the mind of people that support what I call "Poor Democracy." This feature is not a bug but an inevitable end of how Democracy evolved in the West. A development that makes us weaker, vulnerable and will bring about the unavoidable collapse of the West and its culture.

Democracy can exist in many forms based on its constitution. It can be divided into the following categories – Democracy operating based on capability, Democracy operating based on wealth, and Democracy operating based on the weak majority. In all the types, the structure is built on the vote of the majority of the voting people. And in all kinds, a constitution exists binding all its citizens to the rule of law. In general, a society that is not operating based on the vote of the majority of the voters' opinions can be considered tyrannical, while a society in which some people can change the law based on their needs can be viewed as a monarchy. To make this topic clear, I will add that a monarchy can be considered tyrannical in some cases, while a tyrannical regime doesn't have to be a monarchy. If you want to learn more about these differences, I recommend reading Aristotle's "Politics."

Before delving into the different types of Democracy, I find it relevant to define a fundamental concept. Democracy, at its core, is created as a system to restrain and create accountability for the most powerful. It is a structure that gives the weaker part of society control and dominance over the powerful by grouping them into a singular part of society. Rich, capable, and powerful do not need to approval of the weak. It will help them create a more pleasant and efficient way to reach their end goal, but in no way is it a requirement they cannot do without. From this point of view, Democracy is created and maintained to support the weaker part of society, never the powerful.

I find it relevant at this point to address the role of Power and the nature of humans as part of the universe. While we evolve to a point in which we dominate the globe - (a development that couldn't happen without the usage of Power), we are still a product of evolution and come from the same nature as any other species on earth. We reach where we are and get what we have, all thanks to a struggle that we won thanks to our superior Power. The most obvious example  - (one that, for some reason, is controversial to some) is the fact that peace is a consequence of war. No peace has ever been achieved without a war to form it in the first place. The notion that peace is a natural state is based more on wishful thinking than historical reality.

Another clear example is that everything we have requires our effort. Effort requires strength, self-control, and endurance. All features of Power. Power is the rule of nature. It is controlling everything around us. It is used in any interaction, day, and social construct. It is a core feature, not a bug.

If true, it is worth asking how we have arrived at a point where a big part of society is convinced differently? To better understand this phenomenon, we will have to delve into the different types of Democracy, their core ideas, and their natural development. By doing so, we will understand where we currently stand, what went wrong, and where we are proudly marching.

Now, let's dive into the different types of Democracy and the role of Power, to get a better understanding of what makes them different from one another. A democracy operating based on capability can be called a meritocracy. In many ways, it can be described as an aristocratic democracy. The term aristocracy is not defined in this case as a group of people that hold Power due to lineage (this is monarchy) but the fact that they hold Power due to their higher capabilities. All the people involved are bound to the rule of law that promises equal treatment in front of the law, making it an egalitarian society in a democratic sense.

Furthermore, in such a society, all its citizens have the right to vote, but the candidates in question are chosen based on their demonstrative capabilities in the relevant field. Power is necessary in such a social structure as capacity is based on competition, which is a power struggle. Moreover, the fundamental value of such a society is productivity and the well-being of society itself. Power is admired in such societies as it is used for good. It is the engine that run social progress. If such a society is based on demonstrative superiority. Mentally and physically power is promoted as a core value wished and admire by all. In such a structure, the combination of capability with a democratic general vote renders the motive of the ruling party with the general good of society aligned, creating a natural positive cooperation for the greater good.

The second type of Democracy operates based on wealth. In many cases, highly concentrated in the art of commerce. This Democracy can be described as an oligarchic democracy. In this structure, money is Power. What makes it a democracy is the fact that the rule of law still stands and that a majority vote exists to define its rulers. There are two different types of oligarchic Democracy. One in which only people with wealth can participate in the democratic process, but the size of the wealthy population is a significant majority of its citizens. And one in which all citizens can participate in voting for election, but the way to be nominated is based on a minimum entry bar valued in wealth. While the first type is hard to find in our current age, the second structure is more common today than what many of us would like to believe. Power in this society is king, and it is bought in wealth. Unlike the Democracy I described previously, this type is built on Power. It is the Power to hold dominance in society that allows the ruling party to govern. Money is Power, as it can buy one way into the relevant position. In this structure, the limitations of the governing party are based on the fact that wealth is distributed to enough people to create a big enough opposition due to personal interests. While it serves to rest of the population in ways of second-order consequences, the structure can still be considered democratic due to its election process and the rule of law governing all citizens equally. In this society, Power is seen as an inspiration for individualistic motives and something to be feared by the rest of the population. On many levels, it can be said that nature is organized in an oligarchic democracy structure. In the sense that it is the balance of the powerful that dictates reality while allowing the weaker part to survive as a secondary consequence of their own motives.

Oligarchic democracy in many cases evolve as a middle stage between free society and one rule by a single ruler. As I will show, this structure is the most vulnerable to tyrannical overtake. Interestingly, in the period of ancient Greece, this type of democracy was practice in many states. Making it a relevant and viable option when discussing democracy.

The third kind of Democracy, which I believe dominates most of the West, is a democracy operating based on a weak majority. This type of Democracy can be described as one in which the weak majority runs the show. As a structure, the rule of law governs all citizens, and everyone has the right to vote or be elected based on a popularity contest regardless of capability or wealth. A consequence of this structure is that the purpose of society and its governing party is to satisfy the weakest part of society. Bringing the goals of society itself to equal the lowest denominator of its participants.

While the other types of Democracy exist to restrain the powerful and allow them to deploy their resource most constructively, this type of Democracy exists to crash Power at its core, as it threatens the weak that control the system. In such a structure, Power is seen as a bug. One that, if eradicated, will eliminate the natural balancing power existing on the weak. Power is seen as something to be afraid of. Something that should be socially detested and ostracized.

Societies that operate in this way are doomed to collapse. Not only due to the lack of Power to hold against neighboring societies that naturally accumulate Power and capacities but also because the general philosophy of such a population is toward mediocrity. One that dictated that we should all be more like the less capable and hide our inner drive for greatness.

The reason I call this kind of democracy - a "Poor Democracy" - is not based on the economic status of its majority – (even if it is unavoidable) but due to its social denominator, its growth potential, and its poor chances of survival. It is a structure in which everyone loses over time. The capable are pushed out of society, productivity will unavoidably decline and innovation will stop. Furthermore, due to its social structure, individuals lacking any worthy role model will have no choice but to individuate themselves based on a new scale of victimhood, as it is the common language of the weak. Victimhood is a poor way to run a society. One that can be described as a race to the bottom.

Furthermore, it is just a matter of time before a natural movement of historical deconstruction will emerge. After all, all existing flourishing societies reached their status due to their victory in a power struggle. One that is based on the fundamental principle of the superiority of Power. As a "Poor Democracy" is preaching values that demonize the concept of Power, it is only a matter of time before they will have no other choice but to try to erase any memory of its existence historically. The fact that this process requires the complete elimination of all aspects of their culture and everything that made them great is an unavoidable side effect. As Power is seen as the main threat to weak society governed by a popularity contest based on victimhood.

Different types of Democracy have their own risk and need to be addressed if we are searching to understand Democracy and its flaws. It is obvious that in all types, when the rule of law does not apply to all its citizens or the voting process does not reflect the majority opinion, the structure loses its democratic characteristics. It turns to be monarchical, tyrannical, or both. Regardless, some types are more prone to some failures than others. One of the most important aspects of a good social constitution is the barriers and checks in place to prevent such unfortunate developments. Another important aspect of the various types of Democracy has to do with their chances of survival in case the tables turn and Democracy is lost. After all, on a long enough scale, the most crucial question concerning society is its survival. As bad as a period of monarchy or dictatorship can be, the survival of its population is the first requirement for the chance to reestablish a democracy over time.

The easiest and most obvious type of Democracy to analyze is the Oligarchic Democracy. The fact that the structure is based on wealth and domination in such a straightforward manner makes it vulnerable to tyranny. All it requires is that wealth will, for some reason, suddenly be concentrated into the hands of a small group for this change to occur. To avoid such a development, it is highly important that laws restrict such development and that the balance of wealth is kept. As such, balance and the capacity of the law to hold are not obvious; Oligarchic Democracy is vulnerable and doesn't seem to be a viable option for an extended period of time.

 A Democracy based on meritocracy has its own risk. The most obvious one is the creation of an elite layer in society that will alienate themselves over time from the rest of the population. In this case, it is highly likely that a kind of monarchy will form or alternatively, that Democracy will move from this form to an Oligarchic one. While it is not recommended in any way, the risks of such a society are associated with the loss of its values over time and not the capacity of a ruling party to overtake the system. In both cases, the nation will not cease to exist. It is only the governing system that is at risk.

Not like the two previous cases, A democracy ruled by its weakest part not only has the risk of tyranny due to its weakening population or backlash from its extreme movements, but its more significant risk is its decomposition and collapse. As I explain above, decomposition is a feature of this social structure on many levels. The self-inflicting destruction of its own culture and the standard of victimhood leave the population weak and divided. A state that will inevitably bring to one of the three following scenarios – The first is the takeover of the nation by a neighboring state that operates on values of Power and survival. On any geopolitical level, it will be a natural consequence that will occur at a certain point in time. While this will require a prolonged period of deterioration or a sudden, unproportionally fast rise of Power by a neighboring country, this outcome is unavoidable if society is left alone to deteriorate for long enough. The second option that could emerge sooner is the collapse of the social structure of society from within, bringing about a civil war. This scenario will unavoidably bring to the rise of some form of tyranny and the potential takeover of a neighboring country if a clear win is not obtained quickly. In any case, the foundation of Democracy will collapse on the eve of a civil war, and society will stop functioning in the way it did previously. As a matter of fact, the act of the civil war will mean that the experiment of eradicating the notion of Power has failed. As the act itself is an admission that the only solution to restore order is violence, which is the ultimate and most crude manifestation of the usage of Power. Interestingly, the third option is the rise of socialism in its many forms.

In many ways, socialism is at its core based on the Power of the many weak over the capable minority. Equal outcomes, equal pay and equal distribution regardless of contribution or capacity benefits only the weakest part of society. Ironically, socialism is based on regulated and concentrated control in the hands of the few. Making it, at its core, vulnerable to tyranny. Historically, all forms of socialism have led to tyranny, poverty, and an unavoidable collapse. In this third scenario, socialism is just a road taken to tyranny, civil war, and the inevitable return to the most crude way of Power. In case of tyranny, the nation as a whole still has a chance to survive and remain in existence under a tyrant or alternatively vanish and get conquered by a neighboring country. 

The West has lost its way as it lost its philosophy promoting meritocracy and its relationship with Power. It is Power that allowed the West to achieve all its greatness and be what it is. It is by aggressively demanding capacity and casting aside the ones who are not willing to play that the west reach it amazing standard of living and prolong period of peace. Life is hard and uncomfortable. It is not by downgrading ourselves to the lowest denominator that we will thrive, nor by explaining ourselves we evolve to be a better existence than what brought us here.

Peace requires war. Achievements require effort. It is easy to destroy and hard to build. Hiding behind utopian rightfulness is not only not promoting a better future, but it also promises a worse one. If we are to walk straight into our own destruction, let us at least be honest about it and not explain to ourselves we are superior. Somebody said, "Good periods create weak men, which in turn create bad periods that create strong men." I don't think good periods create weak men. I believe that in good periods, strong men are not needed and are cast aside. While in hard periods, the weak disappear as they hide behind the strong man. If we are to save the West, I believe the first and most important step is changing our relationship to Power. It is an essential step if we are to maintain the current democratic experiment. As only democracy can promote the betterment of society and individuals all together. It is essential if we are to follow the significant steps that our ancestors did for our current prosperity. It is Power that allows us to be free, and our capacity to hold it prevents our enemies from taking the greatness that we have created.

Should We Save Democracy?

Democracy is part of the Western culture. It has been developed and maintained by its people as part of their development. For many people in our current generation, democracy is a given. They have been born in this system, raised in it, and educated to see it as the best option available for human governance. Wars in recent decades have been fought under its banner. Making its defense the primary justification for violence all over the world. The West and the world as we know it today exist thanks to democracy and its values.

After many generations living within a democratic framework, people find it hard to truly define what democracy is. Or at least the fundamental ideas that support it. We all know how to repeat that democracy is a governing system that promotes freedom and equality. We all hold the notion that it is a governing mechanism that allows people to elect people for the people and promotes fairness and accountability. Regardless, when asked, most people are not aware neither of how young is the concept of democracy nor what were the fundamental philosophical ideas that brought it all to be. 

Democracy is revolutionary for many reasons. It flipped the concept of governance on its head. Before the creation of democracy, as we know it today, all governing systems were created to support the ruling class. Kings, aristocracy, tyranny, and autocracy are built in a way in which the concentration of power and unlimited control support the ruling class. In such a system, the majority of the population exists to support the ruling class. Their rights are limited to nonexistence, laws are made and changed by the ruling class, and oppression is part of the system. Democracy is different. It is the first system that comes from the people for the people. As such, the interest of the people takes the main stage. A separation of forces exists between the ruling, judging, and enforcing powers, creating a balance of power to protect the system and its people. In a democracy, the government exists to serve the people. It is a revolutionary idea that cannot be taken for granted. After all, in the majority of the world, for the most significant part of human history, this was not the way we did business. This principle underlying the idea of democracy and defining it is a fundamental concept we should keep in mind throughout our investigation. This principle by itself should always be the first standard with which one should evaluate the state of a specific democratic system and its legitimacy.

A long and complicated philosophical path has been taken in the West to achieve what many people see as obvious. To create the system and justify it, a long process of thinkers had to develop, debate, and establish ideas about the human condition that allowed the creation of such a revolutionary system. Human rights, duties, equality, freedom, and states were not evident at all. Nation-states did not exist before the 17th century in Europe. Passports did not exist before the second world war. Income tax was uncommon before the middle of the 20th century, and a court system equal to or above the governing elite. Democracy as we know it today is young and can be seen as experimental. The US can be seen as the first one to establish it 200 years ago, while Europe, in its majority, didn’t establish it much later. In some cases, toward the end of the 20th century, and in others, only after WW2.

There is nothing obvious about our current society. Making it vulnerable to attacks from outside and from within. The core ideas holding democracy are the cornerstone of the system itself. They exist to protect, justify, and defend the system. If not withheld and constantly reinforced, nothing will stay in the basics of the system, allowing it to survive and grow. The separation of the three heads of democracy is fundamental and should be emphasized. It protects the system from itself. The idea that government power should be limited by predetermined standards, upheld by a separate body, should be restrained by the natural process of concentration of power. It promises by itself the incapacity of a momentary electorate to take over the system. The limitation of the judging arm as a supervisor and watchdog by itself limits its power to a certain extent. Making it a great balancing force. The third part of this trio is the executing part, which by itself is problematic. The correct line to draw in this case will concern only the inner population executing units. The governing part directly commands the military, making it irrelevant to our conversation.

On the other hand, the police, which are in charge of executing laws and keeping orders, are in a democratic structure independent to a certain extent from the governing party. Its original purpose is to keep the citizens safe in their own cities. Working for the sake of the safety of the citizens. This claim is more complicated to evaluate as the state of this separation in most Western countries is not clear-cut. Making it by itself a complex subject. Nevertheless, some level of autonomy exists, as the police force is not operating as a private army of a politician, making it separate and autonomous to a certain extent.

Following several generations of peace and home, it seems the Western societies and the democracy that support them are falling apart. A general dissatisfaction is felt all over the West. Creating waves of violence and polarisation of its people. This process has been observed in the last 20 years, accelerating in recent years. It seems we are living in a “Democratic Crisis.” Putting all the project in question. This is seen all over the Western world and can be identified by the decline in trust in the governing institutions, the rising corruption seen all over the West, the polarization of its population, and the waves of violence erupting more often than before. The development of democracy is at a crossroads. The rise of communist ideologies can be seen as promoted within Western society. A growing part of the population seems dissatisfied with the current system, making the conversation and request for a better, valid, and relevant alternative.

To better understand our options, I believe we need to start by understanding the problem at hand. It seems the issue has to do with the deterioration of everything that made democracy possible to begin with. It is a fact that on many levels, the outcome of the last 20 years has not been favorable for a big part of the population, regardless of the leaning of any specific government in this period. It seems democracy has failed many people, making them want to explore alternatives to avoid continuing with the current state. As I wrote in one of my previous book called  “Back to Ourselves,” many extreme changes happened to us in the last 150 years. Changing the rules of the game and creating a new reality. The changes speed and impact did not give enough time to assimilate and regroup before moving forward. Leaving us vulnerable to small social issues that became, over time, the foundation for the reality we are currently living in. It seems we have walked a long way without reevaluating the philosophical and practical ideas that hold democracy. I believe the irrelevance of the current Political Right and Left (Republicans and Democrats) is a direct consequence of that process. They are both running after their own tale. Concentrating on solutions for the symptoms and not the sickness of our society.

The general dissatisfaction we are currently experiencing is the end of a process that evolved for a few decades. The division of society and it's leaning toward extreme left or right are a clear symptom of this process. Covid definitely didn’t help in any way. The West is currently at a crossroads in which a change is inevitable. The most relevant questions are what change it will be, who will lead it, and whether it will create a better future. Looking back on Western society, many similarities exist between our current state and the late  18th century. Back then, society was in the process of changing its fundamental governing structure hand in hand with the elimination of the power the traditional Christianity and the church had for centuries. This societal change, led by the Enlightenment movement, has redefined society and its human condition. It allowed democracy to emerge after over 1,700 years of absence in the West. Establishing new philosophical ideas that lead the people to demand a new order.

The striking similarities can be seen everywhere. The redefinition of words and concepts, the increased disparity between the ruling and the working class, the development of new dogmas, and the deep understanding of a coming change are all parallels. Democracy as we know it today has been created, formed, and spread based on the thinkers and actions of that period. It shaped the new man as part of his nation, introduced the concept of subjectivism, and laid down the philosophical basis for the majority of the socialist movements that evolved since then. It was a period of revolt and change. One that arguably was much needed. Redefining Europe as a whole and the rest of the world with it. In their book “The Fourth Turning,” Neil Howe and William Strauss Spoke of a cyclicality observed in human evolution. The general explanation is that every four generations, society reaches a point in which the system no longer satisfies the needs of the young generation, bringing to war and destruction, allowing the reconstruction of a society that fits better the needs of the people fighting their fight. Many people who consider themselves knowledgeable conclude that we are in a fourth turning moment. Making the issue a problem that will pass if we let the time do its thing. Their underlying assumption is that while a change is needed, the new system rebuilt by the new generation will be a different variation of what we know with a twist after the hardship to come. Their assumption is based on a recency bias. One that assumes that if things were in a certain way until now, they would probably continue in kind of the same way.

I will argue differently. I believe the democratic establishment is at risk. The majority of the people who address this crisis as a “Fourth Turning” miss the biggest picture. Democracy is young and fragile. The system has failed many people in the last 20 years, creating a new generation that does not take for granted that democracy is an absolute good. It is not evident to me that democracy will prevail this time around. Socialism is on the rise, hailed by many young adults. The incapacity of the Bommer generation to justify democracy doesn’t help either. If history can teach us anything, I would say that all the foundation for the general collapse of democracy has been laid out in the open. It is just a question of how much more deterioration is needed and where the alternative will come from. Organizations such as the WEF that aim for a one-world technocrat government, the rise of the Chinese, and the power grab of many Western governments are all powers that push society into such alternatives. The voices supporting democracy are fading away as they find little explanation to justify their failure in the last 20 years.

History can be seen only from a specific point of view. One that follows a particular pattern. History, as a general concept, does not exist. It is everywhere and always a well-defined social process, concentrating on its advancement and consequences. If I’m right, Looking at history as the development of philosophy (engulfing in its politics. Yes, there is no politics without philosophy, but we will arrive at this point later on), It can be said that the end of history has been reached with the death of Nietzsche. This is true if one believes that no more development is possible and that the current human state is the best we can reach. I am confident that this is not the case. If this is the best humans can create, maybe the cynicism movement is right, and we have no hope. Our current state is poor at best, if not catastrophic. When writing the lines above, I’m not referring in any case to the human standard of living or its current freedom. Undeniably, we are living in the best period ever lived by humans. The technological advancements of the last 150 years, the development of free democracies, and the introduction of medicine have created a standard of living never dreamed of 200 years ago. My pessimism expressed above is unrelated to all of that, as it addresses the state of our society and the philosophy that supports it.

The great philosophers of the past have created a path that allowed us to march toward democracy. I do not doubt in my mind that democracy is the best way to govern ourselves. My point is that we are far from finishing our work. We are much closer than ever, but still far enough to call it a day. I believe that if Nietzsche was the last philosopher, the end is clear. One that will bring us back to a non-democratic governance. We will return to our old habits, erasing all the fundamental work that man has done before and for us. There is no doubt in my mind, as I wrote in my 2018 book “Back to Ourselves, that the current structure of democracy is doomed to fail. It is a natural path for any new experiment or unknown pass. It requires a long process of trial and error. One that creates some misery and harshness in its process. Nevertheless precisely, these failures will allow us to build a better structure of democracy. One that will bring prosperity, freedom, equality of opportunities, and peace to humans as a whole.

After long reflection on the subject, I came to believe the only way to save the democratic establishment is to reorganize and refine it. To make it relevant to our current existence based on this organism's development and natural evolution over time. I believe that there is a solution for this crisis that will make democracy more relevant and potentially the best governing system for humans as a whole. The fact that democracy is failing should have been predicted by many thinkers as it has been established in a different period and is by itself an experiment. Which doesn’t mean it is the wrong mechanism. It implies that a change is needed. One that takes the new developments of the last 60 years into consideration and brings back the system to be relevant for the people living in it.

As I mentioned previously, The democratic structure we knew no longer existed. Some still claim it exists mainly due to their mental need of delusion, and others due to their incapacity to accept it is lost. A change is upon us whether we like it or not. If we are to continue to live in a democratic society, we need to reshape it is unavoidable. If we, as a Western society, will not manage to do so, it is just a question of time until we lose it. It is not too late to make this change. It is going to be painful and challenging. But in my mind, any alternative is just much worse.

For more interesting conversations about complicated subjects, click here.

If you like what you read, please consider subscribing to my newsletter.

In my books, I cover important topics in dept, hoping to start constructive conversations and promote a better future. Click here to see my books.