Archive for the ‘Democracy’ Category

Political bots are poisoning democracy so, off with their heads – Phys.Org

June 21, 2017 by Hadley Newman And Kevin O'gorman, The Conversation Bottery and aggravated assault. Credit: Mopic

Propaganda bots posing as people are increasingly being used on social media to sway public opinion around the world. So says new research from the University of Oxford's Internet Institute, which found automated accounts and other forms of social media propaganda are rife in Russia, the US and Germany among other countries.

This follows a flurry of material about bots and the UK election. One seminal work, which came from the same institute, showed that Twitter traffic had been dominated by Labour and that automated accounts favouring the party were more active than Tory equivalents.

Jeremy Corbyn's campaign was certainly boosted by fake Twitter accounts, regardless of whether his people had any involvement in setting them up. They were spewing an average of 1,000 messages a day against Theresa May or favouring Labour.

It was a similar story in last year's US presidential election, and also during the Brexit referendum with some of the bots in question graduating to pump out thousands more messages in the UK election. A study by the FT reported that during the referendum campaign, "the 20 most prolific accounts displayed indications of high levels of automation". This supported research last year, again from Oxford, that found that "on average 12.3% of traffic about UK politics is generated by highly automated accounts".

Bot seriously

That digital media would emerge as a tool for political campaigning is a no-brainer. At no point in history have candidates and parties had such a remarkable opportunity to reach out to such a wide audience so effectively.

Leaders can relay their messages in the most cost-effective manner with real evidence of interaction. Better still, social media provides a platform for two-way engagement. The average voter can boo, applaud, vent and taunt politicians and policies on their smartphones with a flick of a finger.

But politics is a game of one-upmanship and not just among parties but also over the public. For all the windows of expression that digital media has opened up for people, it now threatens to make fools of them.

Bots with large numbers of followers are the ideal conduits for disinformation, sharing fake news within the echo chambers that have grown out of the content display logic of social media algorithms. Some of this news will be crafted specifically for political gain, but even this doesn't always necessarily follow.

The US media reported, for example, that an army of Macedonian teenagers had been operating US political sites peddling made-up conservative news to make a quick buck on Facebook. With 44% of Americans getting their news from Facebook, and Donald Trump elected president, we may be paying a hefty price for such enterprises.

As one detailed report put it, media manipulators trade their stories by "using the power of networked collaboration and the reach of influencers". Even "when the misinformation is debunked, it continues to shape people's attitudes". Such overt mind manipulation can "ruin democracy", warned the report.

Speaking of ruining democracy, algorithms are also opening the door to another kind of Facebook manipulation. During the UK election, there were reports of "paid-for attack advertising" targeting specific voters in specific constituencies. The Conservatives have been particularly identified with this so-called "dark advertising". It threatens to break fundamental rules about campaign transparency and voter targeting. It also undermines the UK's longstanding ban on political parties buying TV and radio space.

Not OK, computer

From radio to TV to the internet, every new medium has disrupted the political space. Each has served as a new tool to expand the audience and sharpen the dialogue. With social media, however, we find ourselves in unique territory.

The public has to wake up to the very real reality that fake news, junk news and automated tweets are almost certainly muddling political discourse and making different factions more and more polarised. Rhetoric and sloganeering are giving way to digital subterfuge and guerilla assaults on the public psyche.

People in the UK could console themselves that they are sharing "better quality information" than many US counterparts, but equally they compare poorly next to the French and Germans. In any case, favourable comparisons are beside the point.

It is time for a proper debate about how we respond to these developments. There is a clear argument for a system reboot, including a digital media code of conduct for political parties and campaigners. Bots need to be banned under this code and the system needs to be policed in real time during campaigns the money it would cost would be well spent. The reality is that social media campaigning is rendering our democracy unfit for purpose. We need to do something about it quickly.

Explore further: Pro-Trump bot activity 'colonised' pro-Clinton Twitter campaign: study

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Researchers have revealed the scale of automated account activity, including bots, during the US Election. The pro-Trump camp used it 'up to five times as much as Clinton supporters' and employed it aggressively, crowding ...

Democracy has entered a new phase marked by hacking by foreign states and fake stories shared on social media aimed at damaging political parties. The social media companies have so far been mostly incapable, or unwilling, ...

Software robots masquerading as humans are influencing the political discourse on social media as never before and could threaten the very integrity of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, said Emilio Ferrara, a computer ...

A trending story on Twitter could mean thousands of people care about an issue-or that some computers are doing their jobs.

The advent of social media has led to a vast increase in the amount of social information that we see about others' political behaviour and this has important implications for democracy, argues Professor Helen Margetts in ...

A University of Texas at Arlington-led team is building computer tools to detect social bots within the worldwide web that create and spread fake news.

A telecom company in the Netherlands has teamed up with the country's traffic safety authority to develop a bicycle lock that also blocks its mobile network, in a move aimed at protecting young riders who regularly pedal ...

A data analytics firm that worked on the Republican campaign of Donald Trump exposed personal information belonging to some 198 million Americans, or nearly every eligible registered voter, security researchers said Monday.

Researchers at UC Santa Barbara professor Yasamin Mostofi's lab have given the first demonstration of three-dimensional imaging of objects through walls using ordinary wireless signal. The technique, which involves two drones ...

From "The Jetsons" to "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang", flying cars have long captured the imagination.

Your next doctor could very well be a bot. And bots, or automated programs, are likely to play a key role in finding cures for some of the most difficult-to-treat diseases and conditions.

The long range of airborne drones helps them perform critical tasks in the skies. Now MIT spinout Open Water Power (OWP) aims to greatly improve the range of unpiloted underwater vehicles (UUVs), helping them better perform ...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

See the rest here:
Political bots are poisoning democracy so, off with their heads - Phys.Org

What Is Democracy? Definition, Types & History

Compared to dictatorships, oligarchies, monarchies and aristocracies, in which the people have little or no say in who is elected and how the government is run, a democracy is often said to be the most challenging form of government, as input from those representing citizens determines the direction of the country. The basic definition of democracy in its purest form comes from the Greek language: The term means rule by the people. But democracy is defined in many ways a fact that has caused much disagreement among those leading various democracies as to how best to run one.

The Greeks and Romans established the precursors to todays modern democracy. The three main branches of Athenian democracy were the Assembly of the Demos, the Council of 500 and the Peoples Court. Assembly and the Council were responsible for legislation, along with ad hoc boards of lawmakers.

Democracy also has roots in the Magna Carta, England's "Great Charter" of 1215 that was the first document to challenge the authority of the king, subjecting him to the rule of the law and protecting his people from feudal abuse.

Democracy as we know it today was not truly defined until the Age of Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries, during which time the U.S. Declaration of Independence was penned, followed by the U.S. Constitution (which borrowed heavily from the Magna Carta). The term evolved to mean a government structured with a separation of powers, provided basic civil rights, religious freedom and separation of church and state.

Types of democracies

Parliamentary democracy, a democratic form of government in which the party, or coalition of parties, with the largest representation in the legislature (parliament), was originated in Britain. There are two styles of parliamentary government. The bicameral system consists of a lower house, which is elected, and an upper house can be elected or appointed.

In a parliamentary democracy, the leader of the leading party becomes the prime minister or chancellor and leads the country. Once the leading party falls out of favor, the party that takes control installs its leader as prime minister or chancellor.

In the 1790s to 1820s, Jeffersonian democracy was one of two philosophies of governing to dominate the U.S. political scene. The term typically refers to the ideology of the Democratic-Republican party, which Thomas Jefferson formed to oppose Alexander Hamiltons Federalist party, which was the first American political party. The Jeffersonian outlook believed in equality of political opportunity for all male citizens, while Federalists political platform emphasized fiscal responsibility in government.

Jacksonian democracy, lead by Andrew Jackson, was a political movement that emphasized the needs of the common man rather than the elite and educated favored by the Jeffersonian style of government.

This period from the mid 1830s to 1854, is also referred to the Second Party System. The Democratic-Republican Party of the Jeffersonians became factionalized in the 1820s. Jacksons supporters formed the modern Democratic Party. Adams and Anti-Jacksonian factions soon emerged as the Whigs. This era gave rise to partisan newspapers, political rallies and fervent party loyalty.

Democracies can be classified as liberal and social. Liberal democracies, also known as constitutional democracies, are built on the principles of free and fair elections, a competitive political process and universal suffrage. Liberal democracies can take on the form of constitution republics, such as France, India, Germany, Italy and the United States, or a constitutional monarchy such as Japan, Spain or the U.K.

Social democracy, which emerged in the late 19th century, advocates universal access to education, health care, workers compensation, and other services such as child care and care for the elderly. Unlike others on the left, such as Marxists, who sought to challenge the capitalist system more fundamentally, social democrats aimed to reform capitalism with state regulation.

The U.S. political system today is primarily a two-party system, dominated by Democrats and Republicans. The country has been a two-party system for more than a century, although independents such as Ralph Nader and Ross Perot have sought to challenge the two-party system in recent years.

There are three branches of government: the executive branch (president); legislative branch (Congress); and judicial branch (Supreme Court). These branches provide checks and balances to, in theory, prevent abuses of power. Control of Congress can be in the hands of one party or split, depending on which party is in the majority in the Senate and, separately, the House of Representatives.

Originally posted here:
What Is Democracy? Definition, Types & History

democracy | History, Development, Systems, Theory …

Democracy, literally, rule by the people. The term is derived from the Greek dmokrati, which was coined from dmos (people) and kratos (rule) in the middle of the 5th century bce to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens.

The etymological origins of the term democracy hint at a number of urgent problems that go far beyond semantic issues. If a government of or by the peoplea popular governmentis to be established, at least five fundamental questions must be confronted at the outset, and two more are almost certain to be posed if the democracy continues to exist for long.

(1) What is the appropriate unit or association within which a democratic government should be established? A town or city? A country? A business corporation? A university? An international organization? All of these?

(2) Given an appropriate associationa city, for examplewho among its members should enjoy full citizenship? Which persons, in other words, should constitute the dmos? Is every member of the association entitled to participate in governing it? Assuming that children should not be allowed to participate (as most adults would agree), should the dmos include all adults? If it includes only a subset of the adult population, how small can the subset be before the association ceases to be a democracy and becomes something else, such as an aristocracy (government by the best, aristos) or an oligarchy (government by the few, oligos)?

(3) Assuming a proper association and a proper dmos, how are citizens to govern? What political organizations or institutions will they need? Will these institutions differ between different kinds of associationsfor example, a small town and a large country?

(4) When citizens are divided on an issue, as they often will be, whose views should prevail, and in what circumstances? Should a majority always prevail, or should minorities sometimes be empowered to block or overcome majority rule?

(5) If a majority is ordinarily to prevail, what is to constitute a proper majority? A majority of all citizens? A majority of voters? Should a proper majority comprise not individual citizens but certain groups or associations of citizens, such as hereditary groups or territorial associations?

(6) The preceding questions presuppose an adequate answer to a sixth and even more important question: Why should the people rule? Is democracy really better than aristocracy or monarchy? Perhaps, as Plato argues in the Republic, the best government would be led by a minority of the most highly qualified personsan aristocracy of philosopher-kings. What reasons could be given to show that Platos view is wrong?

(7) No association could maintain a democratic government for very long if a majority of the dmosor a majority of the governmentbelieved that some other form of government were better. Thus, a minimum condition for the continued existence of a democracy is that a substantial proportion of both the dmos and the leadership believes that popular government is better than any feasible alternative. What conditions, in addition to this one, favour the continued existence of democracy? What conditions are harmful to it? Why have some democracies managed to endure, even through periods of severe crisis, while so many others have collapsed?

Since the time of the ancient Greeks, both the theory and the practice of democracy have undergone profound changes, many of which have concerned the prevailing answers to questions 1 through 3 above. Thus, for thousands of years the kind of association in which democracy was practiced, the tribe or the city-state, was small enough to be suitable for some form of democracy by assembly, or direct democracy. Much later, beginning in the 18th century, as the typical association became the nation-state or country, direct democracy gave way to representative democracya transformation so sweeping that, from the perspective of a citizen of ancient Athens, the governments of gigantic associations such as France or the United States might not have appeared democratic at all. This change in turn entailed a new answer to question 3: Representative democracy would require a set of political institutions radically different from those of all earlier democracies.

Another important change has concerned the prevailing answers to question 2. Until fairly recently, most democratic associations limited the right to participate in government to a minority of the adult populationindeed, sometimes to a very small minority. Beginning in the 20th century, this right was extended to nearly all adults. Accordingly, a contemporary democrat could reasonably argue that Athens, because it excluded so many adults from the dmos, was not really a democracyeven though the term democracy was invented and first applied in Athens.

Test Your Knowledge

Journey Around the World

Despite these and other important changes, it is possible to identify a considerable number of early political systems that involved some form of rule by the people, even if they were not fully democratic by contemporary standards.

Although it is tempting to assume that democracy was created in one particular place and timemost often identified as Greece about the year 500 bceevidence suggests that democratic government, in a broad sense, existed in several areas of the world well before the turn of the 5th century.

It is plausible to assume that democracy in one form or another arises naturally in any well-bounded group, such as a tribe, if the group is sufficiently independent of control by outsiders to permit members to run their own affairs and if a substantial number of members, such as tribal elders, consider themselves about equally qualified to participate in decisions about matters of concern to the group as a whole. This assumption has been supported by studies of nonliterate tribal societies, which suggest that democratic government existed among many tribal groups during the thousands of years when human beings survived by hunting and gathering. To these early humans, democracy, such as it was practiced, might well have seemed the most natural political system.

When the lengthy period of hunting and gathering came to an end and humans began to settle in fixed communities, primarily for agriculture and trade, the conditions that favour popular participation in government seem to have become rare. Greater inequalities in wealth and military power between communities, together with a marked increase in the typical communitys size and scale, encouraged the spread of hierarchical and authoritarian forms of social organization. As a result, popular governments among settled peoples vanished, to be replaced for thousands of years by governments based on monarchy, despotism, aristocracy, or oligarchy, each of which came to be seenat least among the dominant members of these societiesas the most natural form of government.

Britannica Lists & Quizzes

History Quiz

Literature & Language List

History Quiz

Arts & Culture List

Then, about 500 bce, conditions favourable to democracy reappeared in several places, and a few small groups began to create popular governments. Primitive democracy, one might say, was reinvented in more advanced forms. The most crucial developments occurred in two areas of the Mediterranean, Greece and Rome.

During the Classical period (corresponding roughly to the 5th and 4th centuries bce), Greece was of course not a country in the modern sense but a collection of several hundred independent city-states, each with its surrounding countryside. In 507 bce, under the leadership of Cleisthenes, the citizens of Athens began to develop a system of popular rule that would last nearly two centuries. To question 1, then, the Greeks responded clearly: The political association most appropriate to democratic government is the polis, or city-state.

Athenian democracy foreshadowed some later democratic practices, even among peoples who knew little or nothing of the Athenian system. Thus the Athenian answer to question 2Who should constitute the dmos?was similar to the answer developed in many newly democratic countries in the 19th and 20th centuries. Although citizenship in Athens was hereditary, extending to anyone who was born to parents who were themselves Athenian citizens, membership in the dmos was limited to male citizens 18 years of age or older (until 403, when the minimum age was raised to 20).

Because data is scanty, estimates of the size of the Athenian dmos must be treated with caution. One scholar has suggested that in the mid-4th century there may have been about 100,000 citizens, 10,000 resident foreigners, or metics, and as many as 150,000 slaves. Among citizens, about 30,000 were males over 18. If these numbers are roughly correct, then the dmos comprised 10 to 15 percent of the total population.

Regarding question 3What political institutions are necessary for governing?the Athenians adopted an answer that would appear independently elsewhere. The heart and centre of their government was the Assembly (Ecclesia), which met almost weekly40 times a yearon the Pnyx, a hill west of the Acropolis. Decisions were taken by vote, and, as in many later assemblies, voting was by a show of hands. As would also be true in many later democratic systems, the votes of a majority of those present and voting prevailed. Although we have no way of knowing how closely the majority in the Assembly represented the much larger number of eligible citizens who did not attend, given the frequency of meetings and the accessibility of the meeting place, it is unlikely that the Assembly could have long persisted in making markedly unpopular decisions.

The powers of the Assembly were broad, but they were by no means unlimited. The agenda of the Assembly was set by the Council of Five Hundred, which, unlike the Assembly, was composed of representatives chosen by lot from each of 139 small territorial entities, known as demes, created by Cleisthenes in 507. The number of representatives from each deme was roughly proportional to its population. The Councils use of representatives (though chosen by lot rather than by election) foreshadowed the election of representatives in later democratic systems.

Another important political institution in Athens was the popular courts (dikasteria; see dicastery), described by one scholar as the most important organ of state, alongside the Assembly, with unlimited power to control the Assembly, the Council, the magistrates, and political leaders. The popular courts were composed of jurors chosen by lot from a pool of citizens over 30 years of age; the pool itself was chosen annually and also by lot. The institution is a further illustration of the extent to which the ordinary citizens of Athens were expected to participate in the political life of the city.

In 411 bce, exploiting the unrest created by Athenss disastrous and seemingly endless war with Sparta (see Peloponnesian War), a group known as the Four Hundred seized control of Athens and established an oligarchy. Less than a year later, the Four Hundred were overthrown and democracy was fully restored. Nine decades later, in 321, Athens was subjugated by its more powerful neighbour to the north, Macedonia, which introduced property qualifications that effectively excluded many ordinary Athenians from the dmos. In 146 bce what remained of Athenian democracy was extinguished by the conquering Romans.

Original post:
democracy | History, Development, Systems, Theory ...

The gradual elimination of on-camera press briefings threatens our democracy – Washington Post (blog)

Today, the Trump administrationbelatedly added an on-camera press briefing by press secretary Sean Spicer to the White House schedule, just one day after Spicer kicked off a firestorm by barringreporters from recording video or even audio of his gaggle with them. Following yesterdays off-camera gaggle, White House reporters began using Twitter and their platforms to criticize the administrations apparent new policy as a restriction on a free press.

Today, an exchange took place that illustrated exactly why this is so worrisome. Asked on camera whether the president believes that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, Spicer claimed, implausibly: I have not sat down and talked with him about that specifically. This absurd dodge might seem like a reason on-camera press briefings are pointless exercises in unanswered questions and that we might not be worse off without them. But Spicers answer today shows precisely why its crucial that these briefings endure we need to have a record of such evasions, and the public needs to be able to see, on video, how Spicers interactions with the press play out.

The White Houses gradual elimination of the on-camera briefings is unprecedented and alarming.Under less incendiary presidents, thesebriefings were often dull affairs for people with lives outside the Beltway bubble. But they were largely seen as an unbreakable component of the presss ability to hold White House officials accountable, even when press secretaries, of both parties, ducked tough questions and offered pabulum talking points. There was a record of the questions asked and the refusal to answer them. A mere transcript of off-camera gaggles (which the White House has provided over the last week) is insufficient. Video provides the nuance and body language that a transcript cannot.

More broadly, these briefings are more essential than ever because of President Trumps hostility to the press and basic transparency. Eliminating them would amount to theculmination of a strategy that liesat the heart of Trumpism: First, neutralize the news media, or, astop Trump strategist Stephen K. Bannon has called it,the opposition party. Trump aimsto underminehis supporters trust in a free press and reliance on it for information. In this context, characterizing the media as fake news then takes on a dual purpose: It helps accomplish that undermining of the mediaand becomes a justification for doing things (such as canceling briefings) that prevent the press from doing its job.

Trump had previouslyhintedthat he might eliminate the briefings. But in recent days, matters have escalated considerably. Before today, the last on-camera press briefing Spicer conducted wasmore than a week ago. In the interim, the White House offered only press gaggles, off camera, with deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and, on background, with a senior administration official on board Air Force One. This refusal to hold on-camera briefings notably occurredduring the period after lawmakersgrilled Attorney General Jeff Sessions about the widening Russia investigation and Trump admittedon Twitter that he was indeed under investigation by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III.

This period was also packed with other high-stakes news, including new developments in the Russia investigation, the shooting of GOP lawmakers at a baseball practice, another court ruling upholding a freeze on Trumps Muslim ban, Senate Republicans ongoing secrecy over their health-care bill, and increasing tensions between the United States and Russia over Syria. During that time, the White House conducted no on-camera briefings for the press or for the American people.

And so, when Spicer told reporters yesterday that they could not record the briefing, tensions boiled over. Dramatically live-tweeting from inside the White House, CNNs Jim Acosta lambastedthe administrations stonewalling and suppression of information. Later, on television, Acosta said, I think the White House for the United States of America should have these questions answered on camera, so we can see what theyre saying. And when they dont do this, theyre just doing a disservice to the people of this country.

Acosta is right. These press briefings are far more than daily entertainment or fodder for late-night satire. They are, in the modern political era, critical to thetransparency and accountability that are the hallmarks of a functioning democracy. They provide a vivid, daily accounting to the public ofthe presidents actions, and, more critically, his and the White Houses competence and credibility.They might look like a game in which questions are asked and evaded, reporters are mocked or dismissed, and everyone chuckles uncomfortably. But that dance is more than just spectacle. It is the ongoing creation of a record on video, for posterity of thequestions that need to be asked, and of whether the administration is willing to answer them.

Slowly but surely we are being dragged into a new normal in this country, Acosta said on CNN yesterday, where the president of the United States is allowed to insulate himself from answering hard questions.

As if all this werent enough, the White House offered one more display of contempt for the free press. When asked by the Atlantics Rosie Gray to comment yesterday on the reasons for the reduction in Spicers on-camera briefings, Bannonreplied by text message,Sean got fatter.

Thats possibly a joke, or perhaps a mean, sophomoric put-down. But either way, Bannons real message shouldnt get lost. His dismissiveness says it all: Questions about whether the briefings will continue dont need to be engaged seriously; theyre only important for appearances; and if they cant make the Trump camp look good, theyre not worth doing. For the White House, eliminating them entirely would be its greatest victory yet over fake news.

See the original post here:
The gradual elimination of on-camera press briefings threatens our democracy - Washington Post (blog)

In ‘The Retreat of Western Liberalism,’ How Democracy Is Defeating Itself – New York Times

The strongest glue holding liberal democracies together, Luce argues, is economic growth, and when that growth stalls or falls, things tend to take a dark turn. With growing competition for jobs and resources, losers (those he calls the left-behinds) seek scapegoats for their woes, and consensus becomes harder to reach as politics devolves into more and more of a zero-sum game.

Many of the tools of modern life are increasingly priced beyond most peoples reach, Luce writes. One study shows it now takes the median worker more than twice as many hours a month to pay rent in one of Americas big cities as it did in 1950; and the costs of health care and a college degree have increased even more. There is rising income inequality in the West; America, which had traditionally shown the highest class mobility of any Western country, now has the lowest.

As nostalgia for a dimly recalled past replaces hope, the American dream of self-betterment and a brighter future for ones children recedes. Among the symptoms of this dynamic: a growing opioid epidemic and decline in life expectancy, increasing intolerance for other peoples points of view, and brewing contempt for an out-of-touch governing elite (represented in 2016 by Hillary Clinton, of whom Luce writes: her tone-deafness towards the middle class was almost serene).

Trumps economic agenda (as opposed to his campaign rhetoric), Luce predicts, will deepen the economic conditions that gave rise to his candidacy, while the scorn he pours on democratic traditions at home endangers the promotion of liberal democracy abroad. Americas efforts to export its ideals had already suffered two serious setbacks in the 21st century: George W. Bushs decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and the calamities that followed; and the financial crisis of 2008, which, Luce writes, was not a global recession but an Atlantic one that raised serious concerns about the Western financial model. (In 2009, Chinas economy grew by almost 10 percent, and Indias by almost 8 percent.)

What fund of good will the United States retained, Luce suggests, Trump has been rapidly squandering, with his dismissive treatment of NATO and longtime allies, and his overtures toward autocratic leaders like Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines and Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey. Within days of his inauguration, Luce writes, Trump had killed the remaining spirit of enlightened self-interest that defined much of post-World War II America. Given this situation, Luce adds, the stability of the planet and the presumption of restraint will have to rest in the hands of Xi Jinping and other powerful leaders, though he predicts that chaos, not China, is likelier to take Americas place.

Luces conclusions are pessimistic but not entirely devoid of hope. The Wests crisis is real, structural and likely to persist, he writes. Nothing is inevitable. Some of what ails the West is within our power to fix. Doing so means rejecting complacency about democracy and our systems resilience, and understanding exactly how we got here.

Luces book is one good place to start.

Follow Michiko Kakutani on Twitter: @michikokakutani

The Retreat of Western Liberalism By Edward Luce 234 pages. Atlantic Monthly Press. $24.

A version of this review appears in print on June 20, 2017, on Page C4 of the New York edition with the headline: Inside Job: The Harm the West Is Inflicting on Itself.

Here is the original post:
In 'The Retreat of Western Liberalism,' How Democracy Is Defeating Itself - New York Times