clearly neither is all so satisfactory
Modern liberal democracy.
The people don’t really have very much power. Most significant policy decisions are made at high levels where big money influencers (rich people and mega-corporations) have Big Influence.
The people get to vote every so often. The parties of the left-wing are more inclined toward social spending and redistribution. The parties of the right-wing talk about fiscal and personal responsibility.
This paradigm of politics dates back about 150 years ago now. It has predominated re: national electoral democracy in what we consider to be the advanced democracies since the time of Bismarck in Germany, Jean Jaurès in France, the Victorian era in Britain, and the post-Reconstruction period in the United States.
150 years. So you’d think that by now a consensus might have emerged: Liberalism proven to be superior or conservatism proven to be superior.
Not.
Clearly neither is all so satisfactory. So we see the electorates oscillate back-and-forth, back-and-forth, liberals in, conservatives out, back-and-forth, conservatives in, liberals out, back-and-forth, liberals in, conservatives out, back-and-forth, conservatives in, liberals out. Clearly neither is all so satisfactory.
Along the way there are some reforms (because the dominating power elites desire social stability), but other than some reforms not an awful lot really changes very much.
