To restate the obvious: there’s no necessary connection between democracy, and liberalism/civil rights (Aung San Suu Kyi), nor any necessary connection between raging against an incumbent autocrat and being committed to democracy oneself (Navalny). There is some connection ...

... between democracy and “the rule of law,” but it’s a lot thinner than what many assume. Finally, there’s really no connection in most countries between being legal and being moral in a liberal sense. Why Western commentators insist on lumping all these things together after...

... it’s been proven false over and over again is a curious intellectual phenomenon, either speaking to the durability of some subconscious post-Cold War ideological triumphalism, or the continued influence of some sort of “orientalist” mind set that has a Schmittian appeal...

... or just flagrant manipulation of discourse for political self-interest, but that’s a bit too cynical even for me. Let’s all be realists when empirically interpreting other political cultures. Goals can be wildly idealistic, but the rationality of means is always a good thing.