Zakaria makes a meaningful distinction between democracy and liberality. Democracy is a process of selecting government, and liberality deals with the actions and legislation passed by that government. A democratically elected government can pass illiberal legislation. Keeping in mind this distinction, I believe that liberal democracy is seriously imperiled. Three factors challenge the permanence of liberal democracy: populist tendencies, complacency, and increasing wealth inequality.

Populist tendencies are inherent in every nation. The nature and purpose of a democracy is to reflect the will of the majority. Often this happens at the expense of a minority. There are ample historical examples of populist and nationalist demagogues who transfer popular support into decidedly illiberal atrocities against minorities (Hitler, Miloseviç, etc). Although ethnic cleansing is unlikely in developed democracies, milder versions of scapegoating are already evident (In the U.S., actions against immigrants and Muslims). These causes have been adopted by populists in the U.S. and Europe.

The Foa and Mounk article reiterates a point made in the Applebaum article: Americans are becoming increasingly complacent about governance. Voter turnout is low, especially among young Americans. As Applebaum argued, Americans take democracy for granted, and because they aren’t constantly working to maintain the experiment of democracy, they often undermine its liberal tendencies.

The third factor is inequality, which exacerbates the other two factors. Wealth concentrates in the hands of a few, who in turn use their wealth to influence governance. The majority of the country is left feeling unfairly treated, and this increases the opportunity for dangerous and illiberal populism. Thus, the liberality of contemporary democracy is being eroded on three interrelated fronts.