Fareed Zakaria and other scholars have made the point to distinguish the different gradations of freedom. Zakaria makes the distinction between a liberal and an illiberal democracy, making the point that democracy is about the process for choosing leaders, while liberalism refers to a state in which individual rights are “paramount”. The issue with democracy and politics, as we have discussed, is dealing with difference. When societies are fragmented in terms of their beliefs and backgrounds, how does a state uphold the norms of liberal democracy? Throughout history, the logical form of dealing with difference has been to have the most representation for the majority. Though the United States was weary of this manifestation of democracy from the outset (ie. the creation of the immutable Bill of Rights), it seems that nowadays the trend towards populism has created “too direct a connection between popular passions and public policy”, as Zakaria states. This trend can be seen all around the world, especially when looking at the rise of populists in the United States (Donald Trump) and in European countries like France and Germany. I think that we are going to notice this trend for years to come and see many governments be led by populist, authoritarian leaders such as Trump and Putin. Zakaria’s assertion that these leaders keep a balance between liberalism and illiberalism that keeps people satisfied is a concerning prospect. However, I’m not yet convinced that this sort of balancing game is sustainable. In part this comes from a gut feeling and an innate belief in liberal democracy, however in another way this doubt stems from 20th century history. Most of the rule under military juntas and authoritarian regimes was undone in one way or another. Some people, as in the case of Germany, actually preferred to be ruled by such powers for cultural and economic reasons (ie. an ethos of collective freedom and the devastating effects of inflation and the stock market crash). However, these beliefs were ultimately checked by the forces of liberal democracy. In this case, it was World War II, but in other cases it comes back to an understanding of basic human rights. The “No” vote in Chile was our version of “Yes We Can”, as writer Ariel Dorfman put it.  Perhaps this is too much of an optimistic view, but I do not believe that populism is the end of history as we know it. I think we are going to see periodic shifts from bondage to freedom (and all that comes in between). Hopefully, the consideration of liberal values will come sooner rather than later.