Hmmm I think I was thinking along the lines that if you accept that leftists is this small group in the US getting crushed left and right. Yet they've been successful in getting good social policies through in the US, then surely we must agree that that is accomplished because the greater masses, aka the "liberals" accepted it as well? It just sounded weird to me that you've given the credits of rights to leftists fighting for it, which is probably a small group relatively speaking, and nothing about all the others who must have been in greater numbers who helped as well. By the way, I'm using the leftists and liberals labels rather loosely as I personally dislike labeling things. I hope I am explaining myself properly!
Ultimately though, I agree that democracy doesn't have to be inherently slow. But as you can see even in just this forums and this very thread, people have different opinions. This is supposed to be a more like-minded forums of people who share the same hobbies. It is bloody difficult to get many people on the same page in a democracy system. I am quite into the urbanism space myself so I'll just use building good public infrastructure as an example… look at the California HSR and how many stakeholders they had to get through to just build that line. I wish it wasn't but land owners, environmental studies and all sorts of stakeholders had to compromise for that project to begin. I also remember in the Civil War movie thread here where a person said after watching the movie, they wish there can be a civil war to take out the evil side (conservatives) and that poster was rightfully mocked. A good amount of our democracy happens out in the public and as such, it's messy as hell. I wish everybody can be on board the same train such as better public transport, human-centric and scale urban designs, but it is unfortunately not the case in a democracy. That can make it move slower and feel sluggish, but I guess I lack the imagination of what's the better alternative system.
