a:10:{i:0;a:7:{s:2:"id";s:2:"10";s:4:"slug";s:23:"contact-the-island-news";s:4:"name";s:23:"Contact The Island News";s:4:"type";s:8:"fieldset";s:7:"options";s:0:"";s:9:"parent_id";s:1:"0";s:5:"value";s:0:"";}i:1;a:7:{s:2:"id";s:2:"14";s:4:"slug";s:4:"name";s:4:"name";s:4:"Name";s:4:"type";s:4:"text";s:7:"options";s:0:"";s:9:"parent_id";s:1:"0";s:5:"value";s:14:"H. Kirk Rainer";}i:2;a:7:{s:2:"id";s:2:"15";s:4:"slug";s:13:"business-name";s:4:"name";s:13:"Business Name";s:4:"type";s:4:"text";s:7:"options";s:0:"";s:9:"parent_id";s:1:"0";s:5:"value";s:0:"";}i:3;a:7:{s:2:"id";s:2:"16";s:4:"slug";s:7:"address";s:4:"name";s:7:"Address";s:4:"type";s:7:"address";s:7:"options";s:0:"";s:9:"parent_id";s:1:"0";s:5:"value";s:24:"United States of America";}i:4;a:7:{s:2:"id";s:2:"17";s:4:"slug";s:5:"phone";s:4:"name";s:5:"Phone";s:4:"type";s:5:"phone";s:7:"options";s:0:"";s:9:"parent_id";s:1:"0";s:5:"value";s:10:"9043003128";}i:5;a:7:{s:2:"id";s:2:"18";s:4:"slug";s:5:"email";s:4:"name";s:5:"Email";s:4:"type";s:5:"email";s:7:"options";s:0:"";s:9:"parent_id";s:1:"0";s:5:"value";s:21:"hkirkrainer@gmail.com";}i:6;a:7:{s:2:"id";s:2:"19";s:4:"slug";s:15:"how-can-we-help";s:4:"name";s:16:"How can we help?";s:4:"type";s:8:"textarea";s:7:"options";s:0:"";s:9:"parent_id";s:1:"0";s:5:"value";s:5807:"Age to Age, As Democracy declines and what emerges as conspiracy?

Yes, I accept that the last word of the title, “conspiracy”, is commonly attached to “theory”, often this combination as a pejorative implying some crazy alternative or addon to that recorded or reported.  But is it possible or even probable that persons of power collaborate secretly, or collude to gain advantage or combine forces as a greater chance if not certainty of achieving common or shared interests?  And is it similarly possible that such…will go to great length to keep it under wraps, discounting and dismissing those “crazy ideas” whatever the credence, the credibility of the cause, the claims?  

Short of answering my questions above, I move on to the rest of the title, democracy in decline, beginning with Gary Allen, author of one of the best-selling books of the early ‘70s, None Dare Call It Conspiracy.  &quot;If you have total government, it makes little difference [what kind of _-ism you call it]. It&#039;s all much the same from the standpoint of the people who must live and suffer under it.&quot;

But another question: What is “total government”; what makes a government “total”?  

As an attempt to answer this question, consider any of the -ism forms of government that, taken as a whole, are bent toward totalitarianism, centralized and dictatorial, where there is the complete subservience to the state whether by soft or hard force(s), such as:  
Socialism promotes communal control but finally is centralized power, exhaustive planning and programs, the costs as a burden to the public.  

Fascism promotes national and sometimes race above the individual, sometimes merging state and corporate power (corporatism, corpocracy), replete with propaganda. 

Marxism as a varied theory with leanings toward a production, economy, and social classes, all property essentially public, is finally a prelude for communism.     

Crony Capitalism as more strictly an economic system though, by this design, provides advantage among business and government, lending ultimately to extremes in wealth

And, as it seems in the simplest of descriptions, any one of the -isms hold not just a historical precedent, but the potential if not practice toward “total” government, totalitarianism, even and especially among democracies.  

From another publication in 2018, How Democracies Die: What History Reveals About Our Future, coauthors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt: 
&quot;Democracies may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders—presidents or prime ministers who subvert the very process that brought them to power. Some of these leaders dismantle democracy quickly, as Hitler did in the wake of the 1933 Reichstag fire in Germany. More often, though, democracies erode slowly, in barely visible steps.&quot;

And among those “barely visible steps” are: 

…economic crises, natural disasters, and especially security threats—wars, armed insurgencies, or terrorist attacks—to justify antidemocratic measures.

Can it be true that war is the health of the state?  But even so, there is plenty to digest here as to where we are a nation, perhaps still a democracy if just in or by name.  

In July 2013, Jimmy Carter gave comments to the subject that, though receiving little coverage (I can’t imagine why), that America is no longer a functioning democracy—in agreement with a study conducted at Princeton University published in 2012.  And in a unrelated statement, perhaps from one of several books, “When people are intimidated about having their own opinions, oppression is at hand.”

Could or can it be true; that democracy is in decline or, as Jimmy Carter suggest, is no longer functioning.   Can a democracy survive: endless wars; excessive government spending and budget deficits; prolific executive orders  or edicts as expedience rather than the rule of law; wealth inequality as not seen the 1920s; social division and fragmentation spurred on by the assaults on the conventional family, marriage and community; failing justice as typified by criminal immunity for persons of power and the erosion of due process per the rampant use of the plea bargain?   Is any one or all -isms still an -ism by any other name?  

Author of Democracy Incorporated (2008), Sheldon Woolen believed our government as an inverted totalitarianism or antidemocracy.  
Antidemocracy, executive predominance, and elite rule are basic elements of inverted totalitarianism. Antidemocracy does not take the form of overt attacks upon the idea of government by the people. Instead, politically it means encouraging what I have earlier dubbed “civic demobilization,” conditioning an electorate to being aroused for a brief spell, controlling its attention span, and then encouraging distraction or apathy. 

Sheldon continues,

Citizens are encouraged to distrust their government and politicians; to concentrate upon their own interests; to begrudge their taxes; and to exchange active involvement for symbolic gratifications of patriotism, collective self-righteousness, and military prowess. Above all, depoliticization is promoted through society’s being enveloped in an atmosphere of collective fear and of individual powerlessness: fear of terrorists, loss of jobs, the uncertainties of pension plans, soaring health costs, and rising educational expenses.

And at the root or base of any -ism—as I see it—is the tendency if not certainty that powers, left unchecked, are apt to corruption that includes the continuing seizure of yet more power whether by hard or soft force, but still, quashing all efforts endemic of a relatively free society, democratic or anti-, upright or inverted, one -ism or another.";}i:7;a:7:{s:2:"id";s:2:"11";s:4:"slug";s:12:"verification";s:4:"name";s:12:"Verification";s:4:"type";s:12:"verification";s:7:"options";s:0:"";s:9:"parent_id";s:1:"0";s:5:"value";s:0:"";}i:8;a:7:{s:2:"id";s:2:"12";s:4:"slug";s:27:"please-enter-any-two-digits";s:4:"name";s:27:"Please enter any two digits";s:4:"type";s:6:"secret";s:7:"options";s:0:"";s:9:"parent_id";s:2:"11";s:5:"value";s:2:"12";}i:9;a:7:{s:2:"id";s:2:"13";s:4:"slug";s:6:"submit";s:4:"name";s:6:"Submit";s:4:"type";s:6:"submit";s:7:"options";s:0:"";s:9:"parent_id";s:2:"11";s:5:"value";s:0:"";}}