Must democracy "deliver the goods" to beat autocracy?
There is an idea floating around that democracy must somehow produce "better results" than fascism or autocracy to beat it or withstand it. The notion is interestingly widespread in circles concerned with defending democracy from its enemies. The notion is somewhat loose, and that's ok, the premise behind it being that people must have the feeling of being better off in a democracy than in autocracy, or at least the feeling of being well-off enough to not cast their votes for far-right candidates or start an insurrection.
What is "better"?
What exactly should be "better" depends on the issues at hand. In the COVID era, this meant having more drastic lockdowns than autocratic China. Then it meant having better vaccines and less drastic lockdowns than China. It means getting more bang for your buck out of the tax system. It's the idea behind Bidens "Build Back Better" effort, that roads and bridges are better under democracy. It means that somehow, the tangible output of the system "democracy" is better than the output of the system "autocracy" (the input being our votes and / or tax money). Sadly, that approach is doomed to fail in my opinion.
No one cares about better
The idea that democracy needs to be better than fascism is an idea that is useful for fascists and other autocrats. Sure, in China, you can build a hospital in a few days (remember the news at the beginning of the pandemic?). People previously living on the land can be relocated at a low cost, and environmental and social costs can be radically kicked out of the equation when the great leader decides something. You just can't compete in the short run, but actually not for the reason that democracies can't achieve successes in the short run. It's because whatever the outcome, an autocracy will proclaim success. The outside world can't tell the difference anyway. I am willing to bet that Chinese hospital story wasn't true to begin with. It may or may not be, but the point is we'll never know for sure, since there is no free press there. So should we adopt that view if it only helps the cause of the autocrats? I'm not so sure.
Democracy has already an incredible advantage because it is the only system that can change its fundamental stance on an issue based on the will of the people. Find out the lockdowns don't work or that people are fed up with them? Vote for someone against them or express the intention to do so in a poll, it'll do wonders, at least it did in Europe.
Think about how long the Chinese government held on to basically useless lockdowns because having the most disciplined lockdowns was synonymous with Chinese supremacy. Democratic decision-making processes allow you that flexibility. But that is not the main argument against the output view. Democratic systems are and should be viewed as the motherducking champions of output because paradoxically, they don't care about output but process. So why are we not "winning bigly"?
The main argument against the output view is that, within reasonable bounds, people actually don't care about the output view. We're creatures geared towards survival, and in my opinion, we're like pro athletes when they find out their discipline was banned from the olympics.
We invented intricate bureaucratic mazes, office work which basically emulates the army with its uniforms and hierarchies, video games and a bunch of other utter BS to mimic the primal struggle for life. Our immune systems basically hallucinate threats and run amok because we're in bad shape from sitting on our asses and shoving food down our snack hatches all day but not sick enough to be in danger and auto-immune conditions skyrocket.
That's the appeal of fascism. Even minor prosperity minus the novelty feels like a golden cage, and before they actually experience the horror of it, people crave the fight for their life and the pain that comes with it because they are actually kind of built for it. We can survive starvation for weeks, our creativity in the face of adversity is awe-inspiring and the tenacity of a truly hungry person is a thing to watch. Let's face it, we're the product of gruesome evolution processes and we as a species are pretty hardcore. A survival machine craves survival. A political movement that calls everything a fight for survival and wants to carry out that fight to the death is bound to have some appeal.
Fight in the gutter
If an atavistic reflex emerges, the right move for friends of democracy should be to control the narrative by waking a similar one. People are torn between their need for order and accumulation of wealth and what part of their nature craves for. If fascists want a fight and are raising the masses, then I say let's fucking go. Feed the survival machines what they want.
The playbook of a democratic leadership should be to crack down on fascists and other autocrats as hard as possible. Brand them the enemy of the people, in the name of societal order, zero tolerance. Don't waste your time on creating stupid values that you can rally people around. The defense of societal order suffices as rallying cry, conservatives should love it and leftists even more. Fight fire with fire and focus on radical scapegoating of the radical right. Whatever the issue is, play it dirty. Use the survival instincts to your advantage, and stage massive political fights. No more being Mr. Nice Guy / Gal. Fabricate and / or blow out of proportion any issue that comes your way to blame the fascists for the chaos element in anything, from the weather to the economy. People seem to like fabricated stories anyway. Stage yourself as the knights with flaming swords that stand before the hordes of chaos. No more coddling and peaceful rhethoric. Democracy must not deliver the goods, it already does. It must sadly do so with a dominant and aggressive attitude. We need the guys and gals from all over the world who went to Spain to fight Franco in the 1930s even though they had every reason not to. We need a no-compromise stance.