I’am pretty sure you get what I mean. I can’t speak in the name of the guy and since he didn’t developed his point or give references I can only assume what he mean’t and I can be wrong, yet the statement in itslef is not wrong.

I developed a bit more my point and gave you a reference that leads to more references if you find the subject interessting…

It’s kind of ironic from you to complain about and empty conversation and do the exact same thing right after.

Our boy Socrates was 2200 years too early, he might have learnt from ours boys Charles Fourier, Bakunin, Marx and others that democracy is never an accomplished regime, it needs to be defended at all time in a ceaseless battle against the worst parts of mankind, against our own turpitude and weakness, it’s an everlasting revolution that dies as soon as it starts to be content with itself.

Not sure to what actually he’s refering to but he’s not wrong though. The foundation of ours “western liberal democraties” wasn’t really the ideal we have today about what democracy is or even worst it wasn’t either the preffered regime of a large part of the rulling classes at that time.

In order to not have an empty conversation :

The Political Power of Words: The Birth of Pro-democratic Discourse in the Nineteenth Century in the United States and France