Different research study, but literally just today, the Pew R

News Report and a few graphs

http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/10/16/globally-broad-support-for-representative-and-direct-democracy/

Full Report
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/10/13164509/Pew-Research-Center_Democracy-Report_2017.10.16.pdf

-----

As you can see in the report, all nations have some people that are completely unsatisfied and also another group of people who are partially satisfied with various form of democracy (the report has different questions like direct democracy vs representative democracy).

What I am saying is there is always going to be a group of people who are not satisfied and thus I think it is SCAPEGOATING to blame this on a specific demographic such as age like Millennials, but also the same for specific other group like country, race, religion, gender, and so on.

-----

On a side note that is unconnected to Greg's article and it is just something I been thinking in the back of my mind. I am not a cultural or social anthropologist and my reading and thus my knowledge of this is limited.

But in the past some people have broken down different cultures and nations at different periods of time into groups like

1) Nations based around an Honor Code and people have to continue maintain Honor / Honour / Face in the eyes of others

2) Nations based around the idea of Rule of Law / Inherent Dignity of Individuals

And some people will now add a 3rd category of a culture of Victimhood, based around Microsaggressions / Transgressions though I am skeptical of much I have read around this 3rd group for these people can't seem to define their categories and it is very vague and nefarious.

So my question is what happens to the idea of Democracy and such when people are unsatisfied with the status quo and they feel the need to change? For example electing a person who says they want to return the country based around the value of Honor (group 1) instead of the current status quo of Rule of Law / Inherent Dignity of Individuals which you do not need to prove (group 2)? And so on?

What happens in the microterms, micro being the space of weeks, months, years, and time less than a decade? I want to seperate times greater than 10 years and see that timeframe as macro and you have to use a different style of language which is generational, where people and the culture is being reborn and you should not see your own humanity and individuality as it was 10 years prior, you are a different individual than your older self and the same thing is true for culture in 10+ year timescales.

-----

Now all of the questions I was asking and such is not really about culture of honor vs culture of law / dignity it is instead really about why these cultures often come about. People in the anthropology have theories that ideas about renewal, like can you recover and can you advance in the society do to mistakes, due to people who prey onto other people, can you gain wealth and social prestige, etc influences what type of value systems that the collective population treasure and what happens when the fundamentals underneath it all change and thus people put more emphasis on specific values instead of other values for humans use a multiple value system (for example life, liberty, and property, but there are far more than those 3 but even those 3 can't be defined by a single word / thought for you have to go multiple value system for life is complicated.)