I've read Carterite views, and I'm not convinced. It comes across as an attempt to explain away the failure of Liberal Democracy, whilst exonerating it of any fault and failing to address the fundamental limitations of Liberal Democracy.
The problem with Liberal Democracy is that it doesn't take human nature into account. It assumes that all people are atomised rational individuals who are fundamentally equal and identical in temperament and psychology. Such a view doesn't take into account mankind's tribalistic character, the fundamental class divisions within a society, or the different psycho-racial distinctions between peoples and cultures.
A good example of Liberalism's naivete is the doctrine of free speech and free press. In theory, the idea is that by allowing for a free flow of ideas and viewpoints the people as a whole are able to weigh up these different ideas, with the good ones becoming widespread and the bad ones dying out.
It's a good idea on paper, but in real life it just doesn't work. The vast majority of the masses lack the training and education to fully think through and understand the understand the nuances of political and economic theories. They are too susceptible to emotional appeals and rhetoric to be able to make an informed decision, and so they become easily manipulated fodder for demagogues and charlatans. And that doesn't even touch on the dangerous degenerate material that such a system would allow to thrive.
Contrast this with the system we have in Britain based on responsible press. Here the educated classes (such as myself hence the internet privileges) are allowed access to all media and ideas, after the more explicitly dangerous and degenerate works have been censored of course. The lower classes have their access restricted to the media which has been judged, by those best able to judge it, to be either socially beneficial or harmless, with ideas that are based on irrational premises or harmful conclusion filtered out.
At it's core Liberalism is fundamentally undemocratic. It tries to enable the nation to rule itself through the state, without recognising the need to harmonise the various sectional class interests with the needs of the state. The result is ultimately a disjointed class anarchy, where different interests mobilise the masses to give them the power to suit their agendas, often at odds with the national interest. If you're lucky these are limited to cosmopolitan bourgeois elites willing to sell out the nation for a quick profit, or union thugs looking to line their pockets at the expense of small businesses or honest workers. At worst you end up with dangerous anti-Civillisational ideologies like Communism taking over and instituting a tyrannical dictatorship.
Older Liberal Democracies were able to avoid these pitfalls by limiting political participation to the responsible classes, or through the utter subordination of the lower classes to the ruling classes, but development in technology and the social forces they unleashed have made it impossible to keep those forces in check within the framework of Liberal Democracy.
You mentioned that you were from California, an ostensibly Liberal Democracy that is doing pretty well, and I'll admit it is doing pretty well. However, I would argue that its success has a lot to do with the fact that they have adapted plenty of non-Liberal elements that strengthen the system. Whilst California has a press that is far too unrestricted, they have shown themselves to be sensible enough to draw the line when it comes to dangerous and preposterous ideologies. There is a large sub-class that is excluded from political participation, formed from migrant residents from the neighbouring states, indentured prison labourers (who are also disenfranchised), and the various refugees that migrated during the civil war and their descendants who are prohibited from acquiring citizenship. This underclass serves as a unifying other that the rest of Californian society can be rallied against in hard times (the racial aspect really helps with this), as well as provides a source of cheap exploitable labour, the benefits of which can be passed onto the citizenry as a whole. Care has been taken to prevent a political culture of class warfare developing, with both major parties having ties to the Californian Chamber of Commerce and the Californian Federation of Labor, whilst the labour movement as a whole had been kept clean of Communist influence. In addition there are also various geopolitical and economic factors, such as being able to serve as the middleman between the Japanese and Anglo spheres, and ready access to bountiful resources, which certainly doesn't hurt California's chances.
In many ways California can be said to embody a hybrid system, that combines some of the more libertarian aspects of Liberal Democracy, with aspects of the sensible corporate governance of Fascism. A Liberal Fascism if you will. Getting back to the issue at hand, the only way that I can see Liberal Democracy succeeding is if it and its adherents are able to adapt it to the changing circumstances by adopting some of these measures on principle. Liberal Democracy as an ideology is too extreme to put into practice in a modern society, except in very limited circumstances. The solution, as the Ancient Greeks were well aware of, is moderation. If the extremist elements can be kept in check then I think Liberal Democracy could have had the chance to evolve into a unifying and organic ideology, not unlike Fascism, which is able to strike a healthy balance between the class anarchy of OTL Liberalism and the Class tyranny of Communism and Feudalism.
Unfortunately, the Americans relegalized slavery just recently, parcelling out convicted criminals serving life sentences to the wealthiest taxpayers. And there are alot of convicted criminals in America.
Erm.....wha? that rumor was debunked months ago-it originally came from well-known Canadian satire magazine The Daily Garbage, anyway. I mean, sure, there are some very valid concerns about the continuation of private prisons and exploitation, but not even the most right-wing mainline politicians would ever suggest bringing back literal slavery.(Even the much-hated Ottoman Empire stopped doing this in 1946, so.....)
Shame it was only a rumour. Having a hyper-exploited underclass that is excluded from political participation can be a immensely beneficial for the healthy governance of a society, provided of course that they can be kept in their place. It gives the lower classes something to look down on and boosting pride in their citizenship, whist also providing a useful source of cheap labour for unpleasant tasks. This is the basis upon which all great civilisations have been built, although whether actual chattel slavery is as applicable in modern society is doubtful. Perhaps some sort of permanent indentured servitude would be better?
OOC : Why is a disclaimer needed ? It's already blatantly obvious that it's a DBWI given it's on a title. You don't have to connect yourself and your views with a DBWI.
OOC: Because the IC persona is a literal actual fascist who would regard the worst aspects of modern America as redeeming features, and I just want to make it clear that those aren't my actual views.