It seems to me that the "greatest" accomplishment of the expansion of "democracy" has been to lay the framework for the Fascist creed, "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato." ("Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State"). The politicization of private life in "democratic" states has reached a point that is more or less as extreme as the politicization that people experience under a totalitarian regime. It's a matter of degree and brutality, not the way that people relate to their government and the amount of control that the government has over what people do.
The real question is where do these two types of governments draw the line on what they can control, and the answer to that is essentially "nowhere." As long as the vast majority of private life is politicized to some degree or another, the potential for totalitarian abuse under a democratic facade is a realistic possibility at some future point. In fact, what makes the democratic state even more dangerous is that it has the superficial support of the majority and that only serves to justify its intrusions into private life.
People even use the democratic state to do things that they would never do if it were just up to them to do, like take their neighbor's money and give it away to others. Few people would consider themselves humanitarians, as opposed to mere thieves, for taking money out of their neighbor's pocket to give to "charity," but suddenly it becomes a sign of good will toward others when they discretely vote to have a government agent do it. This is a litmus test for dishonesty, not extremism. If you can't pay someone to do something to someone else, then why can you vote to make someone able to do it for you? If you can't morally pay someone to rob or murder your neighbor, then you can't vote to have a politician do it for you.
There's a puritanical streak in a lot of people who support these "extended functions" of the democratic state. There's just no difference between the welfare-regulatory state and the "soul-saving" puritanical state. Either way you are forcing someone to do what you think is right, when they're not hurting anyone by not doing it. The only way to ensure freedom is to get rid of this puritanical streak from politics and push it back into private life. Pushing your neighbor to be morally upright and generous are both good social pressures, but these things are not relevant to the affairs of state. If you force someone through the democratic process to be morally virtuous and "generous" with their money, I have news for you. You are indeed inclined toward totalitarianism and you are (as is the case with many leftists) the moral puritan that you so self-righteously denounce.
And therein lies the great flaw of the modern democratic state. It is very aggressive in forcing people to live their lives according to the dictates of others. Invariably it becomes a zero sum game for everyone as minority political groups lose power, get trampled on and then resort to violence to regain their lost freedoms.
Absolutely brilliant. The big question for the future is, of course, has the uber-democratic nation-state fulfilled its potential? In other words, what's next? Have we reached the end of history or just the end of a chapter?
We have on one hand the failure of the nation-state to secure borders, protect from violence, and maintain the integrity of money. Supra-national bodies are growing up (NAFTA, EU) to do the things nations can't do. The nation state totters in senile bankruptcy as smaller, culturally-oriented states (Khazakstan, Montenego) arise in their place. Devolution and secession are everywhere.
On the other hand, the nation-state has never seemed stronger. The population has full faith in the government to give us each day our daily bread, to cure poverty and injustice and unhappiness (in the face of all evidence, I might add). From an ideological standpoint, the state has never seemed more robust.
I don't know what comes next, but I do look back back into history and see some parallels (the Holy Mother Church, the Roman Empire) that seem to intimate that human organization reaches a summit, then falls away in on orgy of disorder, migration, and devolution.
I don't think the long-term result of our love affair with government is in doubt: she's a liar whose pillow promises cannot be kept, and she will break our hearts at some point. But the road we are walkng hand-in-hand with our Democratik Prnicess has so many twists and turns it's impossible to see very far through the overgrowth...
It has been a theory of mine for quite a while that the reason that human civilization keeps struggling is that people really cannot learn from history because they can't experience it. Our republic was condemned for the long-haul the moment that the founding generation found itself unable to authentically share the experiences with the British Empire that it had with its kids. Such things are just text book learning and will be appreciated by most people about as much.