Democracy Part Three

So, yesterday I came out and called people who do not embrace democracy as un-American.  It might seem odd to be a self-identified progressive and liberal and to use that term "un-American."  Isn't that the term that self-proclaimed patriotic blowhards use to condemn people who don't agree with their narrow interpretation of what it means to be an American?  Yes.  Isn't this a free country and shouldn't we refrain from creating a singular idea of what an American is?  Yes, but... the thing is that being a proponent of democracy won't in any way determine who you are as an individual.  You can be pro-life and a proponent of democracy, and you can be pro-choice and a proponent of democracy.  The principle of democracy is a bed-rock principle.  It is nothing more than the canvas on top of which we paint our identities.  

Our country is dysfunctional, and I think the reason for that is that we've lost our sense of democracy.  See, I've been racking my brains to find one thing that we can all agree on, because only then can we become the country that we want.  Whatever that is.  Of course, the second I say "abortion," you have a reflexive judgement, and nothing I can say will change that.  Can anybody tell me about the time they witnessed a pro-life proponent change the mind of a pro-choice proponent or vice versa?  No, you can't.  Can you get a person who favors gun-rights to accept gun control?  No again.  The battle-lines have been fixed for decades and this makes change impossible, but democracy changes that.  Democracy is really the only thing we should agree on.  It is what America is all about. 

But, wait, Dewey, you say, the history of America isn't all that democratic.  I mean, the extermination of Native Americans and slavery and the denial of equal rights to women and minorities... at what point where we ever truly democratic?  Okay, okay.  I teach U.S. History, so I don't need a history lesson, but I'd like to make a distinction between America-in-practice and America-as-an-ideal.  All the terrible things that America as a country has done like stealing one third of Mexico is an example of America-in-practice.  We are not now, nor should we ever be beholden to that America.  America-in-practice dies every generation.  Once upon a time America-in-practice allowed slavery, but that America died.  Once upon a time, America-in-practice banned gay marriage, but that America died.  What American wants to be defined by a dead America?  But here's the thing: America-as-an-ideal can never die, and that America has been around since the Declaration of Independence. 

When Thomas Jefferson wrote, "All men are created equal," he owned slaves, but whether he meant to or not, he gave birth to an ideal that ultimately abolished slavery.  Sure, the wording needed to be tweaked, but I think it's telling that in 1848 the Declaration of Sentiments promoting gender equality modeled itself on the Declaration of Independence.  They could have simply written a new document, but they didn't, because the American ideal is so powerful that it transcends momentary hypocrisy and short-sightedness.  

A cynical person might argue that the founding fathers were a bunch of rich people who wanted more money and power and they convinced poor people to fight and day so that they could have the country to themselves and they wouldn't have to share it with England.  These guys thought created a rhetoric of freedom that motivated a lot of colonists to join their cause.  There is a lot of truth to that, but regardless of their motives, the rhetoric- the ideal- continues to inspire.  And let's be fair.  While America was not all that progressive in the beginning, we didn't have much competition in that regard.  

But here's the thing about the American ideal: it's impossible.  We will never fully realize a totally democratic state. America-as-an-ideal is a straight line that America-in-practice veers closer and closer to, but will ultimately never touch.  That means that no matter what we achieve, there's more to achieve.  That means that American exceptionalism is a dangerous lie that makes you think you've done it, when you need to keep working.  And some people might be depressed by that notion, but we can certainly reach a point where the distance between America-as-an-ideal and America-in-practice doesn't really matter.  I don't think we're there, but we can get there. 

But the only way we can get there is by embracing democracy.  Teddy Roosevelt said, "The government is us; we are the government, you and I."  So if the government doesn't seem to reflect who we are, then we need to look at ourselves to see how we can change it.  Democracy isn't just about voting, but actively making the change you want to happen, happen. I'm trying to do my part, and I don't care what you believe in, I hope you do yours too.  But the only way we can succeed is if we we allow our country to be as democratic as possible. If our government can't reflect the will of the people, than it isn't our government. 

Democracy Part Two

In part one I basically presented an unimpeachable argument for why democracy is the best form of governance and why the United States Constitution is out of date.  I argued that democracy ought to be the value that is most enshrined in the United States.  Not only is democracy the best form of organizing people, it's also a reflection of how we view people in general.  In general, people who don't like democracy tend to not like people.  If all people are to be valued, then all interests of these same people ought to be equally valued.  Some people dislike democracy because they suspect that there are a lot of uninformed people out there who are negatively impacting the outcome of a particular vote.  Thus, people are secondary to "correct information."  It's not enough to be a person, you must labor to uncover the "truth."

As anybody who has studied history can tell you, the "truth" can be unstable, and subject to revision.  To some, the flatness of the world was true, or the idea that the sun revolved around the Earth.  Many a philosopher has come to the conclusion that stable truths are few and far between.   We must all accept that we've been wrong before and we'll be wrong again. For some of us, that's not too hard to accept, but there are those among us who have found their holy grail of truth, and they simply cannot accept that it is not true for all.

So, let's say you're someone who thinks that homosexuality is wrong.  Well, this is going to be a problem for you, because you're in the minority.  You can be a good loser, and decide that the burden of change is upon you.  You must change hearts and minds in order to create a majority (you might also want to consider the possibility that you're wrong, but you don't have to).  You could also be a bad loser, and decide that the majority decision reveals that there are a lot of dumb people out there, and you shouldn't be beholden to the rules created by these dumb people.

At this point, you will have become a renegade.  We tend to think of renegades as being cool, but those are usually just the ones they make movies about.  I mean, how pointless would it be to show a movie where the renegade bucks the moors of society only to be proven that he was wrong all along? And even in the movies the path of the renegade is hard, and it should be.  How can a democracy function if everyone thinks it's okay to bend the rules and that they are the ones who can truly see the truth?  And getting back to the movies, the ones that truly inspire us are about renegades who go to great lengths to show people the truth, rather than imposing their truth on others.

Another reason people don't like democracy is because they think that there are a lot of "bad" people out there.  This problem is similar to the correct information problem.  It's not enough to be a person, you have to be a "good" person.  Well, good can be just as ephemeral as truth, so there's that.  But it gets a little thornier.  We have courts, and they do pass judgement on people, and while most would argue that the courts do not deem people "bad," but that certain behaviors are bad, they also sentence people to death and life without parole.  But I'm going to table that discussion for another time, and focus on the notion of people being "basically bad."

When you say people are "basically bad," you're saying that they don't need to have demonstrated any bad behavior, they are certain to be as bad as their choices allow them.  This flies in the face of the notion of "innocent until proven guilty," but a lot of people don't actually subscribe to that notion.  They truly believe that people are one step removed from wild animals and that the role of society is to keep them in metaphorical cages so they don't go out raping and killing. Of course, this isn't a loudly trumpeted viewpoint.  While there are people who hold this view, they tend to not come out of the closet with it.  Clearly, if you were to hold this view, the idea of allowing "the people" access to the levers of governance, would seem like a terrible idea, but I've often wondered: do people holding these views also see themselves as basically bad?  That would seem likely, because what other insight would allow them to know the hearts of "the people" so well?  And if not, how did they escape their basically bad status?

While I would argue that both the "people are basically ignorant" view and the "people are basically bad view" have a significant impact on our democracy, the most dangerous view is the one that simply takes little notice of the nature of others.  It is difficult to articulate this view into an ideology of any kind, because the disregard for humanity is incidental to whatever it is these people truly believe in.  For example, if the most important thing to a person is acquiring money, then it isn't necessary to formulate a view on humanity.  You have no reason to give much thought to whether people are basically good or bad or whatever, unless it has some direct connection to your bottom line.  And this ideology doesn't have to be money. It could be a narrow religious interpretation, it could be a quest for fame.

The point is, that these people don't care about people.  They don't hate them or love them except on an individual level.  This shouldn't really matter in a free country.  As long as people aren't harming others, they can disregard them entirely.  What makes them so dangerous is that to these people democracy is irrelevant.  Rather than changing hearts and minds so that they align with their own particular beliefs, they would rather game the system.  If they're going to lose at the ballot box, then maybe they'll need to find a way to disenfranchise certain voters by making a big deal over "voter fraud."  If they can't win a majority in the Senate, they'll simply resort to the filibuster.  They will over-ride and democratic process as long as they can get their way.

Let's be clear here: if you don't trust the democratic process, then you don't trust people, and why should people trust you?  I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy is the most American value there is, and anyone who would try to finagle the system and thwart the democratic process, because whatever outcome they are trying to achieve is so important is un-American.  That's right, I said it.  If you don't like democracy you're not a patriot and you shouldn't call yourself an American.  Whatever idea you've been exalting as the most important thing in the world (God, money, Springsteen) must bow down before the altar of democracy.

Democracy Part One

If there is one ideal that can be said to embody the American spirit, it is democracy.  The United States currently holds the title for longest-running democracy in the world.  Woo-hoo!  The Greeks tried it, but we pulled it off and never looked back.  I think for this reason alone, we should be the experts in democracy.  We've been doing it longer than anyone else.  Our democracy should be an exemplar to others around the world.  Every child should look upon their democracy the way an Italian might think about pasta (or wines) or a Swiss person might think about cheese (or watches).  The ideal of democracy ought to (and sometimes does) define what it means to be an American, and it should be something that we are proud to pioneer.

But the pioneering days are over.  We've allowed our democracy to become dusty with cobwebs.  We've allowed something that was once a shining beacon of hope across the world, turn into a fossilized institution.  The underlying ideal of democracy is lost amidst a web of political intrigues.  Presidents can get elected without getting the most votes.  We have a Senate that disproportionately represents rural interests by a wide margin.  Large populations in our country (Washington D.C., Puerto Rico) have no representation in Congress.  All of these undemocratic phenomena are protected by an ancient artifact that is raised to the status of holy relic: the Constitution.

There is a tendency to revere the Constitution as a document forged by sage men, despite its allowing for the enslavement of others and its denying the right to vote to women.  The truth is, it was a stunning achievement at the time that it was crafted, but so was the ability to access the Internet via our landlines in the early 90s.  While much has changed since its creation, we are still saddled with a dial-up democracy to face a world that is racing along at 1 G per second. Our democracy is slowed down with arcane rules that were formulated at a time when people rode around in horse-drawn carriages.

What I like about the concept of Democracy is that it is easily defensible. The underlying idea of it is clear and to the point.  Government should rule at the consent of the governed.  While we don't agree on everything, a government that reflects what most people agree on is the best possible one.  A government that represents the interests of its people is a stable government. And doesn't it seem that most people will come up with a good system?  Maybe not "the best," but good is way better than the alternative.

And what exactly is the alternative?  I've never heard anyone seriously advocating for rule by philosopher-kings.  Historically speaking, the alternative is to concentrate power in fewer hands.  Sometimes you get lucky, and you have a benevolent autocrat, but by the same token you might end up with a crazy loon with unlimited powers.  Sure, revolutions can eject tyrannical rulers, but what an inefficient way to run a government.  All that starting from scratch seems pointless.

Let's take a look at the Senate where Senators representing just over 3% of the population of our country have the power through the filibuster to block legislation proposed by the other 97%.  Clearly this phenomenon doesn't exist to support any democratic ideal.  So what ideal does it exist to support?  Well, initially the idea was to protect smaller states from the wanton bullying by bigger states, but most people don't elect their representatives to represent their state, they elect them to represent themselves.  Furthermore, we don't see this principle show up at any other level.  In mayoral contests, all citizens get one vote. We don't group them by district and try to ensure that each district receives equal representation regardless of population.

One of the historical arguments in favor of the United States' undemocratic practices is the idea of "protecting the minority."  This is a lot like the big state versus small state argument.  We don't want the majority to trample the rights of the majority.  Well, we don't want the minority trampling the rights of the majority either.  This suggests that most people (the majority) are against the trampling of rights.  Great.  Now we can take that argument off the table.  So now, what's the selling point of the minority?  Seriously.

Oh, wait.  I know: the minority could be right.  While the notion of "right" is always debatable in nearly any context, let's simply take this argument as a given.  The minority could be right. So?  There has never been a government in the history of humanity that did not make mistakes.  I think the majority should be allowed to make mistakes, just as I think they should be allowed to correct their mistakes.  Unfortunately, neither of those things can happen, because the mechanism of governance allows a minority to impede the will of the majority, but thus far there has been no case made as to why that should be.

Many of our founding fathers warned of allowing "the rabble" to participate.  They feared it would lead to a "mobocracy."  Who knows?  Maybe it would have.  You can complain about public education all you want, but try living in a time with no public education.  You might not want "the rabble" to vote either.  But this can only ever be a temporary argument.  It's a bit like parents not wanting their children having a vote.  Eventually, they will be able to make rationally informed decisions, and if that's not the case... well, it's the parents fault, isn't it?  Thus, if we still can't trust "the rabble" to vote, then the power structure in place has done a poor job and it's time for a new one, and (I hate to keep coming back to this) the only group with any legitimate authority would be the majority of people.

Our founding fathers were perfectly capable of making decisions that were in the best interests of all people, but they were also overwhelmingly of a class. They were wealthy and educated, and like all people they were also conscious of their own narrow self-interest.  Which means that when they weren't making altruistic choices, they were making self-interested choices, and this led to a government that protected their narrow self-interests above others (even if only a little).

Look, I'm not arguing that there is no appeal to the argument that some voters will make bad choices. If I had to choose between 42 year old me and 18 year old me going into the voting booth, 42 year old me wins every time, but it's a very slippery slope once you start denying the right to vote to people because of intelligence and ability. People can't mature and make better decisions, if they're not permitted to grow and make bad choices.  Thus, I think it's time we take the training wheels off of our democracy and ride it like grown-ups.