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.
No comments:
Post a Comment