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an unimpeachable argument for why democracy is the best form of governance and why the United States Constitution is out of date.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.
No comments:
Post a Comment