The Dilemma of Democracy
Power to the people. Vox Populi - the voice of the people. Let the voters decide. This is what democracy is all about.
But what if the popular power, the public voice and the decision of the people all turn out to be wrong? And who gets to say what results are wrong? The practical democratic answer to this last question is the same voters who originally voted plus those who did not vote but decide to do so in a recall election or in a re-election bid. The undemocratic answer is some outside power other than the voters.
Since the end of WWII, the US government has used its power, sometimes openly and sometimes clandestinely, to overturn the results of democratic elections in other countries. A fairly recent example was the overthrow of democratically elected Aristide in Haiti. Our government decides which elections are important enough to our perceived self-interest to justify intervention, first in influencing the election itself, and then if the outcome is not what we wanted, in overturning the results by encouraging demands for new elections or by supporting a military coup.
Our invasion and occupation of Iraq has increased the popularity of militant political groups in the middle east, resulting in electoral gains for them. With our military forces spread thin and our international reputation severely tarnished, the US may be stuck with the results of these elections for the foreseeable future, ironically forced to accept the electoral results the neo-cons were so sure would not result from our promotion of a tsunami of democracy.
Noam Chomsky in his latest book, “Failed States” scholarly analyzes this US abuse of power in interfering with other nations the US sees as democratic failures. He concludes his book with a look at our own country and the likelihood that it is in some ways also a failed state. Chomsky cites numerous polls showing the American public largely favoring progressive stands on issues, even though the public has voted for reactionary right candidates many times since 1980, starting with Ronald Reagan. Why the disconnect?
Our Founding Fathers struggled with the dilemma of democracy, how to give power to the people, yet protect against impulsive and irrational decisions. They came up with limitations and compromises, some more fair and wise than others, and we have made a few changes through the years, by judicial interpretations and a few Constitutional amendments. Yet the central dilemma will always be there - the appeal to human impulse and irrationality can be effective at the polls. Chomsky documents the drive by the rich and powerful reactionary right in America to hire professional marketers and intellectual think tanks to deceive the American public into making decisions based on falsehoods and misconceptions, rather than on an honest look at the issues.
The challenge for progressive candidates is to get the voters to realize they are being fooled by the right and that voter positions on the legitimate issues, such as health care, social security, social spending, reigning in defense costs, and being an international force for good, are actually in agreement with the progressives.
The rich power elite that controls the reactionary right is no smarter than the average voter. In fact their front man Bush may actually be dumber than the average American. But as Chomsky points out, these people are very smart at what matters most to them - getting their people into political office and using the power of that office to advance and perpetuate their personal agenda of financial greed worldwide.
posted by Tom Blake | 9:29 AM
6 Comments:
Actually our founding fathers were unanimous in their rejection of democracy, whether Federalists or anti-Federalists, later known as Democratic Republicans. They believed strongly in a federalist form of government, but were deathly afraid of mob rule as they saw democracy. That's why we had so many indirect methods of appointments to power. Many of them have been disbanded following the election of Andrew Jackson, the great democrat, but a reactionary for the time. Still, we have the electoral college and the presidential appointment of Supreme Court Justices (with Senate approval).
Many of the founding fathers also recognized that governments, whether monarchies or federations will eventually become corrupt. They devised the checks and balances of our government to mitigate that. But, of course, it was not enough. Jefferson, who wrote much about the threat of corruption said that we need a revolution every 20 years to avoid the corruption. He also said that all debts should have a limit of 19 years. He hated debt and the banks and merchants and speculators and etc. Maybe he hated them so much because he was so deeply in debt that he sold his slaves to cover that debt. When he died his debts were so large that all his property was sold including Monticello and his slaves including his lover of many years (and his sister-in-law), Sally Hemmings. He did free his children, so maybe he wasn't such a bad guy. His image on Mount Rushmore is a monument to what? The Declaration of Independence that states that all men are created equal? Or to his political ability that made him the 3rd president?
By the way, this man who so feared a strong executive, when president, purchased the Louisiana Territory with only a slight qualm that it might have been unconstitutional for him to do that. So our second or third most famous founding father was corrupt politically and personally, probably more so than W. W has killed more people than Jefferson, but W has followed the process laid down by the founding fathers for foreign incursions.
John from Phoenix
Much of such discussions depends on how one defines Democracy. As I wrote in this blog a while back, democracy comes in many flavors.
Corruption nowadays implies insiders abusing their office for personal economic gain. But as you point out, it has a broader meaning when applied to government as a whole. Some of our Constitutional checks and balances are coming into play now and may help remedy some of what is currently not working right in our government. The Presidential term limit has made Bush a lame duck and will put him out to pasture at the beginning of 2009. Voter discontent with Congress may produce change of that body in November. But the greatest check of all rests with the people and their ability to vote wisely. In the USA, revolutions occasionally occur at the ballot box.
We have only had two revolutionary attempts by military force, the one that barely succeeded in founding our nation and the one that eventually failed to split it. We came close to another with the Great Depression of the 1930s, but FDR and WWII prevented it.
Jefferson was not good with his personal finances, but he made a helluva deal for the country with the Louisiana Purchase. He is on Rushmore because of authoring the Declaration.
I think the first foreign military incursion of the fledgling USA was the First Barbary War. After first paying ransom to hijackers, we decided to go to war against their terror. Sounds familiar. The terror threat of that time was apparently not resolved, however, until the Dutch and English thumped the pirates into submission in the Second Barbary War and Europe colonized North Africa. Our first unjustified foreign incursion may have been the War with Mexico in the 1840s. Mexico now seems to be using immigration as a non-military way to take back the territory it lost in that War
I don't know about the Barbary Wars, but I will follow up with your links. That should be interesting. Still I am surprised you chose to pass on the irony that Jefferson, a slave owner, is on Mt Rushmore for authoring the Declaration of Independence that includes a central tenet that all men are created equal.
John from Phoenix
You are the one who usually reminds me that history must not be judged with hindsight. Jefferson was a man of his times and, though he had more enlightened views on some subjects, such as the concepts in the Declaration, he also had some quite ignorant views, such as his belief in the inferiority of black Africans.
This National Park Service page says the four Presidents put on Rushmore were from the first 150 years and were intended to represent a “national focus”, apparently meaning ones who would be well known throughout the United States - so as to encourage tourism from throughout the US to South Dakota.
From what I have read and seen on TV, without considering it scholarly research, I think Jefferson loved Sally Hemmings and had a familial type bond with her children, at least one of whom he likely fathered, but his importance in the community and the attitude of his daughters prevented him from living his love fully.
Here is an interesting web page from the Library of Congress on Jefferson’s Legacy.
Of course Jefferson was a man of his times. So are we. That adds nothing to the discussion. Jefferson was well aware of the conflict between his Decalaration and his owning slaves. He agonized about that all his life and derived a theory about how slavery could end. He never advocated the theory. He was too deep in debt.
He lived up to his vow to his slave Sally Hemmings to free her children. He did not free Sally. Did he wonder how Sally would be used after his death? As another man's concubine? As a field hand? Maybe he thought someone would buy her to run a nice household somewhere. It's hard to have good feelings about such a person. Oh yes. He was a man of his times. Another man of his times, and a fellow Virginian, George Washington, freed his slaves.
Jefferson has gotten too much credit as a founding father. His contributions were two: a good writing style for the Declaration of Independence, and purchasing Louisiana ignoring the Conctitution in the process.
John from Phoenix
You are certainly hard on TJ, but may be right that he is overrated. I think some of his mystique may be that he was a bit of a renaissance man and had a somewhat more modern appearance (the red hair instead of white powdered wig contributed to that). And the knowledge of his affair with Sally only adds to the romanticizing. Don’t talk him down too much relative to Rushmore though, or the reactionary right may try to replace him with Reagan.
Post a Comment
<< Home