Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
While the United States of America is many things to many people, it is not as is popularly conceived a Democracy and it never has been. This view is not coming from a perspective of politics, but one of stark reality. The thinking of the overwhelming majority of our Founding Fathers, as embodied in the Constitution they wrote, was certainly not to give power to the masses. I don’t believe this point is in dispute by the majority of Constitutional experts, despite their various positions on the political spectrum. Most politicians with self-awareness and intelligence have always known that we are not a Democracy as a country, despite the fact that most also proclaim it to be a Democracy. The problem with what I just wrote is that defining Democracy is a very slippery process and as I will show, the word means very different thing to many different people.
Permit me to begin by defining Democracy in terms of the myth that has been created around it in American parlance: “Democracy represents both the Will and the Rule of the People over their government. As such it is the best form of government for all”. Whether we believe it or not all Americans have grown up under this national myth and its’ use is ubiquitous to both domestic and foreign policy. The many wars this country has fought were prosecuted in the interests of this myth of Democracy, whether in destroying the Axis in World War II to save the world, or to nurture its creation and existence in numerous foreign lands. A student of history understands that the reasons for the wars America has fought are far more complex and ultimately self-serving than protecting Democracy. Nevertheless, to initially go to war, a populace must be energized by the belief that it will be fought for a higher purpose, in order to send it young adults to fight and potentially die. This energy in America usually has come from a combination of the myth of protecting democracy and a general threat to all the people. The simple rubric in my lifetime and in the history before it, is that we are fighting for Democracy. I will explore this myth, so central to our lives of citizens and discuss its implications.
In viewing the wide-ranging definitions of democracy I’ll begin by looking at a list of some made by famous people as compiled by Professor William M. Reisinger, of the University of Iowa. He introduces his list with these words:
“The basic sense of democracy as a form of governance rests on its etymology as rule by the entire people rather than, as Shapiro puts it, by any “aristocrat, monarch, philosopher, bureaucrat, expert, or religious leader.” Beyond that, actual definitions of democracy come in all shapes and sizes. On the next page are a variety of others’ definitions for your perusal, presented in chronological order. Each emphasizes one or more things thought to be true about democracy: 1) it is a dangerous form of government; 2) it includes genuine competition for power; 3) it permits mass participation on a legally equal footing; 4) it provides civil and other liberties that restrict the sphere of state power within the society; or 5) it promotes widespread deliberation about how to make and enforce policy so as to promote the common good.” http://www.uiowa.edu/~c030142/DefinitionsOfDemocracy.html
Some of the definitions he gives follow:
“A constitution [or politeia] may be defined as ‘the organization of a city [or polis] in respect of its offices generally, but especially in respect of that particular office which is sovereign in all issues. . . . In democratic cities, for example, the people [demos] is sovereign. . . . [W]hen the masses govern the city with a view to the common interest, the form of government is called by the generic name . . . of ‘constitutional government’. . . . Democracy is directed to the interest of the poor [only, not to the interests of everyone–WR].” (Aristotle 1995, 97-101)
“Democracy [is] not majority rule: democracy [is] diffusion of power, representation of interests, recognition of minorities.” (John Calhoun, as paraphrased by Roper 1989, 63)
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.” (H.L. Mencken, quoted in Danziger 1998, 155)
Democracy is “the substitution of election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.” (G.B. Shaw, quoted in Danziger 1998, 155)
“Democracy is “government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them . . . or by officers elected by them.” (Oxford English Dictionary, 1933)
“Democracy is a competitive political system in which competing leaders and organizations define the alternatives of public policy in such a way that the public can participate in the decision-making process.” (Schattschneider 1960, 141)
Democracy is “a state where political decisions are taken by and with the consent, or the active participation even, of the majority of the People. . . . [L]iberalism, though recognizing that in the last resort the ‘legal majority’ must prevail, tries to protect the minorities as it does the civil rights of the individual, and by much the same methods. . . . Liberal democracy is qualified democracy. The ultimate right of the majority to have its way is conceded, but that way is made as rough as possible.” (Finer 1997, 1568-1570)
“The fundamental idea of democratic, political legitimacy is that the authorization to exercise state power must arise from the collective decisions of the equal members of a society who are governed by that power.” Collective decisions can be either aggregative (based on counting preferences) or deliberative. “[A] decision is collective just in case it emerges from arrangements of binding collective choice that establish conditions of free public reasoning among equals who are governed by the decisions. In the deliberative conception, then, citizens treat one another as equals not by giving equal consideration to interests–perhaps some interests ought to be discounted . . .–but by offering them justifications for the exercise of collective power . . . .” (Cohen 1998, 185-6; italics in original)
These are eight of the twenty-five definitions that Reisinger listed. Just as he broke up these definitions into categories ranging from “dangerous” (dyspeptic) to positive views, I presented a selection from the entire range of views. The link to his article will bring you to a short piece, quickly read, that will give you the full range of choice of viewpoints. My particular preference is for the last two of the definitions, but I don’t believe that they currently define our system. For further, quick reference this Wikipedia link illustrates the difficulty of defining Democracy and the confusion everyone has had in doing so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
This illustrates the problem that America has with Democracy both as a rallying point and as a guiding myth. Most of us were reared and educated with the idea that “Democracy is the rule of the people”, even though in practicality that is simply not true. In the area of guiding mythology though, that particular myth has been used time and again, to justify many evils and sometimes even promote good.
In realistically looking at our country and Democracy, as with much else in life, I believe context is everything. The American Revolution was fostered by the wealthiest people in this country, who initiated it because they were economically and socially stifled by the rule of a Monarchic Empire. They were highly sophisticated and intelligent men, whose charisma and standing in their particular States, was unquestioned. They used the promise of a “free republic”, end to tyranny and even the inclusion of the populace into decision-making, to rally popular support. That support was far from universal, but nevertheless those we call the “Founding Fathers” prevailed. When I first learned America History my particular hero was the radical Samuel Adams. It always seemed curious to me that after the Revolution his role in the body politic became obscure. As my knowledge of history grew I came to realize that my hero was far too much a threat to the interests of the Founding Fathers, to be allowed a role in the Constitution and the governance of this new country.
The exclusion of Sam Adams and others of his radical ilk is the proof that this was not to be a country where the common people would have ultimate power over their government. The Constitution makes no mention of Democracy; it is a document that creates a particular type of Republic, where the power rests in the hands of those of wealth and property. It is nevertheless a magnificent document that was unprecedented for its time and well into the future, even today. Democracy, however, was the myth used to convince the masses to love and support their country. It has been used as mentioned to justify war and foreign interventions. The supposed protection of Democracy has even been used in the Patriot Act to actually threaten most American’s constitutionally granted freedoms.
When William F. Buckley, founder of the National Review and PBS fame first became prominent in the 1950’s, he was roundly chastised for insisting that our Country was a Republic, not a Democracy. In other words, Buckley, who in general I have no respect for, was correctly denying the unifying myth of our country. In the process of that denial and its effect on conservative thinking, it was seen at the time as scandalous. I think that the idea of the United States being a Democracy is a myth that needs to be de-mythologized. I believe, however, in the idea of the need for the populace to have a greater say in the processes that govern us. I’m tired of the oligarchy that has always ruled our country for its benefit and the citizens’ distress. A large part of the seeming legitimacy of that rule is the myth that we are a democratic society. To even begin to achieve this power for the people, we must educate us all on the real state of affairs and try to proceed with reality and not myth.
What do you the reader think about this and what are your preferences for how this country should be run?
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
AY,
Excuse me for correcting you.
It was and is called Liberia, not Iberia.
Iberia is the peninsula containing Spain and Portugal.
Liberia is the nation where liberated slaves from USA were sent, and who took over the land and dominated it.
It has a lady President who is highly regarded, which you of course know. She’s kinda hot too, wow, like Michelle would be if she left her mamma image at home.
A Confucianism I had not heard. Well played, Dredd.
Indigo,
Add the fact that ratification was achieved after the Bill of Rights was added and approved as belonging to and having the same weight as the Constitution.
Virginia had it in theirs and would not sign otherwise.
NC, my state, was the last one ratifying which was needed to make it legal, for the same reasons.
I cede the rest to you. Thanks for the history.
“In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of.” – Confucius
idealist,
I think other than a sentence or two here or there about the myth-making of American Democracy, everything I posted here is from one of the US Supreme Court’s first Chief Justices, excerpted from two pieces of his writing, about ten years apart, that are somewhat at odds with eachother.
The Bill of Rights was a bargaining chip — three years separated its ratification and the ratification of the US Constitution (though all the contract law — everything required for making money — was in the body of the Constitution itself — even provisions about enforcing contracts made under the previous government of the Articles of Confederation). I think Justice Marshall’s earlier comment in my second post on this thread speaks more honestly to how contentious the whole affair was, and how a concerted effort at mythmaking was necessary for the powerful to ensure the new republic’s legal machinery worked in their economic interests.
What is more noteworthy, I think, is that the Constitution was not de jure legal under the amendment procedures outlined in the Articles of Confederation. As the initial constitutional convention was called with the “sole and express” purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation, and instead, a new government was proposed and ratified through extra-legal means, in a sense, some of the historical contentiousness surrounding the ratification of the Constitution was justified, as it was, in a strict sense, the product of a coup.
The “by for and of the people” bit was invented later on, when it became more clearly important to make “democracy” and “market liberalism” synonymous.
Dredd,
Ready for another great myth…. Lincoln the emancipator….. Read the history of a country on the west African coast called Iberia…… Our society is based upon revisionist…..
I have often wondered why a majority of American owned companies have foreign registry in Iberia…..for ships…… Study the history of the US and you’ll see why…..
Indigo Jones,
Maybe somebody got to it first, but the ratification of the Constitution required the supplementation by the Bill of Rights to get the needed state approvals.
In contrary to your writing:
“It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the State governments. The Constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the State sovereignties.”
Malisha is a trolldame, ie she can like Huey Long make it sound so simple. And then the lawyers come and make it hard. But I agree with AY, she wins my vote too.
OT. Remember in West Wing, the delegation from a new nation who were were offered fifthteen good reasons for selecting a parlianmentary style, but wanted so eagerrly an American style?
Dredd, I believe you hit the nail on the head. Thank you.
LottaKatz,
Good observations re unicameral direct democracy with a 50 percent Republican base. Usch.
But we got rid of our second camera here. but we have a eight party parliament, with socialist and moderates (conservative) dominating.
I see no reason that at least some improvements could be made in the Senate rules—-ie remove the 60 vote requirement to get it out for a simple majority vote on the floor. And elimination of blockage by filibusters.
The strict two-seat rule could go too, but then what reason for a senate. Maybe, have it with representation accdg to population, but with EIGHT YEAR terms, to statbilize with a view to long term effects.
Anonymously Yours 1, November 17, 2012 at 8:52 pm
Great post Mike…..
Dredd…. To say that Madison is the father of the constitution is an understatement…… From what I’ve read he was very much disliked and hated for his views….. he had a tendency to rub people the wrong way….. he was a better thinker than people person….. now Franklin…. very much liked and trusted…..but a known drunk and womanizer….. had the gift of people pleasing……. he was able to sell the native americans a bill of goods that in essence deprived them of life, liberty and property….
=======================================
Mike’s post deals a lot with the myth of democracy which evinces a reality that people will believe most anything that pleases them, but will reject what is not pleasing. As you pointed out with the Franklin example.
There are many facets of truth that people do not like, and this is like leaving the castle’s draw bridge down at night. The enemy purveyors of myth will pass through the draw bridge of unsuspecting minds when it is not secured by adequate and appropriate distrust of power.
I would add too Justice Marshall’s 1801 account of the ratification debate:
“To decide the interesting question which agitated a continent, the best talents of the several states were assembled in their respective conventions. So balanced were parties in some of them, that, even after the subject had been discussed for a considerable time, the fate of the constitution could scarcely be conjectured; and so small, in many instances, was the majority in its favour, as to afford strong ground for the opinion that, had the influence of character been removed, the intrinsic merits of the instrument would not have secured its adoption. Indeed, it is scarcely to be doubted that, in some of the adopting states, a majority of the people were in the opposition. In all of them, the numerous amendments which were proposed, demonstrate the reluctance with which the new government was accepted; and that a dread of dismemberment, not an approbation of the particular system under consideration, had induced an acquiescence in it. The interesting nature of the question, the equality of the parties, the animation produced inevitably by ardent debate, had a necessary tendency to embitter the dispositions of the vanquished, and to fix more deeply, in many bosoms, their prejudices against a plan of government, in opposition to which all their passions were enlisted.”
His later assertion that “The government proceeds directly from the people” seems quite at odds with his earlier assessment that “it is scarcely to be doubted that, in some of the adopting states, a majority of the people were in the opposition”
Malisha 1, November 18, 2012 at 8:46 am
…
I wish everybody a happy Thanksgiving. I’m joining my son today in going to a demonstration about trying to slow down climate change. I hope we aren’t rained out.
============================
A happy Thanksgiving to you too.
And what AY said.
At that climate change demonstration, please spread the word that the “… no single weather event can be linked directly to … global warming” meme was started by fossil fuel propaganda, and is a falsehood.
“Democracy at work.”
The myth of a people’s democracy started early: perhaps you are familiar with this famous quote from John Marshall:
“The government proceeds directly from the people; is “ordained and established” in the name of the people; and is declared to be ordained, “in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and to their posterity.” The assent of the States, in their sovereign capacity, is implied in calling a Convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it; and their act was final. It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the State governments. The Constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the State sovereignties.
…
The government of the Union, then, (whatever may be the influence of this fact on the case,) is, emphatically, and truly, a government of the people. In form and in substance it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.” (1819)
This is, of course, somewhat at odds with what Marshall wrote a decade earlier in Vol. 4 of his “Life of George Washington”
“Neither the intrinsic merits of the constitution nor the imposing weight of character by which it was supported, gave assurance to its friends that it would be ultimately adopted. A comparison of the views and interests by which a powerful party was actuated, with particular provisions in the constitution which were especially designed to counteract those views and interests, prepared them to expect a mass of zealous and active opposition, against which the powers of reason would be in vain directed, because the real motives in which it originated would not be avowed. There were also many individuals, possessing great influence and respectable talents, who, from judgment, or from particular causes, seemed desirous of retaining the sovereignty of the states unimpaired, and of reducing the union to an alliance between independent nations. To these descriptions of persons, joined by those who supposed that an opposition of interests existed between different parts of the continent, was added a numerous class of honest men, many of whom possessed no inconsiderable share of intelligence, who could identify themselves perfectly with the state government, but who considered the government of the United States as in some respects foreign. The representation of their particular state not composing a majority of the national legislature, they could not consider that body as safely representing the people, and were disposed to measure out power to it with the same sparing hand with which they would confer it on persons not chosen by themselves, not accountable to them for its exercise, nor having any common interest with them. That power might be abused, was, to persons of this opinion, a conclusive argument against its being bestowed; and they seemed firmly persuaded that the cradle of the constitution would be the grave of republican liberty. ” (1801)
This myth of American Democracy was deliberately constructed early on. Jefferson was picking up on the same strain in Medieval thought that Karl Marx picked up: the communistic, egalitarian ideals of movements like the Beguines, Beghards, Free Spirits and Ranters… but Jefferson lost…
You are good malisha….real good….
“By presenting varied views of what the term democracy means I was hoping to elicit how readers here personally defined democracy. I missed the mark.”
No you didn’t. You can simply redirect the discussion which you just did. Defining democracy inevitably calls into effect “the observer affects the observed,” of course.
My kid asked me some of the questions about what democracy is when he was about 9, and I couldn’t really answer except to say that your rights stop where the other guy’s nose starts (this would cause a few thousand Americans to call the killing of Trayvon Martin “self-defense” because they would presume that George Zimmerman’s nose was wherever it was ENTITLED to be) and that nobody has a right to tell you that you have to have a Christmas Tree (giving rise to the principles of ELF DEFENSE).
But it really is that way. We have to have rights (not to wear a burka if we don’t want to) that can’t be “majority ruled” away. And we have to have parts of our life that nobody can legislate. And we have to have some shot at equal benefits from the positions we hold in the responsibility structure. And past that, we have to work it out without killing folks. That would be democracy for me. We cannot achieve it in this country, of course. Oh maybe if we had those three generations of “life interest” legislation — my silly dream — HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
I wish everybody a happy Thanksgiving. I’m joining my son today in going to a demonstration about trying to slow down climate change. I hope we aren’t rained out.
LK,
If you want to see how a unicameral legislature works out….. I think Nebraska is the only state in the US that has one….. I’m unsure if I agree with that structure for a nation as a whole as the senate guarantees each state 2 senators….. Regardless of the population of the state…..the house is based on population…..this would give heavily populated states too much power…..
OS,
You are spot on about Vote fraud being the real danger. I include suppression efforts under that vote fraud label.
Mike: “I believe that this myth has been used to lull most of us into the belief that we as “the people” really have the power.”
What do you mean “we” kemosabe? 🙂 I am not of that mind. I define it as we have it because saying a somewhat modified form of Democratic Socialism (lists characteristics) is how I’d define it and welcome it to our shores is kinda’ going nowhere.
Here’s my problem, we have what we have and unless we want to clean the slate and start over (why yes, my USA would be very different from the one we have now) we have to make it work because starting over isn’t possible.
I think this is a good quote from your article to encapsulate the kind of government I want:
“[L]iberalism, though recognizing that in the last resort the ‘legal majority’ must prevail, tries to protect the minorities as it does the civil rights of the individual, and by much the same methods. . . . ”
The last part of that quote is also instructive:
“Liberal democracy is qualified democracy. The ultimate right of the majority to have its way is conceded, but that way is made as rough as possible.” (Finer 1997, 1568-1570)”
That sounds good to me, whatever keeps the wolves at bay whether they be rapacious venture capitalists, food manufactures that wold put melamine and floor sweepings in our food or religious fanatics that want women veiled.
Maybe even with the clarification I missed the point. Or I’m a literalist with a big pinch of fatalism thrown in.
Darren,
You will not get an argument from me on that point. Knowing what I know about computers and computer bugs, I am not in favor of digital voting machines until they are hacker and bug proof, a feat that I am not sure can be accomplished.
One thing about paper ballots, when Florida went to punch cards, they appear to have handed out styluses with short stems in heavily Democratic precincts, and we were treated to hanging chads because the holes were not punched all the way out by the short stylus, no matter how hard the voter pressed. Cheaters are always going to look for a way to give themselves an edge. Voter caging is the real voter fraud, not the organizations that volunteer to go out and register as many legal voters as possible.