Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
I found this piece by Vladislav Inozemtsev in the American Interest disturbingly interesting. I say "disturbing" because the argument is compelling, but it in no way leads me anywhere I want to go, or even really to think.
... Democratic government presumes to do more than it did at the time of its birth and maturation, so that citizens have far more to understand and judge about government than ever. The burden is often overwhelming even for the fairly well educated.
The implication is that even universal secondary education can no longer reliably produce a responsible citizen. Liberal democracy born in the Republic of Letters has to survive in the Empire of Television, where information flows in one direction and need not involve direct response. The civic dialogue that was once the very foundation of democratic decision-making has become a one-way process of convincing voters. The political dialogue of liberal democracies is not just degraded, as is widely acknowledged; it is qualitatively different.
Moreover, as the capacity of citizens to grasp policy issues has eroded from one side, the percentage of citizens expected to grasp them has risen from the other. In Western countries today there is far more inequality within electorates than ever, simply because, as was not the case during the 19th century, everyone above age 18 can vote. At the same time, the cult of money that is so widespread in contemporary consumer society tends to narrow the spectrum of voter interest even as the real spectrum of public policy challenges widens. This produces voters ready to support anyone who promises more prosperity, and voters who, when they get the chance (as in California’s referendum democracy) will vote for getting more while paying less. Impossible? Of course. And they do it anyway? Of course.
Democracy was the optimal form of government when voters were capable of making rational choices through an understanding of what was at stake, when they were ready to bear the responsibility for the consequences of their choices, and when the right to vote was understood to be a privilege, or the result of a struggle still remembered. Nowadays it is difficult to shake the impression that democratic societies are rapidly turning into ochlocracies, where the vast majority of citizens, seeing their rights as given and their responsibilities not at all, are easily addled by propaganda, distracted by spectacle and either unable or unwilling to invest the time and energy required to be a responsible democratic actor.
He argues for paring back the franchise. Those of us unwilling to arrive at that conclusion will have to find some flaw in his premises or his argument; I can't say I spot one immediately.
Have at it, Ricochet. If you can't, I suppose I'll still favor democracy--worst form of government except all the others that have been tried and all that--but I must say I'm growing increasingly depressed about it.
- Comment (54)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
May '10
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
We are too close to the development of Radio, let alone TV, to be sure what their final impact on society will be. Add to that texting, the internet and so forth, and the future is hazy indeed.
I do not think TV is to blame on this one. If there is a big threat to this Republic (since we are *not* a democracy) it is our wealth and success. The plunder of the East lead to the corruption of Rome and the fall of its Republic. I think that we are very comfortable.
Another big threat is the abdication of education by parents to the State. They do a lousy job instilling values.
Finally, if there is a problem with TV, it is that the leftists that control it don't love America.
Imagine how different TV and Radio would be if they were controlled by patriots.
Oct '10
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
The (sad) truth hurts.
While the Democrats will drive us over the cliff at warp speed, the Republicans (even including Paul Ryan's recent budget proposal) will drive us over the same cliff, though we will arrive at the precipice a bit later.
Oct '10
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
P.S. Don't you just LOVE the liberals buying space on Ricochet for Elizabeth Warren fundraising ads?
Mar '11
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
Therefore, if one favors democracy, one must also favor smaller government.
-- Thomas Jefferson
-- Gerald Ford.
We can still handle this, but time is running out.
Oct '10
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
Most of the criticisms of Democracy were equally valid, if not in a somewhat different context, at the time of our founding. That is why the Founders rejected democracy in favor of a Constitutional Republic. And, most importantly, a federalist system that had the representation closest to the people represented, and kept as small as possible.
The States were the place where most laws were enacted, and the representatives were known to their constituents. The federal, central, government was extremely limited in the scope of it's powers regarding the way citizens lived their daily lives.
The early Americans were a self dependent people, demanding very little from their government other than protection from enemies, security for their persons and property, reliability of contracts and universal application of laws.
They were also a people who acknowledged that their freedoms came from their Creator, and could not be abridged by others, including government.
Democracy has always been a lousy idea and generally boils down to organized mob rule. And his arguments against universal suffrage, in a culture which has lost it's connection to it's Creator, we will eventually vote ourselves right into tyranny.
Man's natural state without God.
Mar '11
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
In a system that allows ill-equipped voters to choose between two often ill-equipped candidates, it seems odd to blame the system or the voters.
Dec '11
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
You should check out The Histories by Herodotus:
http://www.bostonleadershipbuilders.com/herodotus/book03.htm
80-84 should be what you are looking for.
Aug '10
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
It sounds like a re-stating of a conservative argument against big government: the more complex government is, the less likely that citizens will be able to comprehend every issue they must consider in a democratic vote.
True as that may be, his conclusions seem to be based on a flawed analysis of democracy itself. He claims the beneficial developments of Western civilization are attributable more to the focus on liberty than on democracy, which kind of misses the point. Democracy does not directly advance the cause of liberty; it merely safeguards it. (Whether actual advances in liberty come from writers or from revolutions, is an argument for another day.)
In short, per Churchill, once a group has attained some liberty the best way we've found to preserve it (so far) is to endow the larger portion of that group with the power over it. Reducing the franchise does not advance the cause of liberty; elitist oligarchies and technocracies are not famous for their liberal ways.
Now it may be true that secondary education no longer prepares a citizen to be a democratic actor. But that seems like a systems implementation flaw, not a political structure problem.
Edited on March 28, 2012 at 2:52pmDec '10
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
Raycon has the correct argument. Democracy is a bad form of government because it is mob rule dressed up. That is why the Founders created a republic. One of the worse amendments to the Constituti0n was the direct election of senators. The Senate was modeled on the Roman Senate, which was an aristocratic body. In the Founders view this "aristocratic" body would be a creature of state legislatures and would be a step removed from the swaying moods of the electorate as well as being beholden to the states rather than to the federal government. The House of Representatives would be the body of the current mood. The Senate would be the body of the historical world view. What we've degenerated into is that the Senate is now just another body of the mob.
Apr '11
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
The Founding Fathers recognized the inherent flaw in Democracy - that it inevitably degenerates into mob rule - and so tried to create a system using three separate principles for electing a government by way of prophylaxis.
The House of Representatives was democratically elected by popular vote. Senators, however, were appointed to office by the state legislature. This allowed the voters some say in who represented the state in Washington since the voters chose their state legislators, but it also introduced the element of Aristocracy since it was assumed the legislature was free to chose from among the 'Best Men,' the Hoi Aristoi, when choosing a Senator to represent the state's interests. Lastly the public was to have no say in the choice of the powerful Chief Executive - electing at a local level only members of the Electoral College who, in turn, selected the President.
We upset that apple-cart with the passage of the 17th Amendment and have paid a high price in terms of demagogic, ineffective, yet at the same time overly-intrusive government ever since.
Jun '10
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
Democracy only works well (or at all) where the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule also work well. If God (as revealed in Judeo-Christian scriptures) doesn't "hold the whip" over society, then government, sooner or later, will put away all the ballot boxes and grab the whip itself. God-like authority will reside somewhere. Ideally, it resides in Heaven, so that it doesn't have to reside down here on earth.
Jun '10
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
The proper maintenance of a republic rests on a foundation of civic virtue. In a nutshell this means the proper balance of personal liberty with personal responsibility. Ideally, the body politic will elect leaders based on their personal integrity, experience, and wisdom. Once the electorate becomes corrupted by easy living without the commensurate labor to make it possible, its members become susceptible to demagoguery. The demagogue knows the mob is merely a tool for the accrual of personal power. He will pander to the vices of a corrupted electorate until he has sufficient power to crush them. The republic falls and is replaced by tyranny. The question now is whether or not the American republic can reclaim its civic virtues. If not, the end is nigh.
Jul '10
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
Some excellent posts here. I'll add that Democracy itself is value-neutral. It's a tool that is only as good or bad as the people using it. An educated, informed electorate making informed decisions is a good use of it. A lynch mob uses it badly. Both are democratic exercises with wildly different outcomes. The problem is not Democracy, the problem is our cultural decline.
"For avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy . . . the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people. I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. Therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God." -Gouverneur Morris
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
None of you are really willing to go as far as to say, "Time to roll back the franchise," are you. Not that this could be done even if someone were willing to say it, but to the extent that he's right, isn't that--at this point--the only imaginable solution?
Aug '11
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
Absolutely. Democracy ain't perfect, but it sure beats the hell out of the alternatives.
I would love to see what would develop from a completely Libertarian society though. My suspicion is that it would work, as long as the vast majority were in favor of giving it a try.
Jun '10
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
I don't know that the demographics of human virtue can be accurately measured or predicted, but basic knowledge could be. I'd kind of like to see a basic knowledge test passed, like the test that people take to become naturalized citizens, but I'm sure that would be judged completely unconstitutional.
Jun '10
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
Limiting the franchise might not have the desired effect per se. The mob remains the mob. It derives its power from the threat of violence. It retains that power whether or not it can vote. Demagogues will still use the mob for their nefarious schemes.
The way to eliminate mob rule is to make sure people have a vested interest in their own lives. You won't find the middle class burning down their neighborhoods like the poor do on a regular basis. Honest labor with commensurate reward is one part of the answer. Idleness and dependency are the incubators of mob rule. As long as we have a dependent class, the threat of riots and other violence will be ongoing. Race only complicates the matter, and demagogues are sure to take advantage.
Oct '11
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
Robert A. Heinlein "Starship Troopers" is a novel published in hardcover in December, 1959, which explored moral and philosophical aspects of suffrage, civic virtue, juvenile delinquency, capital punishment, and war. The rights of a full Citizen (to vote, and hold public office) must be earned through some form of volunteer Federal service. Those residents who have not exercised their right to perform this Federal Service retain the other rights generally associated with a modern democracy (free speech, assembly, etc.), but they cannot vote or hold public office. I read the book in 1961 and found the concept intriguing. Looking back now I see the fatal flaw in his argument is that there is room for much mischief in allowing the federal government to pick winners and losers in any area of society let alone the most vital right to full citizenship. I can't imagine all of the special federal service jobs that would be created, such as AmeriCorps, to ensure the "right" people would earn full citizenship. The better answer is an educated electorate but that won't happen until the government monopoly control of education is broken. There is some movement in that direction.
Nov '11
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
I'm reminded of a conversation I had back in the '90s with an elderly relative of my wife. She was an independent, hard-working lady who worked a full-time job into her late-70s (she lived to be 93). She was politically engaged, kept herself informed of current events, and voted consistently.
Out of the blue one day, she asked me, "You know what the biggest problem with our country is?"
"What?"
"Women have the right to vote. I hate to be hard on my own sex, but we're too emotional to make intelligent decisions."
She then went on claim that Clinton would never have been elected President without a large number of women being politically "seduced" by him. She would have gladly given up her franchise in order to take it away from the rest of the gals.
I'm not saying she was right, but it sure gave me something to think about.
BTW, I agree with the points made above that the main problem in our country is the expansion in the size of government and erosion of federalism.
Jun '10
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
One measure I can put forward that would indicate we might be turning around is what Alan Weick and Herkeybird discuss above -- that of how the senators are elected.
If we could reverse this single thing (the 17th Amendment) then this would indicate we have a chance of turning things around elsewhere. This would not solve everything but it would help both in turning more citizens toward watching how their state is governed and also would make the senate itself better.
This would be a good thing to promote. In the light of day and with full disclosure that this is a baby step and it would be a measure of progress that things are reversing.