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 '11
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
I would not mind seeing ownership of real property as a requirement for the privilege to vote. Absent that, I would not mind seeing a requirement that a voter be a net tax payer (i.e. that more is paid in than is received.)
Both requirements are based on the voter having some of Rob Long's "shin in the game."
The bottom line is that democracies will always become tools of largess as has our Federal and state governments. I cannot think of any way given the current situation to peacefully turn this around.
Jun '10
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
Terry Mott: 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.....
Increasingly, the responsible head of household (formerly the role of the man) is a woman. So, it's not quite as simple or straightforward anymore.
Aug '10
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
Pilli
Both requirements are based on the voter having some of Rob Long's "shin in the game."
Ah. Game must be soccer, then ;-)
Someone recently wrote a post on the Member Feed about restricting franchise to property owners. Maybe I can find it and post a link...
EDIT: Ah, here it is! Byron Horatio on "Rethinking the Right to Vote".
Edited on March 28, 2012 at 4:46pmAug '10
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
etoiledunord
Increasingly, the responsible head of household (formerly the role of the man) is a woman. So, it's not quite as simple or straightforward anymore.
Ah, but you could view that as part of the problem, too. The desperation of many single moms with dependent kids, how tempting it is to turn to Papa Fed for relief, and all that...
I'd be pretty angry about losing the right to vote. But not as angry as I'd get over losing other rights...
Still, I can't picture women's suffrage as anything other than just and inevitable.
Edited on March 28, 2012 at 5:02pmSep '10
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
Frankly, I'm ready to break up. This relationship is not working well, it seems to me. Size is a big problem. So is modernity. So is decadence. Being more libertarian-minded, I'm interested in a government that works by principles, simple principles that can be adequately and fairly policed—see the Florida teen shooting debacle to see how insane this democracy has become: a mash of money, gerrymandering, and identity politics. If this is going to be the future, I'd just as soon live under a coalition government; at least then independents might have some feeling of connection with their government, left and right.
May '10
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
"Rolling back the franchise" to a more Constitutional basis is what we do, it's the very air that we breathe.
But I am afraid we will never get there because of the abject ignorance of the mis-educated populace who immediately recoil at the Constitution because it didn't automatically give women the right to vote and because they have no real knowledge behind the 3/5ths Compromise.
I still see a bifurcation of our future unless one side or the other capitulates. (Knowing our recent history, conservatives are more likely to knuckle to the soft tyranny of socialism.) If we do become two countries - or more likely three with a Constitutional Republic squeezed between to coastal welfare states - it might might finally show liberals the essence of America.
Jul '11
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
Click on the ad. It costs her money. Plus you have the satisfaction of knowing that when the MSM reports on her successful internet campaign that it is just you and a few other malcontents messing with her. Besides I am sure Ricochet gets a piece of the action so in a way you are supporting your own favorite addiction.
Aug '10
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
Pilli
I would not mind seeing ownership of real property as a requirement for the privilege to vote.
If real property means real estate, I can't agree. There are many people with high stakes in this country's future prosperity who choose to rent rather than own -- especially these days!
In fact, as the housing bubble showed us, investing in real estate can be evidence of economic folly rather than prudence.
Pilli
Absent that, I would not mind seeing a requirement that a voter be a net tax payer (i.e. that more is paid in than is received.)
What if... the requirement wasn't that you had to be a net tax payer, but that you weren't allowed to receive any sort of monetary transfer from the government at all?
There's no way I'm suggesting this as a serious proposal -- for one thing, money's hardly the only way the government can benefit a favored group at the expense of the taxpayer. I'm just wondering how many would decide the right to vote was more important that receiving government money?
Apr '11
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
Madness I say. The restricting of responsibilities and duties to a narrow elite will only create social and cultural tensions. Conservatives are mad that having expanded the franchise they find that more people than they had hoped enjoy large governments and demand some form of welfare state. If the only people voting all have fine jobs and a strong social network to support them of course they will see no benefit or need for government welfare.
You can not run a nation on the principles of just what will benefit yourself. If you do so your nation will quickly fracture, and the only way to keep it together then is by force. I may think our welfare state has run too far, in promising things that we can not pay for, and thus is in need of restructuring, but I do not see a viable alternative to what we have.
I ask, is there any modern, prosperous nation that defends its citizens natural rights that does not have full franchise and expansive welfare apparatuses? I can't think of one and maybe that is because it is impossible to have such a state.
Aug '10
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
Here is my variation on the property ownership requirement: Each dollar paid in tax (of all forms, i.e. sales, property, income, etc.) equals one vote to what ever jurisidiction one has paid the tax.
Example: Ten dollars in motor vehicle taxes, plus $100.00 in property taxes plus $100.00 in sales taxes that are paid to the local county equals 210 votes in the county election. Fifty dollars in state income tax plus twenty dollars in state sales tax equals 70 votes in the next state election. One thousand dollars in federal income tax plus 100 dollars in capital gains taxes equals 1100 votes in the next federal election.
Thus, everyone has skin in the game. The franchise is acutally increased and you want to see some high income tax rates come down or, alternatively low income tax rates go up, bet on it!
Jun '10
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
Valiuth: Madness I say. The restricting of responsibilities and duties to a narrow elite will only create social and cultural tensions. Conservatives are mad that having expanded the franchise they find that more people than they had hoped enjoy large governments and demand some form of welfare state. If the only people voting all have fine jobs and a strong social network to support them of course they will see no benefit or need for government welfare.
You can not run a nation on the principles of just what will benefit yourself. If you do so your nation will quickly fracture, and the only way to keep it together then is by force. I may think our welfare state has run too far, in promising things that we can not pay for, and thus is in need of restructuring, but I do not see a viable alternative to what we have.
I ask, is there any modern, prosperous nation that defends its citizens natural rights that does not have full franchise and expansive welfare apparatuses? I can't think of one and maybe that is because it is impossible to have such a state. · 14 minutes ago
Good explanation, Valiuth.
Mar '11
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
In our present surroundings, I limit myself to some musings.
1) The conflict in politics between the competing claims to rule made by wisdom and by popular consent is an old and a permanent one.
2) Casting our minds back for a moment, we recall that in Republics of the distant past, it was commonplace for suffrage to be limited either to a particular class or, even if it was broadly distributed, for votes to be weighted, rather than equal. The voting system of the Roman Republic, for example, comes to mind immediately.
3) The contemporary conception of suffrage--that is: every one can vote, and all votes count equally as one vote--turns, in our tradition, on the truth of claim of human equality made in the Declaration of Independence.
4) We are aware that the Founders built institutional structures to channel, enlarge and refine the opinions of the public such that they looked toward self-interest rightly understood--not merely passing whim. Do these remain fully functional today?
5) In the absence of formal structures that visibly display differences in kind (defective though they will be), can liberty long remain distinct from license?
Jun '11
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
I think a solid first step would be to limit the right to vote to those who still walk the Earth.
Feb '12
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
The old restrictions on the franchise (gender, property) seem very reasonable from a certain point of view. One way of looking at it is that women's suffrage allowed the federal government to expand the tax rolls and push a more progressive agenda. It seems to me that expanding the franchise to women is critical to the progressive agenda in a way that might make us all a bit uncomfortable. If this is true, it wasn't worth it to my mind.
So I'll just ask the question point blank. If you could wipe out the last 100 years of the progressive agenda in exchange for women's suffrage, would you?
Personally I think some trimming to the franchise is called for. For example, those who receive direct maintenance from the government and state employees should be obvious targets, i.e. those who receives direct remuneration from the state at any level willingly forfeits his franchise as a condition of office, employment, or maintenance.
The only problem is its effectively impossible; the government figured out how to bribe someone with another's money for a vote and they won't give that up without a fight.
Jul '11
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
Actually I would prefer to live under a tyranny with me as the tyrant. As of now I have only managed to be tyrannical to myself, to a lesser degree my immediate family and occasionally to coworkers and random strangers. I can’t seem to get anybody else to join my tyranny but have noticed that there seem to be a lot of other tyrants around and am getting fearful that they may try to hedge in on my authority. I think maybe we need to organize all tyrants so we can organize treaties, look out for interest, maybe vote on issues proportional to our tyranny’s size. Wait a minute. Did I just describe a democracy?
May '10
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
Percival and Raycon nailed it.
I would only add that state governments have also grown too large. A single state today has a larger population than all thirteen of the original colonies combined. The more citizens a politician claims to represent, the more absurd the notion that he can and should direct them.
Global history seems to suggest an irregular cycle of peoples being united, by agreement or by force, into one large nation and later dissolving into smaller nations. That was always going to be America's fate. As Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it." He knew that our government, like all governments, is fleeting.
If Americans can now manage to turn back the clock a bit before that expansion and centralization of power begins again, it will be yet another powerful example of American exceptionalism.
Oct '10
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
Claire,
Federalism fixes everything.
The weakness of democracy isn't inherent in the enterprise -- it's entirely due to the scale on which it is being implemented. Surely the author isn't arguing that local school boards have stopped working? Just centralized, big-state democracies, right? Well there you go.
As any government becomes more remote, the citizenry has less stake in the outcome of issues. 24-hour news media certainly keeps voters plugged in to national issues, but it doesn't necessarily make them feel any more empowered. Why should I lose sleep over rules passed by federal agencies? It's not like there's anything I can do about them.
In other words, the less people feel that democracy matters, the less likely it is to "work".
Aug '10
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
Hmm... Do we really want a system of government where paying higher taxes buys more political influence? I think it's healthy for people who pay a lot in taxes to feel like they're getting their pockets picked: the sense of grievance that people naturally feel at forking over a ton of boodle without getting anything special in return is useful for maintaining many voters' interest in restraining Leviathan's appetite.
Many people might find higher taxes a reasonable price to pay for having a larger say in electing a politician who'll funnel government goodies their way at the expense of everyone else. And politicians, ever eager to court the biggest vote, have a strong incentive to reciprocate, to see that their biggest voters get the most goodies at others' expense.
Between the Welfare State for the poor, the expanding entitlements for the middle-class, and the political influence the rich can buy through campaign contributions, we have enough problems with rent-seeking voters as it is.
Edited on March 28, 2012 at 6:09pmJan '11
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
Voting is like property. You don't get to decide because you're smart; you get to decide because it's yours. It belongs to you. You have a right to vote because this country is partly yours.
The unalienable rights that God gave you were gifts. You didn't earn them. But that also means that you don't have to justify having them. They're yours. No justification necessary.
Democracy isn't a political system that we chose because the citizenry is really noble and intelligent, and would likely produce smarter results. Democracy may or may not produce smart decisions - but being smart isn't the point. The premise of democracy is that whatever decision they make, the decision belongs to the people in the first place - even if they're idiots.
Strategically, democracy's advantage is that if the people decide on something, they're more likely to buy into it. The collective decisions will have more support, and therefore more chance for success - but that doesn't guarantee anything. The decisions may still be stupid.
Jun '10
Re: Is Democracy a Good Idea, After All?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Pilli
I would not mind seeing ownership of real property as a requirement for the privilege to vote.
If real property means real estate, I can't agree. There are many people with high stakes in this country's future prosperity who choose to rent rather than own -- especially these days!
This might actually have the opposite effect you'd expect.
The resident's of Charles Murry's Belmont own real estate - and tend to vote liberal. The residents of Fishtown increasingly vote conservative, the "What's the Matter with Kansas?" phenomenon. Just look here on Ricochet where those of us with low scores on the "how big is your bubble" quiz are suspected of being RINOs.
My point: if you restricted the franchise to real estate owners or higher income brackets, the evidence suggests we'd get more liberalism and a larger welfare state.