The first form is centralism, illustrated by the noble-minded and self-sacrificing Soviet Politburo, which in its great benevolence assumed the task of ruling "for the people" (hence the justification for calling it "democracy"). In theory, a small cadre working scrupulously for the best interests of the masses could form an idyllic government: the government does the stuff that people can't do for themselves, working for the benefit of everyone, and the rest of the citizenry can get on with their lives. In practice, however, a government ruled by a few people tends to claim to be advancing the good of the many, really work for its own interests, and silence any complainers. This is the approach the Politburo chose, and by deciding what the people's best interests were, namely, gulags, bread lines, and horrendous toilet paper, the pesky problems of listening to and acting on what the people actually wanted were eliminated. (In addition to many of the people; it was explained that their hardworking comrades needed to live in the style of the fat capitalist pigs because of their diligence in preventing said porkers from taking over the Worker's Paradise, and that anyone who disagreed with their great wisdom would be exiled, tortured, shot, or have their vodka confiscated. Or all four.) In general, centralist democracy is very popular among the nomenklentura, but not exactly responsive to public interest.
Having neatly discredited the first of Wilson's three forms of democracy, we move on to the second: pure, unblemished, 100% natural, no artificial pesticides or dyes added, Aristotelian democracy. This is government "by the people" at its most direct, wherein everybody participates, decides what their interests are, and debates over how best to serve them. The advantage of direct democracy, of course, is that the people decide what to do on issues affecting them personally, as opposed to some career politician who drove through their town once, and on a local scale it can be quite effective. On a larger scale, though, direct democracy is simply unworkable, even though current technology such as internet discussion forums could help with some of the prohibitive logistical considerations. There still remains the lemming principle: the simple agreement of a majority of people (who have the right to formulate policies and hold firm opinions without knowing anything at all about the issues under discussion) on a course of action does not magically make it right. Also, government proceeds at a slow enough pace when presided over by several hundred individuals; a decision chain involving a quarter billion, even allowing for current apathy levels, would make it nearly impossible even if the government stuck to only the most essential functions. Public interest means allowing the people to voice their needs, but it is also equally vital to know how to meet them and then to actually working towards it. Here is where too many uninformed people debating overlong hinders effective government. Direct democracy serves the interests of small political entities like New England towns (the ubiquitous textbook example) and local governments would do well do adopt as much citizen control of government as is practical, but taking it to extremes (say, every US citizen votes on every federal course of action, from tax cuts to declaring salsa a vegetable to the decision to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan) would soon cause chaos.
Plus there has to be a better use for all that human effort than deeply involving it in government.
And now we come to the third form of democracy, namely, the type that the United States has, and which by virtue of that alone is portrayed as the best of all possible democracies (in this best of all possible nations, of course). Representative democracy is "of the people", an attempt to address the flaws of direct democracy. Again, there is a wonderful theory behind it. (And just how many governments have been undertaken without a wonderful theory behind them?) Rather than involve all quarter billion Americans directly in everyday government, the citizens democratically elect representatives who share their same basic political ideas and let these worry about how to reform welfare or when to place National Spork Appreciation Month, while said citizens busy themselves with reruns of I Love Lucy. But of course, there are critical flaws in this form of democracy also, the most widely acknowledged of these being that said representatives are often more concerned with reelection than with actually representing their constituents. Elections cost money, and politicians who want to win many of them quickly make friends with wealthy donors, who naturally expect something in return for their largess... meaning that pursuit of what's best for the public often translates into what's best for Senator Bob and his twelve wealthiest constituents. Further, since the closest most citizens are involved in government is by choosing between different representatives, there is a tendency for the citizens to get mentally lazy ("Candidate Jones is from Texas and has children, just like me! I'll vote for him.") and for candidates to reduce important issues to thirty second buzzword-laden sound bites, rather than take the time to explain the issues in at least some depth. And since representative democracy works on a majority rule, there will always be a substantial minority that feels unrepresented and ignored by the government.
So what is the best form of democracy, at least as far as public interest is concerned? Centralist democracy tends to be merely another word for oligarchy and dictatorship, only with more hypocrisy, while Aristotelian democracy on a large scale results in much wasted time and human potential; too many individuals involved in decision making can be just as bad as too few. This leaves us with representative democracy and representative democracy as it is currently implemented has a tendency to concentrate too much on constantly acquiring and maintaining political power and not enough on using it. However, most of the above complaints have been about the practical application of it and not the theory; since direct democracy is too unwieldy and inefficient, the only logical way to keep as close as possible to the principles of democracy while still serving that intangible but all-important quality of public interest is to use some form of popularly chosen representation. The constant reelection problem, for example, could be addressed by limiting everyone to a single, longer term (say 8 years); or, if the resulting turnover in government would be too severe, by creating a national election committee that would allocate a set amount of campaign money to each candidate (regardless of party, yet another political institution that encourages mental laziness) who garners a certain number of signatures on a petition, and also promulgate accurate information about each candidate detailing their policies. A representative democracy would serve the public interest best only if it is neither too unwieldy nor too powerful, neither unresponsive to the public nor crippled by the need to heed too many opinions, and if both the elected representatives remember their purpose, namely to act for their constituents and not their own advancement, and the citizens remember theirs, namely to keep themselves informed and not vote out of ignorance or blind party loyalty. Of course, such a government is probably not all that likely, since it forgets the origins of the word "democracy" itself, rule by the people; and people have a notorious tendency to be selfish, obdurate, and prone to distraction, but it's the best people can offer.
And now we will move on to our second topic, political culture, and at this time I would like to take the opportunity to mention that we should be kind to bacteria, because it's the only culture some people have.
Are you laughing? Was it funny? Or were you saying, you know, this obnoxious student is as snotty and irrelevantly irreverent as her brother was? Plus I've heard that joke a thousand times before? Well, if you were, then, as the French say, tant pis. You ask for four pages of impish intellectual exercise, you'll get four pages of impish intellectual exercise.
Influences on American political culture, in (highly subjective) order of importance:
A Preoccupation with Rights.American politics has always centered around rights. Americans are far more concerned with getting what they deserve (or feel they do) then with the responsibilities that enjoying such rights bring. Having been the dominant world power and the richest nation in the world hasn't helped cure their egoism either. This is why, for example, the NRA is still going strong: Americans have a right to bear arms, and they will do everything possible to preserve that right. The flip side of right, namely duty, is still important but far less emphasized.
Rugged Individualism; or, the Government's Out to Get Me. This is also an important source of political culture, tying in closely with rights. For fear that the independent American would become dependent on the government and thus lose a portion of his freedom, programs such as welfare have long been resisted. Americans also distrust governments and other forms of authority, fearing that such will become a threat to their independence. In fact, in a country where people place great stock on self-sufficiency and independence, it is somewhat incredible that rule by committee and group mentality has caught on as much as it has. Then again, not everyone has the much touted work ethic either...
Religious and Ethnic Diversity (which, according to our ESLRs, we will endeavor to identify the positive aspects of) There are hundreds of mainstream religions, two major and a score of minor political parties, hundreds of different ethnic groups, and innumerable conflicting belief systems. This has several effects: Americans tend not think of themselves in terms of economic classes; most learn to tolerate diversity and to treat others as equals, but a core minority rebels against the intruders threatening their worldview; and many react by adopting a morally relative, nobody's right or wrong, just different attitude.
Protestant work ethic. Closely related to individualism and rights, in that if you work hard you will be dependent on nobody and will preserve your own rights. Formerly, this might have ranked higher, but with the advent of remote controls and mechanical can openers it can hardly be claimed that a strong work ethic prevails. Interestingly enough, its absence is also an important source of political culture: much of the turmoil and divisions in the nation (over welfare, for example) are caused by those with a strong Protestant work ethic scorning those without, and flailing the government for propping up lazy wimps who can't support their existence.
The Egalitarian Family. Contributes to a casual attitude toward authority, to wit, we don' need none. This contributes to the value placed on equality, but it is placed lower on the list due to the overriding value placed on rights. Often, Americans take the "everyone is equal, but some (namely us) are more equal than others...
Thirty-Minute Pizza Delivery. Encapsulates the driving political ideals: we have a right to hot, quick pizza, and we demand that you be held accountable for failing to work hard enough to get it here. And that's about as far as I can stretch the pizza analogy.
And now, we arrive at yet another important source of American culture: tha-tha-tha-that's all, folks!
| Last Modified on |