Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely
— Lord Acton
In March, 2012 I wrote a short post called Democracies Always Fail. It started off like this—
Many Americans believe they live in a democracy. They don't. Yes, there are names on the ballot, campaigns are waged, votes are cast, and the winners serve their terms in Washington. But some votes count more than others. Way more. Those who vote with their checkbooks have far more sway than those who do nothing but push buttons or pull levers in a voting booth. The further you move away from the "one person, one vote" principle, the less of a democracy you have. Here in America we've moved a vast distance away from this ideal principle. That is especially evident this year now that we live in the Age of the Superpacs after the Citizens United decision.
Democracies always fail, I wrote, because power corrupts and voter incompetence (ignorance) permits the worst sort of people to win—those most susceptible to the allures of money and power. That's exactly what we see in Washington, D.C. today. We will hear about this IRS/Tea Party scandal for months and months to come because the Republicans keeping it alive are interesting in accumulating power, not governance. Meanwhile, Democrats wonder why Obama has not been responsive to the needs of the American people. American politicians serve the elites who make their election possible.
Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne appears to address these issues in Is Democracy In Trouble? Given the self-evident failure of democracy in the United States, you might think that Dionne would be worried about America taking the next step whereby even the pretence that we live in a democracy is dropped by our monied elites and political leaders.
Sadly, Dionne can not even get to first base.
We know American politics are dysfunctional. But after a week of scandal obsession during which the nation's capital and the media virtually ignored the problems most voters care about — jobs, incomes, growth, opportunity, education — it's worth asking if there is something especially flawed about our democracy.
Worth asking?
Our circumstances certainly have their own particular disabilities: a radicalization of conservative politics, over-the-top mistrust of President Obama on the right, high-tech gerrymandering in the House, and a Senate snarled by non-constitutional super-majority requirements.
Still, while it may not be much of a comfort, the democratic distemper is not a peculiarly American phenomenon. Across most of the democratic world, there is an impatience bordering on exhaustion with electoral systems and political classes.
Citizen dissatisfaction is hardly surprising in the wake of a deeply damaging economic downturn. That doesn't make the challenge any less daunting. We should consider whether democracy itself is in danger of being discredited.
Politicians might usefully disentangle themselves from their day-to-day power struggles long enough to take seriously their responsibility to a noble idea and the systems that undergird it.
Is our democracy in trouble? Before you start laughing, or stop reading out of overwhelming disgust—is the Pope Catholic? Does a bear shit in the woods?—you might consider what's going on here. In my original post, I wrote—
In the media it is totally unacceptable to call a spade a spade and admit we don't live in a democracy. It is taboo, verboten. When a subject is taboo, that's always a strong indicator that deep psychological forces (i.e. basic instincts or defense mechanisms) are in play.
A few people can come to grips with abject failure, but only if those people do not benefit from the lie which covers it up. As a Washington Post columnist, E.J. Dionne obviously benefits from the pretence that Americans live in a democracy, so he is not capable of admitting that we don't. But the lie is fragile. To maintain it, you must constantly look the other way if you're not as blind as a bat. What can Dionne do with the unconscious psychological tension (anxiety) created by maintaining that lie?
The common solution for people whose self-interest is at stake—we see this everywhere—is to ask the question rather than jump to the obvious conclusion. Thus Dionne asks his readers to consider whether democracy itself is in danger of being discredited.
Amazing. In danger of being discredited. I wonder how long it took E.J. to come up with that astonishing turn of phrase. Another common tactic is to shift the burden of the dangerous argument onto others who might appear to be more authoritative. E.J. uses this one, too.
It's not hard to discover that this conundrum is global and not just our own. "Has democracy had its day?" is the headline on Columbia University historian Mark Mazower's cover story in the May issue of Prospect, a British magazine. The subhead: "Electoral politics has had a bad decade."
Earlier this month, the Transatlantic Academy, a global partnership of think tanks led by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, issued "The Democratic Disconnect," a sober report by a group of distinguished academics.
I haven't read these reports, nor will I. Dionne notes, as do these reports, apparently, that democracy may be "in trouble" not only in the United States, but in other places all over the world. I briefly discussed the failure of democracy in Europe in my original post.
As to our title question, it behooves you to remember that great wealth and income inequality exists everywhere on Earth, not just in the United States. The unfettered accumulation of great wealth and power dooms democracies to failure. Often that wealth and power is associated with the "geniuses" of global finance.
As for E.J. Dionne, he has what Mark Twain called corn-pone opinions, not just about democracy itself being in danger of being discredited—a wonderfully crafted phrase!—but everything else as well.
FIFTY YEARS AGO, when I was a boy of fifteen and helping to inhabit a Missourian village on the banks of the Mississippi, I had a friend whose society was very dear to me because I was forbidden by my mother to partake of it. He was a gay and impudent and satirical and delightful young black man -a slave -who daily preached sermons from the top of his master's woodpile, with me for sole audience...
One of his texts was this:
"You tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I'll tell you what his 'pinions is."
I can never forget it. It was deeply impressed upon me... The black philosopher's idea was that a man is not independent, and cannot afford views which might interfere with his bread and butter.
If he would prosper, he must train with the majority; in matters of large moment, like politics and religion, he must think and feel with the bulk of his neighbors, or suffer damage in his social standing and in his business prosperities. He must restrict himself to corn-pone opinions — at least on the surface. He must get his opinions from other people; he must reason out none for himself; he must have no first-hand views...
Once you understand corn-pone opinions, you will see them everywhere you look.
And on Twain's splendid observation, I will conclude this post.
I always read at least a few of the comments below mainstream news articles. I rarely post on those sites, because what's the point. The few reader comments that aren't vicious or likely mercenary invariably display a complete lack of understanding of how government works.
The MM understands its audience and plays to their level of understanding. It initiates, nurtures, and strengthens the illusions our society holds in doing so. Occsionally there is a bit of worthwhile info in the MM, but these are the exceptions to the rule.
It's hard to say how much the more thoughtful members of the media intentionally filter out information or opinion that they know will affect their paycheck. Undoubtedly it happens a lot.
On democracy, I do believe such a thing is possible. We don't have it now, and it's questionable if we ever really had it (I think the U.S. has occasional bursts of true democracy, but again these are the exceptions to the rule.) The only real way democracy can flourish is with unbiased education (instead of indoctrination). We're so indoctrinated today (it's all but impossible to escape it) that real democracy cannot hope to exist, and one of the greatest culprits in this theft is the MM.
Do journalists not understand this? I don't see how it's possible, but it must be so. Do they just not allow themselves to ask deeper questions because they know it will affect their daily bread? Twain (and that's a great quote from him) suggests so. It's such a great tragedy, the human condition.
Posted by: Jim | 05/21/2013 at 01:39 PM