Having the Body of Democracy, but Not Its Soul

[_honorentheos]

I heard this phrase I used in the title today while listening to a debate on whether or not liberal western democracy is threatened by the rise of populism. I love what it conveys and the questions it causes one to consider.

To me, the phrase divides the institutions of western liberal democracy from the underlying values, and asserts that the political structures put in place by the Constitutional can continue independent from the principles that served as scaffolding in their creation. We all know people drape themselves in nationalism and the Constitution while asserting views that seem to have much more in common with authoritarian regimes than those espouses by Madison, Jefferson, and other architects of U.S.-style democracy.

But I wonder: what defines the soul of democracy? My personal view of this is derived from an observation of Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America that contrasted it with the aristocratic orders of Europe. But before sharing that I was curious what others thought.

[_Some Schmo]

But I wonder: what defines the soul of democracy?

It's a society where people enthusiastically participate in and fight for democracy. I consider democracy to be as self-fulfilling as people want it. Its soul is the motivating source of democracy itself, because it doesn't work when people aren't invested.

[_honorentheos]

But I wonder: what defines the soul of democracy?

It's a society where people enthusiastically participate in and fight for democracy. I consider democracy to be as self-fulfilling as people want it. Its soul is the motivating source of democracy itself, because it doesn't work when people aren't invested.

Hi Schmo -

I absolutely agree that democracy requires a form of vitality to survive, and this can't be overlooked. I'm still curious what you and others think are the underlying concepts that are the focus of this motivation that can define what we mean when we refer to democracy.

[_moksha]

Seems like the transition from a functioning democracy to a dysfunctioning democracy to non-democracy can be seen in the degree of incivility in public discourse that occurs.

[_Jersey Girl]

But I wonder: what defines the soul of democracy?

The ability to engage in robust debate where each person has the right to freely and passionately voice their opinion and express their view without fear of personal condemnation.

We've completely lost it.

I could add to the definition but in light of what rolls across my screen on a daily basis these days, that's what comes immediately to mind.

Because we've completely lost it.

[_Some Schmo]

The ability to engage in robust debate where each person has the right to freely and passionately voice their opinion and express their view without fear of personal condemnation.

This is an impossible ideal. You're talking about free speech for some but not for others. What you're calling "personal condemnation" others would call their free speech.

Your definition is not democracy.

[_honorentheos]

The ability to engage in robust debate where each person has the right to freely and passionately voice their opinion and express their view without fear of personal condemnation.

This is an impossible ideal. You're talking about free speech for some but not for others. What you're calling "personal condemnation" others would call their free speech.

Your definition is not democracy.

Hi Schmo and Jersey Girl,

I completely agree with putting a commitment to freedom of expression and a free press at the top of necessary commitments a society must hold as vital to be a true, functioning democracy. And I think you are right that it's necessary in such a society to give allowances for personal condemnation for holding views others oppose. Accountability often comes in the form of personal reproach, in my opinion.

I do have some sympathy for what Jersey Girl's comment gets at in that the march to dysfunction in our government over the last few decades involves something deeper than strong disagreement. The complete lack of respect, even vilifying of the opposition, has put sand in the gears of the machinery of democracy. And it seems to be getting worse, such as when the Republican-lead Senate refused to hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland to become a Supreme Court Justice in the name of wanting to tie the seat to a relatively distant Presidential election. Every move we've seen over the last few decades seems to be in the direction of destruction rather than reaffirming the belief in the value of a loyal opposition party.

[_ajax18]

I wish he would die the slow painful death he deserves. He is human poison and has forfeited his right to compassion or life.

Does this count as civil debate in your view Honorentheos?

[_honorentheos]

I wish he would die the slow painful death he deserves. He is human poison and has forfeited his right to compassion or life.

Does this count as civil debate in your view Honorentheos?

The thread isn't specifically about civil debate or color commentary made on the internet.

I would be interested in your thoughts on the OP, though.

[_ajax18]

I would be interested in your thoughts on the opening post, though.

I don't understand what the difference is between populism and democracy. Democracy means rule by the people or the majority. It doesn't mean that when you find yourself in the minority and disagree with the majority opinion that democracy is now defined as authoritarianism.

Economic nationalism is a stark contrast to just being citizens of the world. It means that in a small way the USA actually belongs to its citizens not just all human beings around the world. These citizens can in fact vote for laws that are in their best intertest regardless of what the will of the elite establishment aristocrats of Washington might be. This power of the people had been lost until the anti establishment campaign of DJT retook first the Republican party and then the presidency as well in 2016. Populism is the soul of democracy, not what is destroying it.

But the will of the people may be short lived. The deep state (Dept. of Justice and other people loyal to Obama and the establishment) still seeks to find a way to overturn the results of the democratically elected presidential candidate. That's not the soul of democracy. That's the soul of a ruling elite trying to hang on to power against the will of the people.