Having the Body of Democracy, but Not Its Soul

[_ajax18]

The real authoritarianism I see being achieved is by liberals. Try being a conservative on a college campus

[_Jersey Girl]

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?

No, it does not count as civil debate.

When I wrote the following:

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.

I mentioned "what rolls across my screen on a daily basis". I didn't distinguish between a forum such as this and more formal commentary. My words above are not unlike those of moksha, who wrote:

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.

There, he mentions "public discourse that occurs" and made no distinction as I mentioned above. This forum qualifies as both "what rolls across my screen on a daily basis" and "public discourse".

It's no secret that many or most of us believe that Trump has influenced the increasing corrosive nature of verbal and behavorial expressions that we are seeing today. The post you copied, Ajax18, is evidence of that. It reduces us as much as Trump's public comments reduce us as people, and our ability to function as a democracy.

honor identifies the political ramifications of vilifying the opposition in his comment below:

The complete lack of respect, even vilifying of the opposition, has put sand in the gears of the machinery of democracy.

In my own definition that I described above, I wrote about personal condemnation. In my mind, that is the difference between attacking one's position without attacking the person themselves.

It's not hard to do.

[_Brackite]

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.

There are a few things wrong in this paragraph.

1. It was the Electoral College that elected Trump. Trump was not the people's choice. Trump lost the nationwide popular vote by about 2.9 million votes.

2. The Republicans now run the Department of Justice. Both Rosenstein and Sessions are Republicans. There is absolutely no evidence of a deep state within the Department of Justice.

[_ajax18]

The Republicans now run the Department of Justice. Both Rosenstein and Sessions are Republicans. There is absolutely no evidence of a deep state within the Department of Justice.

Really, then who is doing the leaking?

[_Some Schmo]

The term "deep state" is a case study in mass delusion, and how eager certain people are to believe outrageous crap.

That term is relatively new in public consciousness, and yet there's a demographic of people who are convinced it exists in the backrooms of government institutions, even though they just heard of it recently.

I've stopped being surprised by people's gullibility and started wondering how the few people who aren't gullible maintain their incredulity. They must be the ones who detest going along with the crowd. People are simply dumber in groups.

[_Some Schmo]

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?

Do you even know what the word "debate" means?

[_Some Schmo]

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.

I don't think the discourse has to be antiseptic in order for a country to function as a democracy. In fact, I think the opposite. Democracies are messy. Everyone has diverse points of view.

Frankly, if we want to identify the sand in the gears, we should be looking at our inability to agree on what the facts are rather than focusing on the people getting bent out of shape over what they consider to be personal insults. It seems to me that assessing reality is far more important than individual hurt feelings.

[_honorentheos]

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.

I don't think the discourse has to be antiseptic in order for a country to function as a democracy. In fact, I think the opposite. Democracies are messy. Everyone has diverse points of view.

Frankly, if we want to identify the sand in the gears, we should be looking at our inability to agree on what the facts are rather than focusing on the people getting bent out of shape over what they consider to be personal insults. It seems to me that assessing reality is far more important than individual hurt feelings.

I also agree with this, Schmo. Lest we forget, the third vice-president of the US shot and killed the Secretary of the Treasury in a duel during our nation's infancy. The founding fathers did not have a shared vision for the nation and could be quite scathing in their critiques of other points of view. And frankly I agree with Robert Greene's comment in the book The 48 Laws of Power that anyone saying we all should step back and play nice with one another is almost certainly doing so as a power play. Especially the way Jersey Girl did it in this thread. I mean, we've all posted here for a while. We know what's what.

But beyond specifics of how it may get expressed here, there is something that is damaging going on in American politics these days that has moved past disagreement. I would characterize it as: 1) a growing disregard for the value of opposing opinions, 2) a degree of disrespect that borders on dehumanizing those who do hold opposing political views, and 3) a disregard for the importance of preserving the mechanics of democracy that make oppositional input in government possible. Point 3 is most concerning to me as it starts to kill the body of democracy. But's it's only possible when we allow the soul to die.

[_Some Schmo]

But beyond specifics of how it may get expressed here, there is something that is damaging going on in American politics these days that has moved past disagreement. I would characterize it as: 1) a growing disregard for the value of opposing opinions, 2) a degree of disrespect that borders on dehumanizing those who do hold opposing political views, and 3) a disregard for the importance of preserving the mechanics of democracy that make oppositional input in government possible. Point 3 is most concerning to me as it starts to kill the body of democracy. But's it's only possible when we allow the soul to die.

I certainly agree that the things you've outlined aren't necessarily helpful, but I think all of them are undercut in the quest for reality. Reality favors those who embrace it most forcefully. Few people survive by just ignoring their cancer, for instance.

In reality, people tend to benefit from considering diverse views. As we get to know our political opponents, they become more human to us. And as we see our society begin to degrade because one party is making all the decisions, there is natural blow-back.

I think everything you're talking about is symptomatic of a general lack of motivation to find out what's real at all costs. Until that becomes the primary goal, societal progress will continue at its snail's pace, and democracy will always be threatened. We can't fix a reality we don't agree exists, let alone the content of that reality.

[_honorentheos]

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.

I actually really appreciate this comment, ajax, because it gets at the heart of the question in the OP. If democracy can be reduced to merely saying that whomever wins the latest election is free to enact whatever laws or actions they choose however they choose to do so, then what was the purpose of establishing a Constitution that framed the powers of government as requiring checks and balances? That sought to organize the powers among competing parties whose very self-interest were recognized as being both a threat if left unchecked but as a tool if pitted against other branches of government or between populous and rural states? As Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes." Why would the founders have envisioned such a volatile and chaotic system?

I'd like to offer up a different definition for democracy, ajax. One that isn't about how we govern, but why. It is of course cliché to point out we aren't actually a democracy in terms of governing, but rather a Republic with elected representatives. But that doesn't really get at much as far as discussion goes.

Going back to the contrast between the aristocracies of Europe prevalent at the founding of the nation, Tocqueville noted that it was the general equality of the citizens of the US with much more available access to the means of self-improvement that seemed to make the American experiment possible. Think about that for a moment. In the aristocratic societies of Europe, evolved from the feudalism of the middle ages, where and to whom one was born was the single most important influence on ones life. Access to education was an accident of ones birth. Whether one would spend ones days laboring or have time for other pursuits had little to do with ones talents or interests, and everything to do with which social class one inherited by birth. The roads one traveled on that made commerce possible were the King's roads; the ships, the Queen's ships. The land was the King's land, the grace of God always bestowed first upon the head of the sovereign. And there was little on could do about ones fate once it was established at birth.

It's against this backdrop that we need to define democracy, or what it means for something or someone to be small "d" democratic. Democracy in this sense refers to a commitment to universal rights, such as those of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It demands that the democratic society is one built on merits and effort rather than inheritance and birthright. It protects and manages public lands, roads, schools, libraries, infrastructure, and the other tools necessary to facilitate the exercise of those rights and recognizes value in doing so comes from the opportunities it creates. The forward march of liberal western democracy over the last few centuries has been one of fighting to be more and more true to the claim we DO believe these rights are universal and should be treated as such. We've struggled with our own failings in this regard as a nation and continue to do so today.

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.

To have meaning, populism requires elites or some upper-class for contrast. And in a certain sense I'd also agree that the concept at it's heart is vital to democracy. But the term also generally includes reference to another form of tyranny, that of the majority. And popular vote, popular views can be a threat to the values and commitment to universal rights as described above. Tocqueville used the story of a Baltimore printing press that reported negatively on the the War of 1812 that was destroyed by an angry mob, who stormed a jail and killed at least one journalist as an example of how dangerous this tyranny can be lest we get rosy eyed about the wisdom of the crowd. I'd guess you're not a Lincoln fan, but in his great quote there is acknowledgment that all the people can be fooled some of the time, and some of the people can be fooled all of the time. It's optimism in the institutions of democracy that makes the fact one can't fool all of the people all of the time have any meaning.

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.

This idea of there being a "deep state" is just a euphemism for trying to murder the mechanisms of democracy that serve as the checks and balances specifically created to protect the governed from the whim and tyranny possible by a bad leader or overheated emotions overriding the Nation's better judgment. It's not too strong of a statement to call it an attack on America by an insidious and manipulative elite who want to erode the kind of democracy that is concerned with universal rights, protection and management of public goods and services necessary to hold back the forces that compel human beings into class systems, and would love nothing more than to make all the roads their roads, all the ships their ships once again.