The subject of "democracy" appears to be quite a contentious topic lately. Some people are noticeably worried that democracy in the United States is under threat and could be done away with if the Trumpists get their way. There are concerns that some people are actively trying to undermine faith in democracy, and those of us who never had that much faith in democracy to begin with are also being attacked, presumably due to our lack of faith.
Then there are those who say that America was never really a true democracy, but a republic and a representative (indirect) democracy. It's seen as a good thing - a hedge against mob rule or a tyranny of the majority, which can be a potential hazard in a democratic society. It's part of the reason why we have an Electoral College and why the voters aren't allowed to directly elect Supreme Court justices or other federal judgeships.
Of course, there may have been sensible, practical reasons for including such barriers. However, in doing so, does this mean that the statement that the U.S. is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is inaccurate? Is it just so much bunkum for the masses, or does it actually have meaning?
Is democracy characterized simply by the process of people going to the polls and casting ballots? They also cast ballots in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, which are commonly viewed as anti-democratic, yet they still had voting on a superficial level. It may have been rigged, but how could anyone among the common people be able to know this or be able to prove it? If you lived in a rigged democracy, how would you know?
In our political culture, I notice somewhat conflicting ideas get tossed about, such as when people say "we the people are the government" implying that when the government does something bad, it's our fault, as we the people voted them in. But then there are other times when the government is presented as something separate and distinct from the common citizen.
This is especially true in matters of law enforcement, military, national security, and other sensitive areas which deal with direct control over the apparatus of the state. If there's some state secret that only a privileged few in the government are allowed to know, then it's rather difficult for "the people" to lead the nation when they're denied information. How does that notion fit in to common perceptions of "democracy"? Open communication and reliable information are vital to a healthy democracy, but how can we really be "democratic" when our government maintains a culture of hyper-secrecy and a wanton lack of transparency?
There are also the ways and means of democracy which might be called into question, such as registration requirements, voter ID, not enough polling places, long lines, etc. The role of mass media in conveying information to the voters which can be easily used to manipulate and manufacture public opinion, which can also taint elections. The role of social media and "troll farms" has also been called into question as having an undue influence over the flow of information and open communication, which can also influence voters. Very often, one might hear people question the intelligence and gullibility of the voting public, with some people even cynically referring to the voters as "sheeple."
But if too many people are really that gullible and easily led, what does that say about "democracy" as an effective form of government? Is it just like Churchill said, the worst form of government except for all the other forms of government? Is this as good as it gets?
Are there ways of expanding democracy and giving the people more direct control? For example, the Supreme Court has been under fire lately. Was it a good idea to make such important government posts to be unelected? In some state and local jurisdictions, they do elect the judges.
In my state, the people get to elect various other state posts, such as secretary of state, attorney general, superintendent of public instruction, corporation commission members, and even state mine inspector. Why don't we get to do that at the federal level? Why can't we elect the FCC members directly, or the Federal Reserve, for that matter? What about the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, CIA Director, etc.? Why don't we get to elect them, just we elect our county sheriff?
As it is, we have many people in high government posts, with their hands directly controlling the apparatus of the state, who are unelected and largely unaccountable to the people. Theoretically, there's supposedly some measure of oversight from elected officials, along with a system of checks and balances. And the fact that many of these important governmental posts are unelected can be seen as yet another buffer and a check against direct control by the people, since "the people" can be seen as unpredictable - fears of mob rule, which is a valid fear in these times.
I do realize that democracy has been viewed as a cornerstone in our society and considered one of the greater virtues of America, the land of the free and the home of the brave. Undermining faith in democracy is perceived by some as a dangerous and possibly grave threat to the American political system and the very fabric of democracy itself.
When I look at the overall narrative and the opinions of others on this topic, I tend to see most people looking at this more on a superficial and formalist level, without wanting to dig much into the details or the nuts and bolts of how things actually operate in this country and what it looks like from street level.
I'm not trying to start a fight with anyone, but this is more of a plea for understanding. For those out there reading this, in your opinion, just what in the heck is going on in America these days? What are your thoughts on our history, where we've been, how we got to this point, and where do we go from here?
Just for those who like to speculate: In 100-200 years, how will historians look back on this era?
Then there are those who say that America was never really a true democracy, but a republic and a representative (indirect) democracy. It's seen as a good thing - a hedge against mob rule or a tyranny of the majority, which can be a potential hazard in a democratic society. It's part of the reason why we have an Electoral College and why the voters aren't allowed to directly elect Supreme Court justices or other federal judgeships.
Of course, there may have been sensible, practical reasons for including such barriers. However, in doing so, does this mean that the statement that the U.S. is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is inaccurate? Is it just so much bunkum for the masses, or does it actually have meaning?
Is democracy characterized simply by the process of people going to the polls and casting ballots? They also cast ballots in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, which are commonly viewed as anti-democratic, yet they still had voting on a superficial level. It may have been rigged, but how could anyone among the common people be able to know this or be able to prove it? If you lived in a rigged democracy, how would you know?
In our political culture, I notice somewhat conflicting ideas get tossed about, such as when people say "we the people are the government" implying that when the government does something bad, it's our fault, as we the people voted them in. But then there are other times when the government is presented as something separate and distinct from the common citizen.
This is especially true in matters of law enforcement, military, national security, and other sensitive areas which deal with direct control over the apparatus of the state. If there's some state secret that only a privileged few in the government are allowed to know, then it's rather difficult for "the people" to lead the nation when they're denied information. How does that notion fit in to common perceptions of "democracy"? Open communication and reliable information are vital to a healthy democracy, but how can we really be "democratic" when our government maintains a culture of hyper-secrecy and a wanton lack of transparency?
There are also the ways and means of democracy which might be called into question, such as registration requirements, voter ID, not enough polling places, long lines, etc. The role of mass media in conveying information to the voters which can be easily used to manipulate and manufacture public opinion, which can also taint elections. The role of social media and "troll farms" has also been called into question as having an undue influence over the flow of information and open communication, which can also influence voters. Very often, one might hear people question the intelligence and gullibility of the voting public, with some people even cynically referring to the voters as "sheeple."
But if too many people are really that gullible and easily led, what does that say about "democracy" as an effective form of government? Is it just like Churchill said, the worst form of government except for all the other forms of government? Is this as good as it gets?
Are there ways of expanding democracy and giving the people more direct control? For example, the Supreme Court has been under fire lately. Was it a good idea to make such important government posts to be unelected? In some state and local jurisdictions, they do elect the judges.
In my state, the people get to elect various other state posts, such as secretary of state, attorney general, superintendent of public instruction, corporation commission members, and even state mine inspector. Why don't we get to do that at the federal level? Why can't we elect the FCC members directly, or the Federal Reserve, for that matter? What about the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, CIA Director, etc.? Why don't we get to elect them, just we elect our county sheriff?
As it is, we have many people in high government posts, with their hands directly controlling the apparatus of the state, who are unelected and largely unaccountable to the people. Theoretically, there's supposedly some measure of oversight from elected officials, along with a system of checks and balances. And the fact that many of these important governmental posts are unelected can be seen as yet another buffer and a check against direct control by the people, since "the people" can be seen as unpredictable - fears of mob rule, which is a valid fear in these times.
I do realize that democracy has been viewed as a cornerstone in our society and considered one of the greater virtues of America, the land of the free and the home of the brave. Undermining faith in democracy is perceived by some as a dangerous and possibly grave threat to the American political system and the very fabric of democracy itself.
When I look at the overall narrative and the opinions of others on this topic, I tend to see most people looking at this more on a superficial and formalist level, without wanting to dig much into the details or the nuts and bolts of how things actually operate in this country and what it looks like from street level.
I'm not trying to start a fight with anyone, but this is more of a plea for understanding. For those out there reading this, in your opinion, just what in the heck is going on in America these days? What are your thoughts on our history, where we've been, how we got to this point, and where do we go from here?
Just for those who like to speculate: In 100-200 years, how will historians look back on this era?