I'm a purist. The hoops that need to be jumped through to sell politicians and consumer goods offend me.
I'm also a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ and sages of all religions who agree on treating one's neighbor as we want to be treated. At first I discounted Marianne Williamson running for president because I assumed the worst of the majority of voters. But now I think it may be a good thing to have an inclusive Sunday sermon that isn't just Christian fundamentalist.
Maybe we can transcend that old instinct just to live and propagate and get one-up on our neighbor and change this oligarchy into a democracy.
10
Mythology suggests that the gods aren't wise enough for democracy, either. But every other system devotes itself from the get go to exploitation of the majority. So, as Churchill is supposed to have said, democracy is the worst system in the world except for all of the others.
9
As it has been said - Democracy is the worst form of government- except for all the others.
11
I missed the dogmatic dictum that denies democracy is perfect and merely the best of the worst government system.
Citizens United is an attack on democracy and thinking Americans not deluded by the president's broken record of integrity and MAGA.
Leaving the ghetto logic of too many 'uneducated' Americans, irregardless of color, to their own is the fault of successive conservative governments - Red and Blue.
In the absence of 'regulating' 'white collar' thieves and fraud artists - like the president, America will eventually collapse under the weight of history.
6
Democracy may have its flaws but it beats the alternative. Venezuela, China, Cuba, North Korea? Do we want to be like them? Those who are not happy with our government should experience life in these countries. I am sure they would return to the good ole USA in a heartbeat and kiss the American soil upon their return.
4
The Law of Probability is often mistaken for the existence of a GOD.
Democracy is a dangerous thing inflicted on NEW MARKETS of ELITES.
The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF HUMANS THAT HAVE LIVED ON THIS PLANET
Are like horses and such: trainable and need to be trained and are easily trained from birth, from that point on it is just feeding the propaganda of choice, de jure.
I live on a planet where most humans believe they are immortal and heaven is nothing more than an eternal walk in some garden.
NUTS.
"My Science Fiction Life on a Planet of Immortal Animals."
5
This view shall go down in the dustbin of history. Rather quickly. While small and obscure to most still, electronic direct democracy will take over in many countries in the next couple of decades. The wisdom of the crowd meets the Internet and cell phone = crowdsourced solutions to all sorts of tricky problems. And that means far less corruption and discontent.
1
I think a crucial factor tied to the failure of democracy is religion. The least disabling of the gods, were the Greek gods. They mirrored the natures of their adherents. Some were jealous, some power-hungry, some capricious and vain. Hera fumed while Zeus dallied with his lovelies, as Eros capriciously shot his arrows. The Trojan War started (mythically) because of the vain gods' beauty contest?
The Bronze Age produced a version of scare tactics, demanding, without democracy. Territorial needs and procreation worries dominated, hence the 1st Testament. A bit of oversimplification. Tribal heads needed power, humility wasn't an option, wars were.
The Renaissance brought with it a different awareness, and another form of Christianity, with a similar form of enslavement to an invisible but supposedly powerful entity.
Now, America is divided with those wishing for a theocracy and those wishing for democracy. The crowd is stirred by what they feel is their ticket to a country embodying their religious beliefs. If this group, the Religious Right/wrong, gets their way, they, along with their god will bring down democracy. Rural, largely uneducated, or Bible educated, they see their direction as divinely inspired, their leader chosen by their god, and their morality dictated by that same god. Equate democracy with religion.
All those admirable Nordic countries (putting the welfare of the citizenry first, are all secular countries. Religious ones have failed.
20
As H. L. Mencken said: "Democracy is the theory that the common person knows what he wants and deserves to get it, good and hard."
Intellectual elites like Mr. Bradatan have always bemoaned the fact that the hoi polloi don't have the same attitudes and opinions that they do. But we live in a democracy not a meritocracy of smart people.
2
Thank you Professor Bradatan for a very thought provoking essay. Humanity is indeed genetically hard wired to form communities and seek leaders. The frequency with which leaders become despots is indeed discouraging. However, humanity is also genetically hard wired to imagine a better life and to make those goals a reality. Our democratic republic, though imperfect, may lead humanity to a more perfect society.
5
Natural selection operates on human behavior and cultures as well as genes. The scientific revolution resulted in an understanding of cause and effect for natural phenomena. When it is possible to manipulate causes, technologies can resuIt. The human being, by its manipulation of nature, has changed the planet, and thus the behaviors that are adaptive. Surviving long enough to pass on one's genes during the Stone Age was assisted by selfishness, impulsiveness, greed and fear of strangers. These same traits remained adaptive until the Industrial Revolution resulted in the transition from an agricultural to an industrial economy. It became necessary to protect children and teach them new skills, resulting in compulsory education. As early as kindergarten, steps were taken to counteract selfishness, impulsiveness, greed and the fear of strangers. The human condition is undergoing another upheaval through digitization. Democracy may not require gods. Perhaps social networks will make it possible for not just countries, but the entire world to be of the people, by the people and for the people.
6
I like the idea of selecting our political leaders by lot. That would work a lot better than voting for the person who claims to be able to solve all our problems and promises lots of "free" stuff.
We should apply the same concept to selecting judges. Get rid of the Yale/Harvard law school oligarchs on the Supreme Court.
4
Democracy is a realistic goal, but it cannot survive capitalism, not the way capitalism is practiced in the US, anyway.
14
Money trumps democracy. Billionaires own and control politicians and the media.
10
Failed system...failed species. The candle in the vast darkness is about to flicker out. Doesn't matter whether the autocrat in the WH goes in 2020 or 2024. He has opened a door that has been locked. And the next iteration will be more dangerous because he or she will possess an intellect and dismantle what remains of our democratic institutions with precision and skill rather than stumbling incompetence.
6
I agree with all that you say, humility a major need. You lose me as soon as you say "American democracy (one of the best versions on the market right now)", what is so wrong with the democracies in the UK, France, Germany and a lot of other places, why are they not one of the best. Being judgemental and a feeling of superiority compared to others also contributes to why democracy is not the ideal form of government, not for the people of this world. Maybe another world with a life with mental attributes quite different from ours, democracy may succeed.
6
And yet there's the likelihood that as Lincoln put it: You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. And all of the people aren't fooled for very long!
6
Rousseau also said, about democracy, that it was fit only for small, poor nations. With any amount of wealth present, it would become oligarchy--which is also what Plato said about it. And we see how right they were.
Yes, our representative democracy, very imperfect from the beginning, is being further corrupted due to the Citizens United ruling by a corrupted Supreme Court. Our "magnificent Constitution" gives us no way out. That corruption was incarnated in the appointment of the sex harasser Clarence Thomas. Let us recall Joe Biden's lapdog performance in that appointment: he was completely outfoxed by a con artist, now a Justice, who claimed "a high-tech lynching." A cheap trick--but it worked with all those white guys on the Judiciary Committee. Score one for the sex harasser.
In Donald Trump, we have the perfect example of all our political and economic sins. The Greeks would have ostracized him long ago.
10
Democracy is problematic, but American democracy is particularly fraught with challenges.
America faces a crisis. Pressure to change is coming from two fronts: a changing America and world, and a Constitution that is out of step with modern realities. And governments that fail to change, decay.
The Constitution was conceived for a small agrarian society. Jefferson envisioned the country would remain one of farmers and craftsmen. Contrast this quaint vision with a 2019 urban America with over 100 times the population and diversity, and undreamed-of technology. Our Constitution needs an overhaul to bring it into the 21st century.
The founders were fearful of democracy and strong government, so they bound our political system with so many checks and balances that it has resulted in institutional rigidity spread across a vast conflicted maze of government branches, agencies and states.
That systemic complexity is easy to game - just ask Mitch McConnell or any oligarch.
And democracy doesn’t work the way we’ve been taught. America embraces a mythical “folk” democracy that celebrates the wisdom of popular judgments by informed and engaged citizens. But the reality is that most people are too busy to be informed and engaged.
Finally, our values come at a cost, especially our elevation of the individual over the collective which often undercuts the primary function of government - the common good.
In America we call the sacrifice of the common good: the price of freedom.
8
This is a ludicrous throwback to the very kind of fin de siècle social darwinist, pseudo-social-psychological denigration of "the masses" that helped enable people like Hitler to come to power in the first place. If elites like yourself continue to view the rest of humanity as abjectly savage beneath the "veneer of civilization," then don't be surprised when the rest of the world reacts allergically to elitism by voting (yes, democratically) against it. As a professor myself, I find the snobbery of my colleagues increasingly counterproductive.
Also, and in keeping with the deeply cliché nature of your essay, the paragraph on "Triumph of the Will" is based on ignorance of how Riefenstahl and her comrades in the NSDAP (mostly Goebbels) orchestrated a false reality. Maybe learn just a little bit about filmmaking and how it constructs illusions through cinematography, sound design, and editing.
8
As long as the American form of government is controlled by wealth (Citizen’s United and unrestrained dark money) and elections are not free (gerrymandering and the Electoral College), we do not have even a representative republic. We have freedom, but not a democracy. We have an oligarchy. Period. Cease all the philosophizing. If you truly espouse democracy, then work to get those changed.
11
The great promise of democracy is that government will be responsive to everyone's interests. It makes solutions hard to arrive at, but is supposed to prevent capture of the powers of government by a small faction.
American democracy has failed to deliver on this promise. Captured we are, by wealthy oligarchs that determine policy, while the populace is distracted and divided by culture war wedge issues.
There is no end of history. We try something, we fail, something new arises. Maybe the best we can hope for is off-Earth colonization, so that a single local failure is not so likely the doom us as a species. How sad a testament is that: we're so incompetent, we can't afford to all be in one place? It's hard to not join Team Asteroid. Meanwhile I'm supporting ranked choice voting, as one last attempt to improve what we've been given, before going down with the ship.
5
Bottom line, democracy is never a done deal. It requires vigilant oversight and constant maintenance. It's a participatory system where each member of society is ultimately both figuratively and operationally responsible for its function or malfunction in addressing the needs of the people. Democracies fail when they fail to effectively address and constructively serve democracy's core principle. Working for the greatest good for the greatest number.
6
Our democracy is rotting in plain sight.
PACs, lobbyists, special interest groups define our laws and regulations. The electorate is lowest ranked in the minds of our lawmakers.
On the basis that it takes time to learn how to game the system, we need term limits.
7
Seriously beautiful and though-provoking and seems filled with more truth than I have heard or read in a long time.
10
My observation is that when our country switched from a Keynesian economy to the economic principles of the Libertarian-Republican alliance our democracy began to fail. That is because the Reagan economic revolution provoked the anti-democratic human instincts Mr. Bradatan's lays bare.
Reagan economics gutted regulations that held the greed of corporations and Wall Street in check. One of the big reasons our Nation's defense budget and healthcare costs are out of control is that the Reagan economy promotes crony capitalism and the needless privatization of government activities. If allowed, government workers can make government work.
The Libertarian-Republican alliance allows corporations to privatize profits and socialize costs and put our democracy in the hands of the 1%. That is in the hands of beltway bandits, hedge funds, big banks, big Pharma and real estate developers like Trump. The economic policies of the Libertarian-Republican alliance promote greed and gross economic inequality. They do not support democracy.
13
I wouldn’t Use the word “Gods” in my headline but rather “more evolved”. I find myself looking at this situation from a more metaphysical viewpoint but totally agree with the scientist below. People have to reach a certain point in their evolution (not physical but mental/emotional) before they really understand and can participate fully in a democracy. And it obviously works better in a small, more homogeneous country than in a vast country with multiple levels of human development. So many in this country can’t think past themselves or their small “tribe” to be inclusive and understanding of others, let alone pay attention to what matters given the amount of media and entertainment available.
3
There are many things wrong with this essay, but the biggest howler is the assumption that the US was ever a democracy in the first place.
How many presidents have to lose the popular vote before we wake up to the fact that the USA was never a democracy.
It’s rarely taught in high schools these days but the “founding fathers” were explicitly against democracy.
Being rich white land (and slave) owners, they didn’t want a king, but they didn’t want to be ruled by the rabble either.
Let’s first work on turning the USA into a democracy before we start talking about losing it.
8
Dear Professor Bradatan,
I have been reading The Stone since its inception. Yours is not simply the best of all the essays, but it is an absolute sledgehammer to thick skulls filled with fantasies of radical egalitarianism.
Bravo.
Cordially,
S.A. Traina
6
Democracy was invented by the Athenians. But their Greek gods, whom they worshipped, in a democracy? Laughable and highly improbable! The Olympian gods who live forever were in a strict patriarchy, ruled over by Zeus, the King of the Gods. Maybe there was a tiny whiff of democracy in the assemblies of the gods where they discussed things on a fairly equal basis, but the final word always belonged to Zeus.
1
How very, very depressing. And seemibgly true.
This essay points out an obvious fact of our American version of democracy. The political and economic elites of this country don't want to support access for all, education for all, opportunity for all, because the very act of the success of such a policy would immediately dethrown the persons arguing for it in the first place, and remove their bases of power.
Republicans at their core: "I got mine.....the rest of ya can just go pound sand".
5
This article uses the term “democracy” in broad national terms, but to see the truth of it, we can look at mini-democracies: small cities and towns —like Athens—or even hunter/gatherer communities. Where everyone knows everyone else, supposedly there are your checks and balances. Unfortunately, they tend to ostracize, or even kill, outliers—like Socrates. We can’t even make democracy work in families.
“This is, roughly, the human context against which the democratic idea emerges. No wonder that it is a losing battle. Genuine democracy doesn’t make grand promises, does not seduce or charm, but only aspires to a certain measure of human dignity.”
Of course, we don’t even dignify our family and friends who disagree with our policial ideas over the dinner table.
Those mass rallies, whether they be in Nuremberg, Harrisburg or the Women’s World Cup stadium, offer a sense of belonging and acceptance by all the people standing around you. You’re all in this together, agreeing with each other, rooting for the same thing, whether it’s a team or a dictator. But in the sports analogy, there are all those “others” rooting for the opposing team. They, too, are experiencing warm fuzzies with each other, but they hate you. And when your team wins, you feel powerful and superior; when it loses, you feel aggrieved.
The best we can do is to keep aspiring. At least we have the ideal.
3
Democracy must be well defined!
A lot is said about Democracy, without defining it. The strength of a people lies in their ability to tell the truth. Truth does not belong to a single person. Rather, it is universal truth, freely available to all those with reason.
I believe in democracy. As Leonard Cohen said, democracy is coming, to the USA! Trump lost the popular vote by 2.8 million votes, because of our undemocratic US Constitution. We have no democracy now, but we will have it if we educate people to the truth, get out the vote, and change the US Constitution so that it is truly democratic (reasonable).
https://www.paulstreet.org/impeach-the-u-s-constitution/
1
Corporations. Citizen’s United was such an ill informed ruling that we can’t help but be buried by corruption and greed.
5
To achieve more perfect democracy, try to define it. The strength of a people lies in their ability to tell the truth. Truth does not belong to a single person. Rather, it is universal truth, freely available to all those with reason. Tyrants want to monopolize everything, including truth. That is why they are incompatible with the truth.
If you give a man a thought, he might respect you for a moment. But if you teach a man to think, he will learn to respect himself and others and the truth.
I believe in democracy. As Leonard Cohen said, democracy is coming, to the USA! Trump lost the popular vote by 2.8 million votes, because of our undemocratic US Constitution. We have no democracy now, but we will have it if we educate and get out the vote, and change the US Constitution so that it is truly democratic (reasonable).
https://www.paulstreet.org/impeach-the-u-s-constitution/
It is impossible to have a democracy of any kind when you have a cabal of rich guys led by Rupert Murdoch, telling lies daily to 40% of Americans and they're not smart enough to see through it. If you walked into each of those households and tried to bribe them it wouldn't work at this scale but just getting them fixed on the television and subjecting them to a "lather rinse repeat" of lies works perfectly.
7
I don't think even the gods ever perfected democracy. Yaweh, Allah, Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, and various other creator-gods all believed in a pretty strict hierarchy, with themselves forever at the top.
2
The point of this article is simple and right on target. Populism trumps democracy. No pun intended. . .seriously!
5
Democracy requires constant active participation. Advocacy for those helpless or oppressed is needed to counteract the mob mentality of anger and fear that is contagious and oppressive. In an opinion piece, Thomas Friedman recently wrote that the largest danger we face at this time in our democracy is ourselves. As Nazism was taking grip in Europe, the psychoanalyst, Erich Fromm wrote Escape from Freedom or The Fear of Freedom (as known outside America) that characterizes the discomfort felt by people when exercising the freedom afforded in a democracy. To deal with this discomfort many seek security by succumbing to authoritarianism, exercising a destructiveness toward what they cannot control (e.g. immigrants seeking a better life in the United States or Europe after fleeing from Central America or Syria), and settling for conformity. These are the drives that destroy democracy, and to keep it, we must all fight against these tendencies. Otherwise we may suffer the same authoritarian populist leadership in Erich Fromm’s Germany that eventually led to World War II.
3
Can democracy save democracy? No. The systems by which it operates can allow us, the citizens, to save it and, working within those systems, it can be reformed, improved and made ready for a new hopeful era. We have neglected to refine and fortify the means by which our democracy operates and, in effect, are held hostage to the Electoral College, gerrymandering of House districts and intentionally unequal distribution of seats for senators, 2 for every state no matter their population.
Changing our Constitution to create a more democratic nation will not be easy. It will take years and intense dedication by those who want to see a more fair, balanced and cooperative nation. If we are daunted by the task, we should ask ourselves this question: are we lesser people than those who helped give birth to the nation and those who fought and died to protect it? Are we not up to the duty that lies before us?
5
The angst expressed in some of the comments is heartbreaking. I am trying to resist complete pessimism about the future of Democracy. I look to European nations, one of the remaining parts of the world that is managing to maintain their democratic values (despite being under assault by the Salvinis and Johnsons of the region).
I enjoyed the article immensely. I interpret it was a thought-provoking explanation of the mentality of ConDon's base, and what factors motivate them to continue to drink his foul Kool-Aid. Let's hope the DNC is united enough and thoughtful enough to consider this argument and factor it into their strategy to bring balance back to federal government.
5
The height of Athenian democracy was achieved during the Persian invasions when the Athenian army routed the Persians at Marathon and their navy did likewise at Salamis. Left alone by the Persians, though, they evolved into a naval empire over other Greeks, which drew the adverse attention of the Spartans and their allies, and eventually fell due at least partially to the fact that demagogues rose to prominence and took Athens in unfortunate and divisive directions. Sound familiar?
Another, related problem, is that democracies seem to thrive on adversity from without. Left to their own devices, they tend to splinter into increasingly angry and uncompromising factions and often end up eating themselves alive from the inside out. Again, sound familiar? Hence Lincoln's observation in 1838 that "As a nation of free men, we will live forever or die by suicide".
1
Has this country ever been a true democracy? In the beginning of this country women and non property owners could not vote. There was indirect voting for senators. Certainly no democracy for slaves even after abolition when Jim Crow laws prevented blacks from voting. The issue of states rights prevents this country from being a true national democracy. Today we have allowed corporations to enter the political arena with their vast sums to lobby our legislators. Religion has left the pulpit and morphed into a political party. Then there is our president with executive order after executive order. The electorate has the ability to vote for a more perfect union but has chosen not to.
1
So true! Trump lost the popular vote by 2.8 million votes. Biggest loser ever. How undemocratic is that? Trump voters criticize democrats for not accepting the vote result. Hah! Isn’t it ironic?
3
Instead of evoking Lorenz's reductive riff on human nature-"unreasoning and unreasonable human nature"-or that democracy is a "remote ideal," Bradatan should have consulted the preamble to the constitution. In it the Founders listed the tasks necessary to form a more perfect union, one of which is to "promote the general welfare." Obviously they knew that the task for successive generations was to achieve more perfection. And, over the course of generations, isn't that what "unreasoning humans" have done? Even despite many regrettable missteps, well known to many, the question remains: How remote is remote?
1
Promote the general welfare! Never a more democratic socialist word was spoken!
If you give a man a thought, he might respect you for a moment. But if you teach a man to think, he will learn to respect himself and others and the truth of their mutual dependency, for true independence.
To achieve more perfect democracy, try to define it. The strength of a people lies in their ability to tell the truth. Truth does not belong to a single person. Rather, it is universal truth, freely available to all those with reason. Tyrants want to monopolize everything, including truth. That is why they are incompatible with the truth.
I believe in democracy. As Leonard Cohen said, democracy is coming, to the USA! Trump lost the popular vote by 2.8 million votes, because of our undemocratic US Constitution. We have no democracy now, but we will have it if we educate and get out the vote, and change the US Constitution so that it is truly democratic (reasonable).
https://www.paulstreet.org/impeach-the-u-s-constitution/
We would move further in a quest for a better democracy without the influence of money. The ultra-wealthy have successfully concluded that their power and wealth is greatly enhanced by filling the coffers of election campaigns. That in turn, forces us to push for term limits. The well off and powerful would be less inclined to support elected officials whose time in office is limited. And there might be more objectivity in the consideration of laws by politicians motivated to do what is best for society rather than what propels re-election. (Climate change action fits this perfectly).
When an elected official refers to the continental army of 1776 heroically saving our airports, you know it is time for fresh thinking.
1
There is a presentation style of certitude in this review which challenges the very humility that it posits is/may be needed.In addition, there is an either/or weltanschauung which does not consider the existing realities of ranges and continua for types, levels and qualities of political processes and models for daily living for, and with, diverse populations,and our various existential, as well as "learned," needs. "Democracy" can be, and is, many things to many people. A concept. A label. A term. An image. A legal entity.A definition; adequate or not. A set of created criteria. Changing as realities change. A process with interacting rights, obligations, responsibilities and roles. For diverse peoples. systems. A value. A norm. An ethic. A gift. An aspiration. A goal. a vision. An outcome. ETC. It may, however, be helpful to many of us, living in a toxic "democratically-underpinned, WE-THEY culture, which enables, and even fosters, violating by words and deeds, creating, selecting and targetting "the other," to mostly considering "DEMOCRACY" as being a word. Whatever its valences, + - -/+, transparencies and opaqueness. And therein may lies its inherent flaw(s) as well as strengths. Even its inherent unresolvabilities. Just as no map can accurately-actually-adequately represent the geographic area it is created to represent, no "democracy"- word can do so for the interacting dynamic, non-linear, multidimensional parameters of this group of attached letters.An opinion?
This is more a critique of the US Constitution and republicanism than of democracy. If Senators were elected proportionately or at-large nationally and the President by popular vote, we would not now have the worst government in living memory. If we can't repair this system we will not endure.
4
Yes indeed! Trump lost the popular vote by 2.8 million votes. Biggest loser ever. Undemocratic US Constitution. We have no democracy now, but we will have it if we educate and get out the vote, and change the US Constitution so that it is truly democratic (reasonable).
https://www.paulstreet.org/impeach-the-u-s-constitution/
1
I'm minor-shocked that the author would imply that ancient Greek democracy was more democratic, less oligarchic, than current-day America.
Did the author conveniently forget that the Greeks, and many subsequent civilizations, limited citizenship to male landowners?
4
Too depressing and, I hope, not accurate. It wasn't that long ago that we were talking about the end of history and the ultimate victory of western style democracy.
Western style democracy needs an upgrade. US Style Version 1.0 should have stayed longer in beta.
1
Modern Americans have conflated the terms democracy and republic. The founders wanted a republic and the Constitution requires the states to have republocan governments. Democracy was anathema to the founders. They considered it anarchical and oppressive. They designed their Republic to endure.
The current challenge to our Republic comes from democratic institutions like social media and even this news blog. It permits instant gratification and the unrealistic expectation that even a simple individual, like I, can significantly affect society. This is a mythology that goes to the earliest days of our Republic.
The founders did not want to build a system based on that myth. Their Rrpublic was planned to work slowly and to require general consent to act. Modern political ethos seeks to empower individuals over institutions, parties over governance and single legislators over parties. We are losing the consensual method of governance which relied on negotiation, consultation and compromise. Demagoguery is the easy next step.
Americans need to remake the choice from 1787: do we want a republic or a democracy?
5
@John Hurley Modern Americans who have access to any search engine can easily find that there are many types of democracy, but that the word by itself simply means that a citizen gets to vote. The whole "It's not a democracy, it's a republic" thingy is nonsense, like saying "it's a shark, not a fish." In any case, the main problem with what the founders created is that it's hopelessly simplistic, and basically of no use in many modern situations. So the people living under it are forced to fight each other for the right to interpret it in ways they believe favor their goals.
3
The political concept of democracy and how to realize it?
Probably only those people who have gone through a severe trial of trying to multitask or organize disparate elements, or push edge of complexity, are best positioned to realize how difficult it is to achieve heights of democracy and to sustain it, and to understand that democracy is not one fixed thing but the process of trying to manage increasing complexity, to coordinate increasing numbers and types of often conflicting elements and to keep pushing toward even greater complex management or to fall backward and centralize and begin leaving out increasing numbers of elements to have management over the whole.
The better minds and societies historically have been those which have handled the most complexity well, have allowed the greatest number and most different elements to breathe because of a tremendous coordination over the whole.
Science I believe already has great insight into edge of complexity, can explain the appeal of a Pollack or a Miles Davis record, or when a great soccer team is operating at optimum level. It's the transcendent moment when all the parts are moving individually yet miraculously the whole is unfolding in unforeseen and incredible and extremely valuable ways.
All the lesser constructs of human society politically and economically are under operation of the system, excessive fear and control lest the system fly apart, which sadly is a possibility beyond edge of performance.
1
People seem to want a form of government that conforms to their ideals: equality (in all its various conceptions), freedom (whatever definition is in local use), democracy (or mob rule as it is known in some philosophies), justice (perspectives vary).
Perhaps leaving aside for a moment attachment to these slippery values, one could consider what might be the wisest and most effective form of government. Are governments meant to effect good outcomes, or advance favored ideals?
Critics of democracy are right to point out the folly of extending voting rights promiscuously to citizens who cannot name the three branches of government, to clueless teens, to bad actors, to sociopaths. We trust the government (apparently) to decide who can drive a motor vehicle, who can practice dentistry, who can cut hair, and who cannot. Yet no test must be passed in order to participate in choosing the ruler who controls the most powerfully destructive military machine in history. Ideals trump common sense, and the result is Trump. That qualifies as ideology. Ideology is tearing apart the American experiment. Suggest a test of minimum understanding of government and history for voters, and ideology thinks "Jim Crow" and attacks the suggester.
The specific ideologies "equality is absolute" and "democracy is always best" are as destructive as their opposites, "whites are better" and "the rich deserve to rule." Americans seem to prefer dissolution of the experiment to compromise on ideology.
2
A beautiful, incisive essay. He never mentioned the Trump name, but he sure described the disease.
4
Someone once explained democracy to me as the opportunity for the common people to choose between sections of the elite.
The logical consequence is that when there are no fissures within the elite that overlap with wishes of the common voter the voter will feel that he has no choice. And indeed many voters nowadays feel that both parties are essentially the same and that many issues for which there is widespread support are completely taboo on Capitol Hill. In Western Europe we see similar processes.
It is in such a situation that someone who seems willing to break the elite consensus is welcomed by the voters as the only option to get things done.
What do voters have to do with it? Trump lost the popular vote by 2.8 million votes. Biggest loser ever. If you give a man a thought, he might respect you for a moment. But if you teach a man to think, he will learn to respect himself and others. And the truth.
1
My wise father-in-law said many years ago that America should have a government like Britain where there is a figurehead monarchy for the people to adore and obsess over, while the business of governing is left to elected officials.
America is at great risk when it combines both governance and celerity in the same people.
6
Part of this article reminded me of the sixties when the new generation insisted that monogamy was not natural. Or human. There were all kinds of arguments like to animal kingdom.
One of the things that differentiate us from the rest of nature is that we have the capacity to have values. sense of justice and act on it. I would leave "the Gods" alone.
It also talks loudly about our President and some of his followers:
"The seducer’s pronouncements may be empty, even nonsensical, but that matters little; each one brings the aroused crowd to new heights of pleasure. He can do whatever he likes with the enraptured followers now. They will submit to any of their master’s fancies."
He takes advantage of struggling people.
By the way, monogamy works perfectly for me.
3
“Fundamentally, humans are not predisposed to living democratically. One can even make the point that democracy is “unnatural” because it goes against our vital instincts and impulses.”
This is of course why we learn nothing useful from philosophers, who argue logically from a priori assumptions that are based on grand generalizations (or worse, propaganda like Riefenstahl) rather than a range of specific cases based on actual historical or scientific evidence.
1
@J Johnson You mean to say that humanity has learned nothing useful from the likes of Archimedes, Plato or Socrates? What about Buddha, or Jesus? Frankly, while I would like a better understanding of what the author meant when he describes the "erotic" feelings some people succumb to with certain despots, it is the best description I've heard that describes the behavior of Trump followers. Is this useful? Perhaps not for me but I'd bet there are political operatives out there that, having read this, may re-think their strategies.
1
In a practical sense, there is also the paradox of democracy. Greater 'freedoms,' as defined by choices, often lead to poorer choices.
More choices increase the fear of making a wrong choice. Yet, people can process only a limited amount of information at any given time. So, beyond a certain point, people will default to their emotions or some other mechanism that lifts the burden of collecting, processing, and comparing information, such as the advice of someone else.
This doesn't mean people are stupid or lazy. It is just that in today's modern world, life has become too complex and time is too limited.
The Republican party knows this all too well and has had great success with certain key words, or 'frames' that have a deep emotional resonance, i.e., rights, freedoms, patriotism, etc. Using simple frames that were also coded words for race is how they won over Southern Democrats (who now control Congress).
We on the left often get too complex and insist on too much information for a decision that in large measure is emotional. Consequently, many voters don't full understand and will fall back on old stereotypes -- i.e., tax and spend, income redistribution, etc.
When we look back on our history, our 'golden age' of democracy, when society had its largest voice in government, was in the postwar period. But that took two world wars and a major depression, along with two Roosevelts, before government finally gave weight to the plight of its citizens.
5
Authoritarianism is the earliest and most natural form of society because it appeals to the baser instincts of the id. Pure democracy or pure communism, meanwhile, appeal to the super-ego. All governments can be viewed in this context.
Just as we so often fail to live up to our ideals, so too do our governments fail to live up theirs. Just as we are better when we exercise restraint and thoughtfulness, so too our governments.
The reason governments so often exist somewhere in between is because the human animal is somewhere in between, balancing both. The modern far right can be seen as simply the id temporarily reasserting itself.
5
To me the key to keeping our democracy is a free and independent press and a open and independent internet. The press is not the enemy of the people as Hitler, Stalin and Trump have claimed. Reporters and journalists are the unsung heroes of the republic.
3
@Mark the problem is that today's so-called press is so "free" it's dying a slow death. How many people, ESPECIALLY the young, are willing to pay for their news and journalism? Instead we are force-fed free junk news through social media feeds.
3
What’s the big surprise?
“Why do democracies fail?”
The answer, of course, is that as our founding fathers, including Ben Franklin, knew — and as “The Post” should know from its front-page mast-head banner, “Democracy Dies In Darkness” — that both democratic Republics and broader popular democracies are subverted, diseased, and ultimately killed by EMPIRE.
“Democracy Dies In Darkness under EMPIRE”
3
When Trump was elected, I knew our democracy was in peril. In early 2017, I posted a comment here on the Times that Trump would be our first dictator, he would not answer to our Supreme Court, he would target ethnic minorities, and that by the end of his first term there would be internment camps on our soil.
Well, I've been right on all of these. But at the time I posted this, even those on the Left told me that my claims were ridiculous. That none of this would happen in our country. That our Constitution would limit the damage Trump could cause. I was just being overly paranoid.
Fast forward to today. Trump has said that he will not follow a Supreme Court ruling. He has ordered tanks rolling down the streets of Washington DC. He holds "rallies" that give his rabid base the chance to revel in his bigotry - and theirs. There are tens of millions of Trump voters whose worship of him is something that Adolf Hitler would have envied. And we have learned that our Constitution is nothing more than a badly broken honor system.
But most of you didn't want to believe any one person could destroy our democracy within a span of a few short years. My inlaws are Holocaust survivors. My ancestors survived the Armenian Genocide. My family knew exactly what we were seeing when he took office, and found a home outside the country.
And my only question to all of you, who have been hoping beyond all hope, is: why didn't you listen to me and others who tried to warn you?
9
When Trump was elected, I knew our democracy was in peril. In early 2017, I posted a comment here on the Times that Trump would be our first dictator, he would not answer to our Supreme Court, he would target ethnic minorities, and that by the end of his first term there would be internment camps on our soil.
Well, I've been right on all of these. But at the time I posted this, even those on the Left told me that my claims were ridiculous. That none of this would happen in our country. That our Constitution would limit the damage Trump could cause. I was just being overly paranoid.
Fast forward to today. Trump has said that he will not follow a Supreme Court ruling. He has ordered tanks rolling down the streets of Washington DC. He holds "rallies" that give his rabid base the chance to revel in his bigotry - and theirs. There are tens of millions of Trump voters whose worship of him is something that Adolf Hitler would have envied. And we have learned that our Constitution is nothing more than a badly broken honor system.
But most of you didn't want to believe any one person could destroy our democracy within a span of a few short years. My inlaws are Holocaust survivors. My ancestors survived the Armenian Genocide. My family knew exactly what we were seeing when he took office, and found a home outside the country.
And my only question to all of you, who have been hoping beyond all hope, is: why didn't you listen to me and others who tried to warn you?
1
I may add that religions have been historically the most powerful tools to assist the oligarchies and dictatorships in asserting their power. The concept of submitting one's will to the power of an almighty, unquestionable and always perfect "god" is by itself the most blindly undemocratic, unthinking and authoritarian act enforced upon billions and billions of weak souls all over the planet. And how easy it has been throughout history for authoritarian strongmen to use religion to justify their lust for power, their bloody wars, their genocidal crimes and their request for total blind obedience by the populace.
True democracy and true freedom can only be achieved by ridding human culture (and indeed the human brain) from the collective psychosis called "religion". Only those who are truly free from any religious impositions and dogmas can really say that they are "free".
3
The Establishment Clause is the most neglected law of this madhouse nation.
3
Forms of Democracy are not completely unnnatural. Amongst small groups or tribes of hunter-gatherers there are usually strong leaders, especially in conflict, but most adults have some say according to their capacity, which is pretty well known by personal interaction. Councils of elders often decide important questions. As groups become larger the personal authority of leaders usually increases and individuals have less say. Institutions built on natural social instincts would presumably be more durable than those built on hypothetical ideals.
1
I really enjoyed this piece. Humility & self-awareness seem in short supply lately, as are empathy and benevolence. Or perhaps just underreported, as they aren't ”sexy” values. But I would like to think that most Americans are good people who all want the same things- for their loved ones to live in a safe, peaceful world, where equality in myriad forms is respected and implemented.
Unfortunately, unchecked ego and tribalism, as you suggest, ultimately control most humans. A solid understanding & awareness of the difference between conscious-unconscious thought to achieve the qualities that can sustain the ideal democracy. How much of this can be learned? Doesn't edging closer to a ”more perfect union” require education in these concepts? What if more people were ”aware theyre aware & have the ability to wrestle with & not just lazily accept our sometimes irrational base instincts? Or does it take a real desire to understand human nature to determine that the ”whole” benefits the ”individual?” Climate change will be the ultimate test for us.
With the evolving study of neuroscience, we learn more & more how the brain operates and how it hasn't evolved quickly enough to keep up with our current material existence. Humans rarely question why they believe what they believe, much less challenge said beliefs or develop more altruistic, compassionate ones. We must understand ourselves before we can understand others. And if we understand & accept others, we may have a chance.
4
The human “soul” is software running on a biological computer. Too bad people are seldom competent programmers of themselves.
2
@stevebolger Indeed. Of course, tragically, education and competency currently seen as ”elitist” by those who can't grasp the concepts and ideas we should all aspire to embrace. And human decency and morality are now passe.
The most unforgivable are those in our society who ARE educated and Are aware, yet choose to ignore the facts because they are seduced by money and power. There is a reason the Seven Deadly Sins are called that - deadly to the individual and deadly to the whole.
3
The title alone is false. America has maintained its Republic for 243 years and counting. It’s completely possible to maintain the principles of a democracy over long periods of time.
2
Maybe the problem is not with “human nature”; maybe it’s a result of male domination. Women are less aggressive and more cooperative. They are less motivated by money and power for its own sake.
Two examples might help. A couple of years ago the senate, that bastion of inaction, had a crisis - can’t remember which one - so women from both parties met to resolve it and did so. Showing that if you focus on achieving an outcome instead of a victory, you can find a solution.
Second, international development agencies have found that when women have economic opportunities the whole village benefits. Women focus on nutrition for children, health, and education. Those things benefit the community. Men, on the other hand, spent their money on themselves.
Governing is a dirty job, let women do it. Iceland does and they are thriving with low violence, gender and economic equality, and stability.
6
Democracy didn't work too well for the Gods either. If you read the "Iliad" you will remember that they were all as egotistically polarized as humans tend to be. I was taught that monotheism was the solution to that--- have just one God, then there's no more conflict. That is also the argument for a human dictator.
As long as human beings can think, they will concoct cockamamie solutions to problems that can never be solved
1
Hmmmm, women didn't count in Athens. That's half of everybody. Some democracy.
5
An excellent article.
A timely reminder John Soares Former head of UK Spy agency hints today that the Establishment should take action to prevent Brexit, Save the ignorant form their ignorance. Blame democracy!!
Nothing works when founded on delusion. The notion that nature has personality that cares about anything is utter fantasy.
Too simplistic, by half. How long does a reasonable method of government have to last not to be declare a success? Species keep stable populations for millions of years and yet you say that humans at their worst are "like animals." Humans, I believe, are like baboons and chimpanzees, perhaps, ape group ruled by male leaders who have only their own interests at heart and too much testosterone. Even so, we humans are often better than this, more like the gentler gorilla and bonobo, and have been since the "brutal" Neanderthals buried an old man after clearly caring for him for a long time. Stop making our ills out to be the fault of our being a mammal. We are the "thinking" mammal and we are destroying, all by our little selves, the planet that gave us life.
3
The author misses an essential part of the discussion around democracy: Without the aspects rule of law, separation of power, civil liberties, human rights............ you can't contemplate the rise and fall or better erosion of democracies today. As we see today in many parts of the world a people votes democratically to erode the democratic institutions and processes.
Good read: Mounk: The people versus democracy, Harvard University Press 2018
I wonder if the media has accepted the Trump mantra that the America we have believed is gone.
1
Yes, democracy in America is threatened today. But we have an election in 2020 and a very good chance to preserve our republic. There are two enemies to defeat. Extremely wealthy people and far-right religion. One wants to control us with their monetary power. The other wants to force their religious beliefs on the entire population. They are, in fact, working together. In 2020 we must elect leaders who believe that all humans are created equal and deserve freedom and happiness. We must elect leaders who believe in the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do to you. The converse, too. Do not do unto others what you would not want them to do to you. Just this is enough. We would not have concentration camps for children on our southern border. We would not be taking health insurance away from our fellow citizens. We would not be leading developed countries in poverty rate and birth mortality rate.
3
Human beings are one of three closely related surviving species of African apes.
The matriarchal sex- driven bonobo and the patriarchal sex and violence driven chimpanzee illustrate various aspects of our human nature. Democracy is contrary to all three species primate mammal animal nature.
Modern humans appeared 300 000 years ago biologically DNA genetic evolutionary fit driven to crave fat, salt, sugar, habitat, water, kin and sex by any means necessary including conflict and cooperation.
America's Founding Fathers so abhorred democracy that they created a very peculiar kind of republic instead.
A divided limited different power constitutional republic of united states where only white Anglo-Saxon Protestant men who owned property were divinely naturally created equal persons with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The only representative that those blessed select few were allowed to directiy vote for and elect was their member of the House.
The social insects particularly the ants and termites come much closer to being democratic societies than any African apes or monkeys.
Athenian style democracy is unwieldy and inefficient in any modern society beyond a village. While the parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom comes closer faction aka partisan parties is the enemy of democracy. Social media gives the illusion of democracy that benefits the owners capitalist profit return.
4
"Democracy Is for the Gods
It should be no surprise that humans cannot sustain it."
Costica Bradatan, professor and author
Mr. Bradatan, we have sustained a federal republic, created in a revolution against the very undemocratic ideals of British tyranny, since 1775 in the United States. We defeated one of the world's oldest monarchies in order to create the United States. We fought and won a civil war, thanks to Lincoln and Grant, to sustain the democratic ideals won in blood in our Revolution. We freed the slaves, Mr. Bradatan. And if the United States did not exist, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan would have prevailed in WWII.
Thank God professors are not in line when God is handing out common-sense, courage, guile and everything else it takes to fight and win a revolution, end slavery and defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. And stand up NATO, which has done something for the last seventy years that the Europeans failed to do previously---ensure peace and stability in Europe. Who needs "The Gods" when you're an American? O, "The Gods" this and "The Gods" that---how very quaint, how very 17th century and how very useless.
We're Americans. My generation is Generation Won the Cold War. Exactly how democratic was the Soviet Union, and how'd that work out? The Gulags . . . . wait for it . . . . are still around, right? Ah, the Gulags are not around anymore and neither is the Soviet Union.
Democracy 1, Tyranny 0.
Evolution produced is, not God. Better not stop evolving at this point.
"American democracy, once of the best version..." The Economist, which rates nations on the quality of their democracy every year, has degraded the US from "Full democracy" to "Flawed democracy" a couple of years ago.
Do you expect a society built on the extermination of the Indian nations and slavery to build institutions that will make democracy thrive?
Read "An Indigenous People History of the United States"
3
It is impossible to have a democracy when the rules are rigged by the richest 2% of the population to increasingly favor the richest 2%-- and forcing the middle class to pay for their resource wars, environmental abuse, and prisons. Meanwhile Americans are rapidly losing educational opportunity, affordable housing, a meaningful wage, and right to a healthy life relatively free of government propaganda. Otherwise, there is much possibility. Alas, the USA is a fascist oligarchy, and falling deeper into what is effectively a dictatorship run by a twit with a twitter account.
3
People work for those who pay them.
This piece deflects attention from elite machinations (conspiracies) in instituting a violent oligarchy.
3
Witness the 'Amerikaner' disease in this article, viz. there is only one great 'Democratic' nation in the world i.e. the USA. Overlooked are the thriving Democracies elsewhere, next door in Canada for instance, not to mention France and the nordic nations. America was never a Democracry. Rich White men wrote the Constitution for the benefit of property and slave owners. Rich White men still control everything. America was the only country that gave a second chance and life to 1% water carriers like Frederich Hayek and Von Mises. Standard Oil and the Kochs since the 1920s till now subsidize Right Wing Messiahs like Milton Friedman, James Buchanan, George Mason University etc. Hayek and Mises were the central architects who devised a world to be ruled by the owners of capital i.e. the 0.1%. The GOP and the Evangelical Church have always epitomised Right Wing principles. It is silly to pretend that America was ever a Democracy. For a brief period 1930-64 when the 1% were firmly shackled by the FDR reforms there was a semblance of Democracy perhaps. Lets face the truth, any country that has no proper proportional representation of its populace in its chambers of government can hardly be called Democratic. Finally, it is asinine in the extreme to look at the failed state called America and then pronounce that Democracy is dead. The author should try moving to Sweden, Norway , Iceland or maybe France and then try rethinking his 'Democracy is for Gods' balderdash.
3
We have our chance to honor the Athenians' exercise of ostracism in 2020. Start collecting pottery shards.
1
Harry Browne's definition of Government -
"An agency of coercion generally regarded as necessary by the majority of inhabitants in its atea of influence".
It differs from the Mob only in the fact that the Mob isn't generally considered necessary.
So go ahead, keep voting. I'm sure things will work out for you. LOL
1
American Democracy is not doomed. Just as it seems to have entered its sunset phase - begun in 1980 by that “charmer” and “political animal” Reagan and accelerated in 2015-16 by Trump, who leads his followers like a cult - it in reality will soon enter a period of rebirth and renewal, driven by demographic change and by the fact that those seduced by the demagogues - who are almost entirely white Americans - have already become a minority, and white Americans overall will become a minority around 2045. A multiethnic multicultural Republic will dawn and will take the place of the current system with its “Late Roman Republic,” decadent, oligarchical, pre-authoritarian zeitgeist.
1
The author provides us with a "No Sugar Sweetener" version ---don't despair, it's natural and therefore all right---of the argument posited by Steve Bannon as Trump's adviser. In short, and as constantly reinforced in late night (Washington time, breakfast in Italy time) Oval Office phone calls, it holds: (1)liberal democracy is failing; and (2)those ahead of the curve will be able to install a perfect Fascist system.
The accompanying mantra, as absorbed by "The Reign of the Orange," is: Disrupt, Delay, Divide, Destroy...leave no institution of liberal democracy whole. That prescription, originally that of the early- to mid-20th Century Italian astrologer and Fascist philosopher Jules Evola, is backed by their (Bannon/Evola) observation that the collapse of liberal democratic institutions has been foretold and is inevitable, a little push by the wise and powerful will hasten this inevitability and rebuilding from the ashes an even greater USA (USA! USA!! USA!!!): The New American Fascist State.
If you believe in astrology, it is inevitable. If we allow Trump the powers and time in office he demands, it may be inevitable. I myself, commit to abandoning the politics of Facebook and other social media to work on the 2020 elections with my local Democratic Party. Inevitability in the workings of social institutions is a characteristic the will of the populace can weaken, perhaps even detour into oblivion.
4
It's true, democracy is fragile and fleeting -- and imperfect. But imho even more important, also mentioned by Bradatan, is humility. None of us like the neighbor or co-worker who thinks that s/he's "the best" but when it comes to groups, we rush to exalt our team, the particular sect of our religion, maybe our gender, maybe our state, and of course our country. American exceptionalism, American privilege, and all that kind of thinking is certainly pernicious -- dangerous to the world and hence to ourselves. We are truly modern hominids with cave man brains.
“O wad some Power the giftie gie us, to see oursels as ithers see us!" What foolish notions we have...
1
What makes democracy possible is evolution and education.
It's true that 35% or 40% of the population will always fall for authoritarians, patriarchs and tribalism, but the majority of people reject authoritarianism and all the historical wretchedness that comes with.
The right loves authoritarianism and the ignorance of the masses that sustains it.
But authoritarianism is nothing more than medieval, a quasi-religious state of affairs subject to capricious madness of the emperor-du-jour that dispels with the rule of law.
Putin is lawless...Kim Jong Un is lawless...Xi is lawless....Saudi Arabia's monarchs are lawless...and Trump is lawless.
Nobody wants a lawless madmen except members of the fearful cult who can't even conceive of what freedom might actually mean.
Democracy is imperfect, but it beats the alternative and its worth fighting for.
In America, we have a Republican political party that has thoroughly rejected democracy, representative government and voting rights in favor of greed, power and wholesale corruption.
The majority will reject these unAmericans and wipe them off the political map in due time.
People will still fight for democracy, as the Hong Kongers just showed us.
It's always darkest before the dawn.
The 2020 blue tsunami is coming.
Rotten Republistan will be overcome by American democracy.
32
Professor Bradatan, just as most Americans you don’t understand the concept of democracy.
Your Founding Fathers gave you a head start but your country failed to continue the process they initiated and today your country is rated a flawed democracy by experts.
You can find a lot of countries today using advanced democratic political system but most Americans are not that informed of what is happening outside of your country.
You may be a professor but you still seems to be one of them
Greetings from a Swede
1
“What’s most natural to us, just as to any living creature, is to seek to survive and reproduce. And for that purpose, we assert ourselves — relentlessly, unwittingly, savagely — against others: We push them aside, overstep them, overthrow them, even crush them if necessary.”
NOT TRUE
The above is a 19th Century misunderstanding of Darwinism, that just happens to coincide with 19th Century Capitalism that did behave that way - ‘push them aside, overstep them, overthrow them, even crush them if necessary’
It is a purely ideological notion of evolution and largely crafted to justify capitalism.
More recent studies show that the idea of ‘the Survival of the fittest’ is not a good foundation for understanding evolution. Darwin wrote two books and many notebooks. His first book on evolution – the Origin of the Species – is the source of the phrase “Survival of the Fittest”.
Darwin’s second book, the Ascent of Man - 800 pages – he mentions the “Survival of the Fittest” TWICE, the first time to apologise for its abuse and the second time to say there are much more important agencies where evolution is concerned [David Loye, in the Great Adventure Toward a fully human theory of Evolution].
3
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
― Winston S. Churchill
3
If you give a man a thought, he might respect you for a moment. But if you teach a man to think, he will learn to respect himself.
1
According to Plato's Republic, five forms of government kyklos...cycles): Aristocracy, Timocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy, and Tyranny. Polybius, who influenced Machiavelli, suggested 3 basic forms-- democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy--, which ultimately degenerate to ochlocracy, oligarchy, and tyranny. Size of the polis, shared general intelligence and information, general shared moral proclivity and outlook all have to do with the ability to sustain a democratic form. Extreme pluralism, fractions, factionalism can tear a polis apart.
4
Each hateful, greedy act brings us closer to getting the government we deserve.
2
Hey! I just now caught on.....substitute "Trump" everywhere you see a reference to some antidemocratic devil or other and you've decoded the secret message!
If this banal invective is a sample of best highbrow rhetoric the progressives have to offer, then I'm betting Trump has four more years coming.
1
Hey, I bet Trump has more than four more years coming. History will recall his shame indefinitely.
3
None of this should come as a surprise or shock to anyone who has studied simian behaviour.
Homo sapiens are apes after all. Apes with aspirations but still...
2
And then there is Scandinavia....
I am not sure any American has heard of the place.
No Conservative has, for sure.
2
Jared Diamond, in his book ‘Upheaval’ feels one of our greatest risks to our democracy is that the winning party will use the power of the state to attack and destroy the losing party. He gives examples of where, first it was thought unthinkable, but then happened.
How close are we? Very close. We’ve elected a fascist who ignores the constitution at every turn and would think nothing of grabbing power by force then destroy his enemies. Where’s the GOP? Cheering him on.
Watch out!
2
So, the gist is . . . Give up, America is doomed, Trump(ism) wins, just smile and accept it?
1
Read Larry Diamond "Ill Winds"
Let me sumarize all of the comments in response:
If you don't like the results of an election (e.g. 2016) then democracy has ... FAILED!
I hate to break it to the bed-wetting echo chamber crowd, but democracy is doing just fine, you've just lost (a high profile series) of arguments.
3
Democrats always claiming fraud, illegitimacy or foreign interference whenever a candidate they don't like is elected certainly doesn't help.
1
Anytime a fool loses the popular vote by 2.8 million votes, but wins the presidency, this is a failure of democracy. Impeach the foolish US constitution, the emperor has no clothes!
5
"Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler and Mussolini were all smooth talkers, charmers of crowds and great political seducers."
Alexander is the odd one out here. He was a king who ruled by hereditary right (a long line of Macedonian and Epirote kings preceded him) and so had no need to charm his way into power. He does seem to have been charismatic though.
2
At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, a Maryland delegate, James McHenry, noted that Dr. Benjamin Franklin was asked by a bystander “Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied, “A republic.. ...if you can keep it.”
4
Do any articles concerning the President ever say anything which is not negative? The constant anti "Trump" rancor displayed by the Times's writers creates a backlash of sentiment for the President. I will probably not re-new my subscription to your publication when it expires.
1
@JN. Italy credited Mussolini (wrongly) for getting the trains "to run on time," too. You are willing to sell your soul for the Trump MAGA version. Sad.
3
After fascism, Naziism and the horrors of World War II, Erich Fromme warned us about the perverse human desire for an "Escape from Freedom." We see it again today with the dangerous resurgence of right-wing "populism," which is based, not on democracy and truth, but on scapegoating, xenophobia, lies, bigotry, and outright ignorance. God help us from this barbaric democracy of the mob.
4
The difficulty in democracy is that a few simple constraints would ensure longevity.
This runs into absolutists who falsely make the argument “but where would we draw the line?!” “Who would get to decide?!” As if we don’t all have the common sense to draw lines every day — don’t discriminate. Don’t lie. Don’t steal. Don’t defraud. Etc.
1. Term limits: term limiting avoids the vainglorious career politician that gets in with a silver tongue and stays in for life.
2. Freedom to speak shouldn’t include freedom to incite hatred, to incite the removal of government for theocracy and death of pluralism, to undermine the security of different groups within society. Democracies must engage in some self defense. The Germans understand: letting little hitlers speak with impunity isn’t freedom for all of us, not eventually. Firm but specific and few limits.
3. Mandatory voting. Democracy makes every voter responsible by design. If you don’t want to vote, leave. Vote, or pay a huge fine. Period. And while we’re at it: paper ballots. We are past the point where we can trust computers to be tamper proof.
4. Public financed elections. Debate ideas, not interest groups. Elections are ours, so our communal money should be used to finance it. It’s infrastructure.
5. Mandatory civics education: Abraham Lincoln complained the population was too stupid to make informed decisions and wanted more colleges in the states. Christian fundamentalists would benefit from a course in pluralism.
5
Over the long haul of human history, most humans have lived in communities that were run more democratically than not. A commitment to a degree of equality (by no means absolute equality) and shared participation in guiding public life is characteristic of most human societies.
The sorts of problems you’re describing are much more characteristic of larger, wealthier societies, not of humanity as a whole.
This piece reminds me of a story I heard many years ago from a philosopher who’d been in Britain as a soldier in the leadup to the Normandy invasion. He was on a train, and entered a compartment with two elderly women. One of them was sobbing. The other was trying to comfort her. “There, there, dear,” she said. “Be philosophical: don’t think about it.”
2
The Gods of the ancients were often irrational, petty, jealous and spiteful, and, being immortal, bored. They intervened in the lives of mortals for amusement. We were their version of the video game. I’d say humans turned to democracy because they lived through the authoritarian alternatives - including being the underlings of the gods - and found them all oppressive. It also seems to me we struggle more with the excesses and injustices of capitalism than with the deficiencies of democratic governance. Perhaps we are now too much like the ancient gods, lulled into boredom by an excess of material convenience, and into fits of ill temper by our fear that it cannot be sustained.
1
No form of human organization will ever be perfect but what is the alternative?
Some new form of feudalism where there is not social mobility and the so-called benevolent elites hand out privileges to the masses according to political loyalty and usefulness?
That ends in its own time as well. Often brutally.
1
Well said and something I have always thought myself. You and I will be dead and gone but one can hope that humans will evolve into more reasonable creatures.
1
There are two quotes attributed to Winston Churchill that may be appropriate here:
'The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.'
'It's been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.'
It's easy to get cynical
Don't want to be too critical
But when you talk political
With those in the know
They're filled with hypocritical
And other stuff
That's quite enough
I've got to go
That's right,to be successful we have to overcome our base instincts. To combat nonsense and the elements that tend to destroy us we must educate ourselves, we must apply our brains to overcome natural instincts. Evolution doesn't know about democracy, the world's worst political system - except for everything else. Even though our taste buds demand we eat too much of bad foods, we have to employ our brains to rationally govern our behavior. We teach children, we must teach ourselves. Democracy is not for the stupid.
1
It is too easy to dismiss humans as irrational. There are plenty of rational and sane people. The issue is not democracy, but universal vote. Blame the French.
The backbone of our democracy is the US Constitution, its provision for a balance of powers in a tripartite government and Bill of Rights. When these are ignored, undermined and compromised by greed, partisan politics and a demagogic leader, democracy is threatened.
3
I take issue with the characterization of self-assertion as inherent to the animal kingdom, as if social cooperation is what makes humans different from the rest of nature.
Actually, there are many social animals, and humans are in fact an outlier of selfish, brutal behavior. No other animals kill each other with such abandon. And while there are many species where small social units are led by a dominant individual (which changes regularly, practically like American elections), there are many others that live in collective harmony - dolphins and whales for the most part, as an example.
We would do well to not think of ourselves as so different from nature. We would do better to look to our cousins for examples of how to organize ourselves in ways that balance individual needs with collective wellbeing.
Humans are nasty and brutish. So many other social animals are not.
1
Our democratic form of government has always been grossly imperfect, but there are plenty of ways for democracy to fall short of our expectations without having the south end of a northbound mule as our President. If Donald is thrown out on his ear, there will still be plenty of imperfection to go around.
BTW Lincoln was regarded as a irredeemable hayseed in his day, and his election sparked a civil war. We've seen worse.
A reminder of the Athenian pessimism about democracy is always helpful, as is a reflection on the much later distrust of Rousseau for democracy.
It is ironic that much simpler explanation of human frailty is found in the lesson of a barnyard animal.
When Henny Penny, whom Americans call Chicken Little, is struck on the head by an acorn dropped by a passing bird, Chicken Little cries out, “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”
Each time a democracy produces a leader whose instincts, speeches and actions are anti-democratic, some of the electorate predict the end of the democracy.
Those doomsayers are almost always wrong. Our democracy will survive Donald Trump – as long as we are braver than Chicken Little and work hard to replace him with someone who is fit for the office.
1
The basic truth is that democracy is a wonderful, irresponsible idea. We would rather follow a dumb strong man or authoritarian regime because, well, someone is calling the shots. Put ten extremely-pro democracy exiles on an island that has everything provided, and two will start to complain about the bananas. We as humans are our own worst enemy.
Really, now is our democracy failing. and in undeniable retreat?
Is this confirmed by our GOP, capitulating to its continued servile existence to its President, suborning themselves to his fealty.
If our founders were around, would their elite would be fighting for our freedom again! Or would they capitulate, as well?
Comparing humans to animals is unfair. Animals are far more discriminating than humans are when it comes to trying to assert themselves and their own power.
With humans, unfortunately, it is not just a biological urge to reproduce and survive that drives us. It is also the egoic mind, and that's where the problem comes in. Whether you're talking about the flagrant romanticizing of white nationalism and authoritarianism on the right or the out of control PC police and call out culture on the left, it's the urges of the ego that are fundamentally driving us.
We do have the potential, though, to do better. At our core, we are not ego, but spirit. Relating to people on that level inherently opens us up to the kind of humility that this piece correctly identifies as necessary for a healthy and truly workable democracy, a humility that springs from the knowledge that we are all exactly the same thing.
Democracy in the hands of the unevolved is very dangerous, as the tendency is to take away the rights of others, not expand them. Hint: if your definition of increasing freedom and equality involves trying to oppress others, you're not really fighting for freedom and equality at all, and that's true if you're a Republican going after transgendered in the military or a Democratic trying to ban speech you don't agree with.
1
Democracy is imperfect but have you considered the alternatives? Do you aspire to be a servant, serf, slave?
I would add that democracy becomes more stable as the population becomes more educated. Not just in higher learning but also in morals, ethics, virtue. Education helps people apply reason and wisdom to moderate and control base instincts. America's education in all these areas has been under attack by Republicans for over a generation. That helps explain why America is sliding into authoritarianism, bordering on fascism.
Trump's supporters denigrate education and while some of his cult have college degrees, they lack morals and ethics, and they mock virtue. They have been voting for Republicans for decades and instead of wage increases and improved living standards they get red meat to feed their prejudices. They are fed hate of others to channel their anger and frustration against the government, Democrats, progressives, education, science and yes, democracy.
1
Beautiful and provocative assay! we forget that democracy is a mix of rights and responsibilities and if people do not step up with the bare minimum --voting -- democracy is dead at the start. However, we are seeing an impressive phenomenon before our eyes: while we get distracted by Tump idiotic behaviors that mask the horrific things done by his administration, the democratic revolution advocated by Bernie in 2016 is actually happening. We have a vibrant young generation of people with very different values who will make our democracy stronger. so I believe democracy can work if people try hard
The US form of democracy is stumbling because we have allowed OUR representatives to become entrenched in Washington. These elcted jobs were not thought of as a way to enrich yourself or be a career for 20, 30 or 40 years. Would the makeup of our government look different if there were no pensions for serving in Congress? How about a prohibition on leaving government jobs and then becoming a lobbyist? We could eliminate PACs I think by having a law that you must be a registered voter to donate to any party or candidate. A party or candidate could only use this money to run for office. No other commercials or ads could be run by anyone or organization. If the states are smaller versions we can see how we are evolving from a two party system to a one party system in a lot of states. I'm just rambling on, dreaming this morning. Maybe when I wake up I was just dreaming of a masked mob attacking a reporter. But sadly, that was Portland, OR where the police were told to stand down. That is not a democracy.
1
Wow!! Well said and true. Greed and power. That's the name of the game. We are no different than any of the other "lesser" animals. Except I don't think the "lesser" animals identify with greed and power, just survival.
Thank you for this. Maybe I am still sane. My wife has to listen to me make comments about Trump supporters and the human condition in general, that exemplifies the pulse of anger that seems to be just under the surface in our society. She thinks I am a little over the top on this stuff, she being a little bit more of an optimist. My feelings are based on historic reference ( such as Hitler's rise to power ), not out of displeasure with my life. I am quite happy and fortunate in so many ways. I wish that those people who feel the need to push others aside had a better outcome in their life.
Democracy does not fail because the people that are governed take "ecstasy" in undemocratic rulers. The case can be made that the failure of democracy traces not to the flaws in the human character but to the flaws in systems that allow a powerful few to assert their will on the many. That is a very difficult tendency to confront. Their is a tendency to for "people" to accept those powerful individuals which almost certainly traces to the need to protect ones tribe that became ingrained over millions of years for the tribe to survive. The American democratic experiment was devised to protect the nation against that tendency. However, flaws in the system have been exploited. Greed has been allowed to prosper. The nation supported the extermination of the indigenous people and took their land. It supported the importation of slaves that did not look like us to do the work needed to support the nation. It has supported undemocratic rules to allow those that prospered to manipulate the system through rigged voting system that denied democratic rights to many and enhanced the political power of a few. It allowed the wealth of a few to subvert the process and then even enhanced the power of wealth by inviting powerful corporations to determine the political process through Citizens United.
None of these outcomes were due to a natural flaw in mankind. It is an insidious process that is the natural outcome when wealth and greed are allowed to go unchecked.
1
"And for that purpose, we assert ourselves — relentlessly, unwittingly, savagely — against others: We push them aside, overstep them, overthrow them, even crush them if necessary. Behind the smiling facade of human civilization, there is at work the same blind drive toward self-assertion that we find in the animal realm..."
This aspect of human is much more representative of the male sex than the female. While there are, of course, exceptions and women can be also cruelly xenophobic, most women around the world just want to keep their children safe, with all the necessities to live and flourish, including education.
If and when the collapse of democracy comes under the leadership of men, women will be the ones left to pick up the pieces. They will be the ones who have to struggle for a good future for their children and all the weak and vulnerable among us.
Human nature is such, and coupled with our hyper-individualistic, me, me, me society, that "democracy" will never be sustainable. Ours is a transactional existence where people look at other people not as people but as opportunities to make money.
Additionally, our consumer based culture reinforces this idea. When a person is a child they're treated like a child, when at school they're treated like a child, when at work they're treated like a child, politicians treat people like children, etc., etc., etc. The only time that people are afforded any individual agency is when they are buying something. To wit: The customer is always right. Lol..., sure.
So long as individual monetary gain, narrow self-interest and small world existence is the measure of our lives, the continuing tyranny of the majority (democracy) will continue to be further warped into a might makes right world where community, humility, reflection, etc., completely disappear and all that remains is an irredeemable existence of the haves and the have-nots who serve them or perhaps even worse, true Fascism. It would serve us well to remember:
"Fascism is capitalism plus murder."
- Upton Sinclair
What trash! No doubt that democracy is not easy and it’s goals and principles are hard to accomplish but it is the striving that should be glorified and supported. The idea that we should all shrug our shoulders and say “ok that’s life” is appalling.
I urge my fellow Americans not to go gently into that good night.
Democracy must be saved.
A new and deeply researched book (recently reviewed in the Times) gives a full historical treatment of all this--the "elusiveness" of democracy--in its American context: THE PROBLEM OF DEMOCRACY by Nancy Isenberg and Andrew Burstein.
And here we go...the serving up of yet more of the "Well, this has to fail,so why not run it into the ground first!" sort of "academic" writing that now stands as insight.
Phooey!
European democracy is not American democracy. The two might share a few key ideas, but in Europe it was never like the American version. That's why its been the most sought after form of governance ever! In Europe its always been about the ONE, the one guy who could bring the people tounite under his tutelage and them iron-grip.
In the American version - as the Founding Fathers modeled and handed us - it was always about the Group. The whole, working as a bunch of disparate parts to protect individual rights.
"We the People" is purely American. Whereas in Europe its always been; "I am your Ruler, follow me!"
In the US, this playing "follow the leader" is a very modern contrivance. Mostly due to our apathy as citizens and a near complete takeover by Corporate Interests in the sphere of governance. Which is wholly the fault of the voters.
Personally, I'm sick and tired of these nay-saying pieces. We can survive Trump. We dont need to make him out to be the end of the American Way, because he's really not all that. He's too small and insignificant of a person to elevate to such a large role.
However, we should make him an example of how lazy and stupid we as citizens have become. And where we need to go. Trump is a much needed wake-up call. Lets not waste that gift.
1
To [poorly] quote Winston Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government ... except for everything else that's already been tried."
Democracy dies when we stop being a nation of democrats.
And in this definition, a democrat is an involved, intelligent, informed citizen - one who knows that the rule of law means no one is above it, and demands that of him(er)self, fellow citizens, government bureaucrats [try running anything without organization!!], and elected officials.
This next election will determine if the American populace is intelligent, informed, and motivated enough to demand it from its leaders. For those of us dedicated to that proposition, it's our job to help organize a massive vote *everywhere* to turn the tide in 2020 and bury the notion of oligarchy, privilege, and Trumpism *forever.*
Let's resolve to choose and support candidates at *every* level who support cogent thought over "whataboutism," science over religious conservatism, and the rule of law over of moronic behavior.
It seems to me that a great deal of the populist revolt has happened because for too many years our politics have been dominated by politicians who bought into a globalist fantasy and by economic interests who profited greatly from it.
The problem is that they did not bring large parts of the population along with them into this new world order. As businesses rushed with what Ross Perot called a giant sucking sound to move production to countries where labor was cheap and governments eager to make troublemakers disappear politicians who had once been the champions of the working man, in this country the Democrats, found that by emphasizing social issues and not bucking the powers that be they could raise more money than the had as champions of the workers.
The the working people in this country and other Industrialized nations got cheap stuff but lost their livelihoods. They become road kill on the highway to globalization.
This was not a case of democracy failing but of Democracy perverted. When the two parties are virtually indistinguishable on economic issues and the only thing you’re voting on are abortion, guns and gay rights people are not going to make wise decisions.
Does anyone actually think that citizens in industrial towns would have voted to close up the factories which gave them a hard earned decent life and send their jobs overseas so investors could make even more money?
The former middle class is having its revenge and it is not pretty.
On the axis between cooperation and competition, we would like to think we are cooperators first, but I think history proves it is the opposite. We complete ruthlessly, as this author suggests, and only cooperate when we are forced to, such as when there is a massive external threat like Germany circa 1938 or Soviet Union circa 1962.
And for you fellow liberals who want to look the other way and not face our evolutionary psychology realistically, I would ask: If you want to make the world a better place, shouldn't we understand what the problems really are so that we can correct them?
Wow, what a profoundly insightful piece. I never considered democracy as so fragile, but rather accepted it as a state of politics to which enlightened humans had evolved over the millennia.
The author’s point about the ease with which charismatic leaders can usurp and corrupt democracy rings painfully true when looking back at Nazi Germany and recognizing even the rumblings of danger that are threatening our own democracy in the US.
Perhaps the best defense that the people have is the knowledge of how fragile democracy is, and to be willing to fight relentlessly to preserve it. That is what has been happening here for over 200 years, and may the gods ensure that we continue.
I'm not well positioned to opine on how the human condition plays into democratic governance, but I can tell you that direct democracy in Florida has produced a constitution that finds the confinement of pregnant pigs, slot machines, and smoking in public, are intrinsic, fundamental elements of our state government. Just spit ballin' here, but maybe everyone running everything is not the best idea ever.
1
It is a democratic form of capitalism that cannot be sustained. Even Marx said over 100 yrs ago that we would enter a final period of Capitalism with its imperialist finality. Imperialism with that characterization is characterize by force and destruction.
Christianity was never interested in democracy. Its gods were clearly against it and decidedly in favor of monarchy. Witness its love of trump, who will soon declare himself king via "Executive Order."
”Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time....”
Winston Churchill
A reluctantly bleak but accurate statement of current human nature. The proof is on the front pages of this paper every day. The crazier he is, the louder the cheers of the mob, the greater the idiocy that spouts from his mouth (airports during the Revolutionary War), the more he is endeared by the throngs of zombies he has gathered.
In the face of the dangers that are right on the surface for all to see, our democratically elected leaders remain impotent to stop the downward spiral as though an invisible hand is holding them back.
The mob scares me. They are cavemen.
1
Couldn't possibly mention the Big Money Interests that find democracy inconvenient!
Yet the United States won the Cold War.
It should be no surprise that Mr. Bradatan
does not mention that the Gulags no longer exist.
Democracy 1
Tyranny 0.
Democracy is impossible because the average person is too stupid to rule. Democracy differs from other forms of government in that it allows a variety of people of ability to rule as elites, rather than inherited elites or military elites or some other group. All government is elitist; democratic governments have more generous in creating elites but these are not always the best elites. Democracy in practice is plutocracy.
Insults and instincts are the result of aeons of evolution. That said it stands to reason that aeons of practiced democracy will eventually lead to a more perfect and desirable product. One thing rings loud and clear at this point, that fascism is exponentially worse than the alternative in terms of social benefit.
Don't write democracy off it is the only means decent humans have to evolve beyond the archaic process of authoritarian fascist rule. The only hope mankind has to survive the climate perils it has bestowed upon the planet that sustains all life. When the time comes our climate will not bother to distinguish between republican or democrat. We will perish together as a species not an ideology. Democracy denotes a plan for all, not the few. It must win or we all lose.
1
Greed and ego have killed stronger ideals than democracy.
1
Total nonsense with some interesting history. The urge to form social groups is a primary human trait as is the urge to care for and love others. Democracies fail when people lose track of this and seek happiness and meaning from trying to nuture themselves in various self-feeding ways instead of working toward the benefit of others in some way
The example of Athens and the comment of Rousseau are all about MEN. The Democrat Party in this nation is now featuring strong, assertive, intelligent and humane
WOMEN. I, personnally, hope that they prevail in this election cycle and dethrone the arrogant monster from his roost.
The US has a representative democracy, so we don't have a true democracy. The US has always leaned toward the fascist/nationalist end of the spectrum, anyway. These days, it is particularly startling how far right it is leaning. I don't think the US is losing its democracy quite yet, despite the attacks from the GOP. The US is still a fantastic place to live IN COMPARISON to other nations. Of course, it could be better.
To paraphrase a well know American oligarch, Henry Ford, “If we believe in democracy or if we don’t, we’re probably right.”
Finally, someone making sense. Thank you. Flawed and selfish humans are incapable of sustained good behavior.
I wonder why the Times publishes this ill-informed opinion piece that basically advocates giving up on democracy. It is too bad that the writer of it is not familiar with population studies that show that population density bears an inverse relationship to the pressure to form a hierarchy. Hunter-gatherer societies, which have low population density and low birth rates and in which survival depends on group cooperation are highly democratic. Sedentary societies which center in agriculture produce as high a population as the carrying capacity of the land can bear and soon develop centralized food storage and a strongman to control distribution—end of democracy.
The great success of the US as a democracy depended on the vast land ahead, which allowed the population to continue to spread out. The closing of the frontier was followed by the first great internal assault on our democracy, the Gilded Age.
With no more new land available, the best demographic contribution to keeping our democracy healthy is a birth rate below replacement, which we are pretty much at.
I have hope and I hope that the Times will publish a well-informed piece to reduce the deleterious effect of this one.
This piece contains some excellent sentences! For example,
" Genuine democracy doesn’t make grand promises, does not seduce or charm, but only aspires to a certain measure of human dignity. "
Now compare this to, oh, let's just choose the recent pair of Democrat Party debates. Grand promises, unkeepable, galore. They covered the very heart of the Socialist-Communist false promises that never work for long, as they eventually become fiscally impossible.
Our particular democracy is working exactly as its supposed to.
Of course, the NYTimes does not really LIKE that our democracy works so well ... it wants Democrats to win, period. It and the Democrats got really mad when democracy really DID work in 2016 and Trump got elected. Trump is a realist, and realism is antithetical to the Democrat's programs.
1
Maybe democracy is for the gods, but humans are to imitate God, Ephesians 5:1; 1 Corinthians 11:1 “Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children.” Also, in 1st Cor 11:1, Paul invites his hearers to imitate him as he imitates Christ. Furthermore, Paul offered himself as an example of giving up his rights; and in 10:33, “just as I, Paul of Tarsus, try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but seeking to advantage the many, so that they may be saved.” In Rom 8:9, Jesus sends God’s Spirit, the Holy Ghost, to live in us. Thus the fruit of God’s Spirit in us means that the character of God, His own heart, is constantly at work inside us. There are many more citations in the Bible, New and Old Testaments, that encourages humans to emulate God, and you can find them if you have the stamina and ethic.
1
The Stanford Prison experiment redux.
This piece is more of a pseudo-poetic riff than a reasoned argument. It doesn't mention decades of research into the evolutionary implications of altruism in animal behavior. Besides, democracy as we commonly talk about it is a product of the Enlightenment, not ancient Greece. One could get the same poetic mileage riffing in the opposite direction: democracy isn't special; it's been there from the beginning of time: bees do it. Even bacteria vote (quorum sensing).
1
Democracies work best within small, united, homogenous populations. See Greece, Switzerland, Scandinavia.
Large heterogenous entities seem to need strong dictatorships to keep the various factions and identity groups from fighting each other.
It seems the US has become the latter.
Democracies in which each individual’s sole concern is self-interest degenerate into fighting. Democracies in which individual’s are concerned with balancing competing interests and promoting a more perfect union are possible, and are not destined to perish.
Mankind as animal may be one choice but it is not his destiny.
1
THE ONLY SYSTEM WORTHY OF MAN
One alternative to democracy is enlightened despotism. Yet it is exceedingly rare to find enlightened despots. Look at Putin, Erdogan, Kim: they are despotic but hard on the people. Therefore democracy remains the only system that fosters constitutional government and balance of powers. The US fought for sixty years or more to promote democracy around the world: in fact the leitmotiv at the fall of the iron curtain was the necessity of democracy and constitutional government which would guarantee human rights. Why this loss of nerve now? Democracy was the intellectual basis of the US constitution. I advise people not to listen to the swan song of the enemies of democracy. Yes, democracy is possible but its essential condition is civic education and the study of history. This is not impossible to implement. The real long term alternative to democracy is totalitarianism, which is unworthy of man.
2
Sadly, the gods were, as in ancient Greece, and are in our major patriarchal and hierarchical abrahamic religions non-democratic. Democracies only work if there is an effective balance of power that can prevent demagogues from toppling it. Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell have exposed the weaknesses of our "noble experiment" that the Founders hoped would solve the problems of the ancient Greeks and Romans. But, when you have a demagogue as chief Executive, a subservient and enabling political party controlling half the Legislative branch and allowing the appointment of justices who endorse expansive Executive power to the Supreme Court, the checks-and-balance can and are failing and our democracy is facing the stark reality of collapsing into autocracy. We are at that crossroads and darkness is descending on our Constitution and its "rule of law" as we are witnessing every day now with an increasing defiant Donald Trump. The election in November, 2020 will, if it's not rigged (as it has been with Russian interference, gerrymandering, Voter ID laws, and the purging of voter rolls), decide whether as Lincoln hoped "that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth."
5
Mr Bradatan got to the crux of the issue when he asserted, "One element that is needed for democracy to emerge is a sense of humility. ... To be a true democrat, in other words, is to understand that when it comes to the business of living together, you are no better than the others, and to act accordingly." I think that is very true but he goes on to suggest it is doomed to fail over time as it is undermined by darker elements of human nature. What he describes boils down to the conflicts of values that drive competition to overrule cooperation and infect social harmony with dischord.
That is a dismal conclusion but it is not hopeless. There are communities that deliberately chose to reject the standard values and assumptions of the wider world, replacing them most effectively with a spiritually informed ethos grounded in the very humility we're told is unsustainable.
Against all odds and frequent oppression, Mennonite, Amish and similar congregations have survived and prospered for over 500 years.
Confident in their faith, they encourage each generation to test it for themselves by leaving the commune to experience life and values in the wider world. Most return from that dose of reality with a lifelong commitment to the proven peaceful, happy wisdom of their elders.
Their story is a near mystical confirmation that kindness is always possible. It's worth reading.
Maybe the better question is, why do we keep telling ourselves that democracy is the best, or even a desirable, system? What is it best at?
If it means economic and military supremacy, which are the value that Americans seem to care about the most, then democracy doesn't have a great track record. The Greek empire lasted only about 3 centuries, and American hegemony is fast dying out after less than a century of brilliance. Compare that to the Roman empire, which lasted over a millennium, or the Chinese empire, which lasted thousands of years.
If, on the other hand, democracy means "all adults are free to chime in, to join the conversation on how they should arrange their life together," then we don't know how good American democracy could be, because we haven't tried it yet. Our greatness has been built on conquest and dominance, not exactly democratic ideals. And Trump, the Republicans, and the Evangelical Christians are working flat-out to lock the door and throw away the key on who gets to decide how we all live together.
3
Excellent essay. The only thing that has held our democracy together for the past 243 years are the concepts of the "rule of law" and "separation of powers". Unfortunately, politics and the manner by which the Congress conducts its business, have been the biggest threats. For example, it should be painfully clear that if no one is above the law, that also must apply to the President who really ought to be charged and indicted for any crimes he has committed . Otherwise, we are just setting the stage for an autocrat to do whatever he/she feels is appropriate by executive order. As long as we have a mechanism for the succession of powers -- as we clearly do-- the government should be able to function during the legal proceedings without losing a beat. Thus, the DOJ directive that a sitting President can not be indicted should be held unconstitutional.
Also, the President is more than the Commander in Chief , which seems to have become the only way we views the office these days. He is the Chief Executive, who takes an oath to faithful execute the laws of the land. If child abuse is a crime, then the President is ultimately responsible for the abuses now taking place and is derelict in his/her responsibilities not to take appropriate action to remedy the situation in a humane way. So, why doesn't the Congress assert that Trump has been negligent in that regard and demand that he correct the matter? What could be more in keeping with the the principles of our constitution?
3
Bradatan identifies one of democracy’s biggest flaws - it’s vulnerability to the charismatic - but misses its deeper fundamental shortcomings. There are two main modes which encompass both the strategy and justification of democratic voting. The first is the identity-selfish-fair share mode; everyone is taking from the political pie so I should vote to maximize my share. This leads to the forming of alliances based on identity. This approach has been and continues to be the biggest bane to democracies everywhere; it is an expressway to tyranny of the majority, whether that majority is a single party or a coalition. Even if this path to tyranny is checked, decision making based on pure greed will always fail to solve - indeed will make the exact worst decisions possible for - the most difficult “prisoner -dilemma” type problems like distributing scarce resources, escalation of conflicts, etc. There is second mode of democratic voting however, the enlightened-universal mode of thinking - one which voters vote according to what they think is the best for everyone. The democratic mechanism in this case - tap into all unique points of view ensuring truly collective wisdom. Compromise is pragmatic. Of corse, this mode has proven nearly impossible for humans to achieve. One could argue that the senate was designed to work this way. Unfortunately all the norm and traditions meant to steer senators towards deliberative, collective thinking have recently been blown away.
3
Very insightful Frank. I observed the identity polarization when I was working in Africa back in the 90’s. People voted for candidates of their ethnicity because of course, those would be the ones who would choose cabinets and legislate in ways that would favor that people group. One problem is that a while minority of that tribe might be within the former colonial boundaries that now defined that country; there would be others in that tribe across the border who would take up arms if the minority tribe felt it was not given a fair shake or was even being discriminated against. It’s still happening.
Very well written and it gets to the source of our problems. We are human and even though our technology has advanced exponentially over the centuries human nature has changed very little. As long as a society is based on some form of currency there will always be people that accumulate more than others and that usually results in an accumulation of power.
I'm hoped that Trump and his philosophy of government is only the low point of a cycle that hopefully will return to a more positive form of government after the 2020 election.
3
Carl Marx over a 100 yrs ago, using a slightly different argument (economic) predicted this. Nietzsche ( philosophically) said about the same thing. Hopefully they were wrong and recognizing this, as a danger, maybe we can evolve with more effort and fight back. Jesus tried and his church sold out.
3
@Donald Forbes
What a strange comment.
Jesus was not a democrat, he was a charismatic leader, whose baffled followers tried to understand what he wanted them to do. He did not consult with them and have a show of hands.
1
Basically, democracy, or representative democracy, is selfish. I can vote for what I want, who I want. What “we want” may not be good for the country as a whole, but few can see that. In our selfishness we are convinced we are right. It’s human nature.
Our representatives, in their selfishness, corrupt government in other ways. Voting for their donors instead of their constituents
(“Our donors have said if we don’t get this tax cut they’re not giving any more.”), stockpiling money and making the rules how it can be spent, steering money in ways that benefit them. The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.
Capitalism is also selfish. I can start a business, I can run it how I want, I can tell my employees how much I will pay them, I should be able to keep all the money I make, I will use my money to bend government to my will.
I remember reading about a well known Republican donor when he started to become known as a force behind the scenes. People who knew him said he was nice guy until he became wealthy, then he got weird.
We have a system with unrepresentative characteristics, the Senate; an electoral college mess which can over rule the majority, and a two party system which squelches any other groups.
Then we have an electorate, largely uninformed about how government functions, being shaped and steered by these forces using propaganda, outright lies, and show business techniques, which many find persuasive and irresistible.
So, what could go wrong?
5
Nothing remains stable for long under runaway positive feedback.
Liberal democracy, where all citizens have the right to suffrage enshrined in law, has never "popped up" or even existed before. Athenians and the "founding fathers" of the American so-called democracy both established patriarchies that excluded the vast majority of the people that still had to obey them with no right to vote and little recourse to the law.
The rule of law for all citizens necessary for a government resembling true democracy was only made possible with the passage of the 14th and 19th amendments. True democracy was almost made real just in 1965 with the passage of the Civil Rights Acts and the Immigration and Naturalization Act. There is still much to do before it is a reality for all the people.
Now it is the white patriarchy in the form of Trump and his ilk that want to reestablished the unequal rule of white, male property owners that was first established by the founding fathers (and later embedded into the culture with Jim Crow and "separate but equal"). It is they that want to reverse the expansion of young democracy to all the people enjoyed for the last 50 years during this fresh new American experiment in a hard-won 20th century liberal democracy. It they that want return total political power to themselves and their greedy, undemocratic embrace.
They must be stopped.
4
In this thought provoking essay, Professor Bradatan has stirred the minds of some of the greatest commentary that I have read in the NYTimes. So, congratulations to the author for sharing his thoughts on the American experiment.
My thoughts are his essay's focus on the challenge of how the human society can achieve a condition that gives the opportunity for our species to achieve happiness and a sense of self fulfillment (Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory) leaves important factors out of his argument, which should be addressed.
First, the laws of physics and our increasing understanding of the forces of nature on the planet Earth. In our understanding of energy and biology and applying it in creative fashion that has improved our quality of life and life expectancy. And as we have prospered, increased in numbers, and extended the life expectancy of our species, we must now come to grips with the physics of using oil, natural gas, and coal for energy because it appears that the gasses from combustion is causing the Earth to warm and threatens our human habitat. It is the only habitat we have and will likely be our habitat for millennia to come.
Second, is the strong evidence that life itself and the species that have survived including our own species have survived through biological processes that have allowed the huge number of successful species to adapt.
With all that said, I believe the American experiment can successfully adapt by continuing to innovate.
3
@james jordan
Another note on "adapting" to changes in political, social and economic systems I often think about how long it took in time from 1491 to 1776 for the colonial settlements that had formed for so many different reasons on the American continent to agree to revolt against the English monarchy. Then equally amazing was the commonsense of the leaders of the States under the Confederation of States to see that it was not going to work and agreed to convene to form the American Republic and write the Constitution for a Representative Democracy. Even then, since the Constitution came into force in 1789, it has been amended 27 times, including an amendment to repeal a previous one, in order to meet the needs of a nation that has profoundly changed since the eighteenth century.
The Constitution is not easily amended but there is a provision in the Constitution for a Separate but equal branch of government, the Supreme Court of the United States that can rule on a question that can have the force of law in the behavioral disputes that arise in our society.
Since 1979 I have heard many issues surface and heard many sides of fundamental questions concerning how much government should be involved in regulating the established free enterprise, and how much power the Executive and Legislative Branches of our government should have or how much power the Federal Government should have over State Governments. These are not easy questions but eventually they are resolved.
Could a less radical form of sorting be a remedy to the power of incumbency? Hard to argue that we are democratic when elections return predictable the same.
Five years ago, I had a feeling that the dreams of the U.S. Constitution and our Founding Fathers were being fulfilled. We had out first black president, and prospects of the first female president appear to shine above the horizon. The along came the Trump Train, brought to us by his devoted followers, many of whom were ignored by pollsters or think tanks. Now it feels as if the train of democracy is rolling backward down a steep grade, and the brakes have given out. Racial hated is on the rise, the wealthy control more of our money and economy, we are totally failing to preserve our environment for future generations, and we have thrown away longstanding democratic and economic allies around the world. The 2020 elections may bring Americans some hope of preserving democracy, and they may not.
4
Elect more intelligent women. Get rid of the old boys network.
6
@joyce - I've had a lot of jobs in my life, in many different industries, and worked under both men and women. The best boss I ever had, by far, was a male, and the worst, by far, was a female. All of the rest fell somewhere in the middle, with no clear pattern whatsoever to indicate any fundamental or predictable differences between the sexes in terms of which might be better suited for leadership.
My takeaway is that we should never, ever, vote on the basis of sex because that literally has nothing whatsoever to do with who might make the best leader. So thanks, but I think I'll ignore your suggestion that we should practice blatant sexism in the voting booth.
2
Mr Bradatan himself is a smooth talker, a charmer and seducer! Don’t allow him to bewitch you! For those, who talk of democracy as an unattainable ideal, and of human beings as of unfit for democracy by nature, are the unwitting enablers of tyranny!
Democracy is NOT too hard, and humans are NOT too imperfect to maintain it! But if people stop believing it to be possible, then it will necessarily die.
Mr Bradatan (just as Konrad Lorenz, by the way) commits variations of the ‘naturalistic fallacy’ on different levels: 1) He assumes that we can draw conclusions from history about the future, and 2) that our ‘natural’ predispositions have a normative significance. Non of that is correct. If people wouldn’t have the ability to suppress their immediate instincts in favor of rational, long term goals, the electronic device, that you use for reading this, would not exist! It is not ‘natural’ for humans to sit down quietly and figure out quantum mechanics! But they did! For most of human history, there was no indication that they would ever fly to the moon. But they did!
And no one, whose own accomplishments fall short of figuring out quantum mechanics or flying to the moon, has a right to belittle human nature, or to diminish our sense of what we can accomplish!
5
Why do democracies fail?
I believe the question is at present more usefully put as “How do we know when democracies begin to fail?
Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers Party disseminated a 25 point platform in Munich on February 24, 1920, thirteen years before he became Germany’s Chancellor.
These are some of its provisions:
--- Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since August 2, 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.
Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners.
--- Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press.
--- We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.
--- For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general.
It took Hitler a few years in office to get things fully worked out according to his liking, but eventually he got to where he was going.
Things are moving much faster these days.
A nip and a tuck here, a nip and a tuck there, and we will no longer be a democracy.
10
Doesn't Democracy need to rely on some base level of intelligence and concern for others? Andy Rooney said "no, you dont have a right to your opinion if you dont know what you're talking about." Amen! Democracy is not majority rule, as we are plainly seeing, but the loudest, pushiest, most strident voices win, concern for your fellow citizens be damned. Democracy requires a level of trust, an ability to compromise, and the belief that we are truly all in this together. What could be farther from our current reality?
2
Hmmm... It may just be me, but this essay strikes me as falling under the rubric of "aiding and abetting the enemy," Mr. Bradatan. There's a tone of resignation and "oh, well, what can you expect?" to it that makes me angry.
American democracy is flawed, to be sure -- deeply flawed. But, with all its flaws, we have managed to hang on to it for the last 243 years. I -- for one -- am not willing to shrug my shoulders and rationalize away the current assaults on it. To consign democracy to the realm of the "gods" and to rest content with merely "dreaming of it" is insufficient and cowardly. I'm going to fight like hell with my voice and my vote against Donald Trump, and all the other Republican hyenas who are snarling and snapping at democracy and doing their best to weaken it and bring it down.
1
Correct!! Human being are primates, and have been for millions upon millions of years. With very few exceptions, primates live in groups that are socially stratified. Decision making is NOT democratic. The groups enforce their boundaries, and fight what are essentially wars with other groups to defend their territories. They kill each other. Ancients human societies that are held up as noble examples of pure democracy were not pure democracies. Ancient Athenians elected their leaders, who were almost always from the aristocracy. While they did so, their slaves were toiling in the background. The founders of the U.S. Constitution profoundly distrusted democracy. They assumed, and supported, the idea that state and federal leaders would be drawn from the elites. That's why we are a constitutional republic. That's why the Electoral College was created. As many people have observed, unquestioning belief in origin myths frequently leads to disappointment. George Washington DID NOT throw a silver dollar across the Potomac. Sorry.
1
I guess Olympus was the ideal democracy. Or was it Valhalla? The authors of the Constitution had it right - Checks and Balances were needed to curb the excesses of the Executive.
In multiparty systems, especially parliamentary systems it is rare for one party to win a majority in the legislature and to form a government, consequently, compromise is built into a majority government. Unfortunately, so is an often realized inability to govern effectively. Moreover, the increased speed of modern life usually call for a quick response to events and, unfortunately, to an executive who "gets things done."
The only "guarantee" of democracy's ascendancy is the willingness of the public to be informed about, and active in, politics. Sadly, politics is as much an emotional pastime, like rooting for a sports team, as it is a serious attempt to provide governance for a diverse public.
As with religion, politics makes a claim on people to transcend their baser instincts and emotions. As with religion, politics usually fails to elicit the required responses.
2
Very much enjoyed this...
I almost passed it by, as I thought it might be depressing.
But you brought me back with the last paragraph.
Thank you.
2
The problems with democracy in large states is the logistics of carrying it out. We vote and then wait for at least 2 years to see if our choice worked. We have one of 125 Million votes and so the effort to study the so-called "issues" may not be worth the effort. We in this country feel entitled to do what I am doing, comment with no qualifications to explain it to the other entitled. The natural state of things in social biology is to have an alpha leader, who commands the rest and leads, right or wrong, the nature is to become dependent and follow, out of comfort, laziness or humility. How does an individual become a leader in a large group, many of whom don't think hard, pay much attention? Celebrity?: Trump, Reagan, Rhetoric?: Obama, Clinton, Kennedy, Party?: Bush, Bush, Nixon, luck?: Johnson, Ford, Truman, Patriotism, Eisenhower? All this translates into perceived not real talent, and that is broadcast by Media, that has a stake in the results. (eg Trump is making Media tons of money) So, how to keep the decision honest is more the question than whether democracy itself is the sick element.
1
The pleasures of the crowd (football, baseball, soccer games, for instance) and even the seductions of communal living (yes, small towns can be stifling, but also supportive and liberating) should not be dismissed, nor even overlooked. Yes, they can degenerate into authoritarian rule. But life with others, while fraught with dangers, is truly a desirable part of the human condition.
But the extreme individualism of capitalist economic systems is a dynamic that equally undermines democracy. The lonely crowd of isolated individuals who want to overcome their loneliness by going shopping is made up of people also seduced, not necessarily by oligarchs, but by their fellow individuals who are employed by corporate bodies.
The now labelled conservative Edmund Burke (labeled progressive in his own time) perhaps had it right. No institution of society—he identified the state, religion, business, and the family—should dominate what we call the larger society. A free individual, as distinct from a lonely individual, should be able to play off the demands of one of these institutions against the other, weakening the demands of any one of them. He called this freedom.
Conservative? I suppose so, but I don’t see any Republicans espousing such an idea these days. Those Democrats who find it palatable—and I would suspect their numbers would be considerable—could bring into their fold those who find the dominant Republicans repugnant.
2
To be fair to Mr. Trump, he DID remind us of the inspiring seizure of British airports in 1776. Those airports have remained in Americans hands ever since, a proud tradition that will continue - unless, of course, everyone gets cancer from the sound of wind turbines, in which case thank God for our next health care plan for which Mexico will pay.
4
I found this article thoroughly offensive. Our democracy is under attack by people who have more money than all of the rest of us combined and this author is saying, "Oh, just let it go. We can't sustain it anyway." The man who wrote a book titled, "In Praise of Failure" is NOT the person we need to look to right now for ideological strength and perseverance.
This is not the time for cynical philosophers. It is the time for positive and focused action to continue to work toward the ideal of what we CAN be. There will always be selfish people who think they are better than everyone else. That doesn't mean that the rest of us (the other 99% of our planet) should just throw our hands up and resolve ourselves to live as their peasants. Democracy requires diligent attention and active citizenship. This isn't the time to divest in democracy. It is the time to defend it.
3
Democracy requires citizens to be responsible for their government (of the people) and to participate in it (by the people). Now that Americans have everything the founders set out to achieve, and much more, they have little motivation to do the hard work our forefathers did.
Now Americans want no responsibility, like children, that's why Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have a foothold - they offer a life managed by the "government" (as if it were a rich uncle) that requires little effort on the part of the citizen. That it requires they relinquish significant elements of the personal freedom paid for in the lives of countless citizen-soldiers throughout our history matters not to people who want to be taken care of, to be relieved of responsibility, to have SECURITY. For that they are happy to give up freedom to manage their own lives, to let others wield their political power, to let democracy - and all its considerable responsibilities - die.
3
Nothing is less liberating than enlisting as a soldier.
The concept of incorporating democratic elements into Liberal governmental architectures, while inducing controlled instability, minimizes the erstwhile requirement for change to involve violence and bloodshed. In that way the concept of democratic process is also an impulse stemming from an instinct for survival, in this sense survival of the tribe. The Liberal Democratic architecture also allows for the self-management of larger tribal constructs such as Nations and International coalitions. Thus the Greek introduction of democratic notions into Western society was indeed seminal as enabler to move beyond simple strongman/potentate concepts for government. Unfortunately, the Liberal Democratic form has with it the potential for its undoing. Using democratic processes the mob or masses otherwise so disposed can revert the entire civilization back to more primitive modalities, along with the baggage from earlier times all that entails. Winston Churchill said something like democracy is the worst form of government except for the others. That was an astute observation.
I recall watching a TV series many years ago set in the legislative branch of a US state government. It always began with these words:
"Democracy is a very poor form of government. But all the others are so much worse."
2
A basic element of a Democracy is an educated citizenry, and this appears to be a great failure in the USA. Even now, as higher education is becoming more available to our younger generations, it is geared to vocational success in a technical world. The liberal arts including Literature and History that create an aware and thoughtful voting citizenry are being neglected.
5
And now we are adding super uneducated immigrants from unresponsible cultures that don’t work, to vote and make decisions in ours that only marginally works in the first place.
'We can not guarantee success in this war, but we can do something better. We can deserve it.' quoted from a David McCullough speech, spoken by John Adams and George Washington from a play by Addison
Democracy requires that a group of people willing to share responsibility and failure come together to create it. the founding fathers were willing to risk 'their lives, their wealth and sacred honor' to create something new and viable to replace tyranny. And what they came up with as with everything human beings create is imperfect and needs updating according to who we are now.
Right now the future of our system of government is uncertain. For the first time we have a president who has stated he is willing to do away with it. Perhaps this moment was inevitable, but what does it mean to win? Perhaps it means to once again to take on the risk of failing and in this we find the strength of deserving to be human beings, an old fashioned idea as perhaps the idea of honor has become old fashioned. but just may be as nothing is guaranteed all we can do is our best and find honor in that.
1
trumps rules of engagement have always been to hammer hard and keep at it until they give in. I'm beginning to notice instances of thought in this country that indicate the faint but noticeable stench of capitulation. I find that terrifying.
2
Democracies flourish or die based on their ability to sustain a nationally shared concept we call “human rights.” Human rights are not ordained by some all-knowing deity. Nor are they guaranteed simply because we call ourselves human. They are a man-made convention that must be agreed upon, fought for and defended against our “unreasoning and unreasonable human nature.” Our external wars and internal battles have been first to protect our self-assigned human rights and then to extend those rights to more and more people. Here in the US, we have finally achieved something close to universal suffrage as a human right. We are now attempting to stretch the list of rights to include healthcare, higher education, and even limited income. That’s all well and good. They all represent agendas that might help in our struggle to rise above our human/animal nature. But, to make such rights viable, we must first reassert the one major premise upon which all human rights are based - that we are all created equal. Not equal in our abilities, but equal in terms of our ability, given equal opportunity, to live up to our potential. Dictatorships, benevolent or otherwise, operate on the opposite premise, as does our current president. But, in our vastly interdependent world, our survival now depends on extending human rights, not diminishing them.
3
A wonderful bit of writing. Thank you.
American Democracy exists because of a very small number of very well read and humble people who were driven by Boston businessmen attempting to protect their profits from British seizure.
John Adams, in particular, the well read, well studied, thoughtful, and humble lawyer, who drove the process of Constitutional Democracy in the Continental Congress......
and George Washington, who, after 12 years of living in a tent took the reins of power and handed them back to the Congress.
It only takes a small group to instantiate Democracy in some situations, in this case under threat of profit loss.
And, it only takes one man to destroy it as others bow down and crawl and mewl at his feet.
Why all of the crawling at Trumps feet now? I am not sure. I guess, the desire for power ends up Trumping the desire for self government.
Certainly Republicans appear to be cowed by their own weakness and desire for power at the moment, all of them crawling and mewling at the feet of Trump.
1
Truly wonderful observations and comments. Mr. Bradatan identified exactly what causes the dissonance that prevents democracy, in its purest form, work. We are indeed programmed for self-preservation. We are in that mode right now.
Clickbait nonsense.
Seriously I don’t think there are many systems that endure when it comes to human governance. You can point to long running monarchy’s but when you scratch the surface you see upheaval after upheaval. That’s not stability. If you want to use the Roman Empire as an example, then once again, upheaval and change was the norm, not the exception.
1
In the "grand scheme of human events", democracy is a project underway, a work in progress. The past is all well and good but it does not repeat itself--certain human behaviors keep resurfacing. People keep doing stuff they've learned it's better not to do. Currently, far-right nationalist thinking is on the rise, but it would be less so if anti-democratic forces hadn't opened the floodgates on an international refugee and migration crisis. So the reactionaries are having their death throes, enraged at secularism, humanism, science, compassion and compromise. But they will fail in the face of what we have slowly learned is better. US and European political parties may be at odds, but we're not at war. Trump's cronies weren't beheaded. We can be reasonable and there's no reason this capacity can't prevail, except maybe with regard to global warming and climate change. In that most important sense it may be too late.
2
How is American democracy “one of the best versions on the market?”. It is markedly inferior to other first world nations. Widespread gerrymandering, opaque donor financing, the Electoral College, toxic political ads, Facebook propaganda and deception, partisan state control of the vote, the list of abuse goes on and on.
1
@Xoxarle
On the other hand, it did give us President Trump . . . oh, wait . . . I see your point.
One small point with the premise -- the question of scale. Athenian democracy arose in a group small enough that there were few strangers. And the issues being discussed would have been widely known. Suggest that this was a community coming to a common decision.
No such commonality is possible in a country the size of the US, or worse, India. There are countless local issues and perspectives that would make achieving a national consensus difficult, if not impossible.
That information media have been hijacked by groups pushing their own commercial interests makes it even harder. That the central government has its own agenda which rarely resembles those of local groups should be no surprise -- the true miracle is that anything works at all. The common phrase 'economies of scale' is often used by politicians arguing for some new agency -- but social systems, unlike manufacturing, does not scale gracefully as communications complexity and error rates grow rapidly.
Perhaps the central problem of democracy as a form of government is that it only works to a certain scale. Beyond that, other forms are needed. The Greeks, after all, appointed a dictator in times of crisis -- suggesting that they were aware of the limitations of their own process.
And as for the gods... well, Olympus was a pretty small domain and while they may have overseen the antics of men from time to time, governance was not their problem.
2
One must remember that the U.S. is the only country that was founded under the premise that individual freedoms was the basic need. No other country was founded under this belief. All other countries were under some form of King or some other form of totalitarian government. Many of these countries revert to that form as they never learn to govern themselves. They need a form of government that makes them conform to certain behavior. We don't have a Democracy in the US as many people believe but a Republic which works very well-compared to other forms. But as John Adams said-"our form or government is only for a moral and religious people and is inadequate for the government of any other." Are we still that kind of people?
1
Now our government auctions us to rentiers.
Splendid essay measured by the number of constructive and sincere disagreements as well as the many assenting voices.
Everyone should read Brian Holmes's Reply. Twice! We all live by ideals which, by their very nature, are unattainable. What we have to do with ideals that reach the pinnacle of illusory excellence is find ways to bring them into the realm of the real, no easy task because of the many human failings that. Prof. Bradatan describes; how best to overcome these failings is the big challenge. Surely not with our current system - a 2-party, first-past-the-post, winner-take-all effort long since discarded by most other democracies.
A much fairer system, i.e. one which more closely channels the ideal is proportional representation. And of course the continuing freedom of exposure to essays like this. Also (thank you NYT) a forum for responses. Heck! I haven't even got to the rest of the paper yet.
2
I reject all "It's just human nature" arguments or assertions whether they come from Konrad Lorenz or anyone else. My writing that does not help but I see all too often in comments on "race" that it is human nature for individuals to only want to be with people who look like them.
Given what we see every day about the actions of dictatorships including countries moving in that direction I can be sure I would never want my descendants to have to live in one.
The Swedish social democracy I have lived in for 22 years straight (1 earlier) serves and satisfies me well so all I can do is hope that a few countries can continue to offer much of what it offers under the democracy banner.
I am perfectly aware that Donald Trump may bring us all down with his expressed willingness to obliterate Iran, and I am equally aware that climate change may make densely populated countries less and less livable forcing people to flee with no place to flee too.
In the end, the earth will still be here, self sustaining without human help.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
2
This column was wonderful, and I rarely say that. It says so much that we need to and must understand today.
1
Strangely, a weakening of organized religion parallels the retreat from democracy. If so, your argument that people crave an authoritarian master to whom they can submit seems to be underscored. Now, of course, there are those like American Evangelicals who can't seem to get enough of the codependent bond that characterizes religious submission, preferring a national leader who can lie with the fervor they experience every Sunday: Who cares if what they're told is bald-faced as long as it reassures them? If life lasted forever, perhaps then they'd care about the consequences of such lies, but the seas will rise and the Earth will swelter long after they've gone.
So, yes, authoritarian lies are hypnotic as well as satisfying because they seem to usurp any responsibility for noticing reality and reporting back on its status. If my national leader and my pastor agree that brown people from Central America are somehow less than human, I would be irresponsible to disagree. As Cain said, am I my brother's keeper?
Mencken said that democracy is the pathetic belief in the common wisdom of individual ignorance. In the 1850's, New England congregations sent anti-slavery settlers to Kansas; in response, Missouri "border ruffians" moved into the state in an attempt to sway democracy in favor of chattel slavery.
People like the concept of democracy as long as they win. That has been noisily demonstrated by MAGA zealots who would blithely trash democracy if threated by demography.
5
I think the piece is spot on. Mr. Bradatan suggests that humans will go for the cheap and easy rather than the difficult work that is democracy, and he is right. To keep (and improve) our democracy, those of us who really want it must fight for our democratic rights. Fight today, and tomorrow, and next year, and every year that we want to keep it. The greed, racism, and patriarchal forces that brought us Trump and the oligarchy never stop fighting. They never will. To triumph, those who truly believe in Democracy must accept that the fight will be very difficult, with ups and downs and wins and loses, and that it will never end. But it is the only rational choice going forward.
2
When a select group makes policy for the larger society, as with the Greeks, it still might be referred to as 'a democracy'. Within that group, their chosen means might have been a dream at some point, but apparently for them became a reality. Historically, anyone might be able to make a case that this particular form of power sharing is the way, the truth and the life. Other forms have their own notions of truth, justice and the way. When we speak of toleration for each other's beliefs and opinions, we display our best selves. How about the hordes of people, caught in suffering cycles, who understandably see their salvation in this country's ability to insure their survival? 'We may never get it, but we cannot afford to stop dreaming of it'. The most successful dreamer, perhaps, a good model, was Joseph son of Jacob. I'd say yes, dream, but don't forget to wake up.
This problem of democracy, i.e. meeting the needs of the group while accepting a wide degree of personal freedom for the individuals in the group, needs constant experimentation and reformulation. Whether we use game theory, best practice models for running organizations, or countless other models of decision-making, there is no perfect model. The human project isn't a one-size fits all endeavor. We are an evolutionary species that is in a continual struggle for control; control of our physical environment such as minimizing the dangers lurking in the unseen world of chance, control of our genetic composition and the instinctual side of ourselves, control of the future through analysis and anticipation of opportunity and or catastrophe, whether external or self-inflicted. Some models of democracy are more efficient than others. Majority rule is probably better than consensus for getting things done quickly. However, if we have enough time and seek to enfranchise as many decision-makers as possible, consensus is a better model. So what's the best model for establishing control over the circumstances of our lives? Sometimes 'too many cooks spoil the broth'. Sometimes 'more heads are better than one'. Democracy itself will never die, only the various flavors of democracy.
America is a Republic not a democracy. The electoral college has put the power in the hands of the few making it much easier for an oligarchy to dig in and take hold. The electoral college enables the two party system. The two party system is a socially acceptable term for the tribalism that divides. The issue at hand is really for us all to grasp that we need to try again for democracy by having each vote count. In so doing we would at least not have the abomination of a victory for a candidate who has fewer votes than the candidate that has lost. We would do away with gerrymandering if all votes counted equally as there would no longer be electoral/tribal districts. The greatest opportunity that our system gives us is to be able to at least try to improve it. We still can change. We can still improve the law. The verse in our beloved song, “America the Beautiful “ says it best: “ America, America, God mend thine every flaw. Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.
We have a choice only between anarchy and incompetence.
Democracy grows stronger when social issues are not confused with the fear of socialism. Theocracy actually works against Democracy, and it seems to be growing in America. Theocracy supports Plutocracy by forming new rules that apply to groups instead of the masses.
Republicans and many Democrats, have chosen and let Democracy turn into Theocracy, Theocracy turn into Plutocracy.
That just ain't gonna' work.
'Socialistic Democracy', in which we all were living until 2016, got lost in the equation. Our constitution needs a primer for the average person, laying out the rules of a just and more perfect union, the union of a Democracy based on social issues, I guess as our forefathers had intended. Democratic, and yet socially accepted equality.
3
God is a tyrant of tyrants.
1
A strange view of human nature that ignores its complexity. And the complexity of life in general.
Like other mammals, we have impulses to defend and assert ourselves against others. To dominate when possible, and to resist domination when others try to dominate us.
When possible, we ally ourselves with others to resist the domination of those who would dominate us. When not, we submit, but usually unhappily.
We want to believe in a great protector father or mother figure, president or party leader or god or king or emperor or dictator, someone powerful who will defend us against those who would dominate us, and feel grateful and worship him or her for it, but that is only when we believe they are in fact benevolent towards us, otherwise it is just fear keeping us in line.
Democracy seems to work only when people feel relatively united and able to live with disagreement, and not torn by severe conflicts which make it impossible for people to see the other side as equals deserving of respect, which is what the US seems to have become. Again. And that leads to civil unrest, if not civil war, with one side demanding total submission from the other., i.e. dictatorship over the losing party.
1
Were I to guess, the author does not treat the subject as a matter of unbiased scientific interest but rather the lament of someone likely to support Elizabeth Warren and her ilk. The very thought that Democracy is some sort of idea rather than looking at governance on a spectrum is the starting flaw. The real foundations of democracy and a sister system, capitalism is the concept of property ownership and the rule of law. There are the scaffolding upon which democracy and often in parallel capitalism are draped. True unassailable ownership reinforced by a consistent and (relatively) independent judiciary means that the state must operate within certain lanes. Capitalism is a somewhat more nuanced form of democratic governance. Competition/merchant behavior allows the economic and often social fabric of society to morph over time. Capitalism/Merchants/business has in fact been the absolute most resilient and consistent economic form in human history. Formal changes in state level governance based on a system of voting has existed over time in villages but only in modern times has it flourished. It has become the aspiration for the world with few peoples rejecting the concept of a voice of the people.
2
@Chris, so the topic was not capitalism, but democracy. The topic is how hard it is for ALL human beings to govern themselves with humility.
You came here looking for something to hate on. "...the lament of someone likely to support Elizabeth Warren and her ilk". The subject is larger than your sad partisan division. In fact, you're kind of making the point of the article.
Oh if only the rule of law were enforced on Wall Street! If only we could count on those protectors of democracy enthroned upon their sums of wealth to protect voting rights! Heck, I’d settle for an investment class that followed the rule of law even occasionally
Democracy does not require an overclass to thrive. In fact, the weight of the Davos-overclass is killing democracy across the world a lot faster than fascism or communism ever did or could.
1
The author is dead wrong by conflating different types of democracy. The Roman Republic was the model for our republic of representative democracy which thrived for over 500 years in Rome before one man's lust for power. Human nature tends to accumulate power in the hands of the power hungry and our Founders built in every device they could think of to block the impulses of our nature. Direct democracy(Athens) is a terrible idea(i.e.,Brexit) but representative democracy has proven its worth over time.
3
Can democracy save democracy? No. The systems by which it operates can allow us, the citizens, to save it and, working within those systems, it can be reformed, improved and made ready for a new hopeful era. We have neglected to refine and fortify the means by which our democracy operates and, in effect, are held hostage to the Electoral College, gerrymandering of House districts and intentionally unequal distribution of seats for senators, 2 for every state no matter their population.
Beyond this, we are being captured by propaganda, some of it vile and destructive. We are not, as a society, sufficiently educated to actually handle our major task. We haven't, for all the years of schooling, been taught to think nor have we taught ourselves. We are dumb. We are easily led. We are easily lied to and then, with the encouragement of the crowd, ready to cheer on lies that would destroy us and democracy itself.
As a step toward maturity, we should be taught to strip away all of the preconceived ideas by which our world view was formed and then look for information to build a new one. Instead, we sally forth with hard views and lock on to the information that seems to confirm what we previously believed. Backwards.
3
A beautiful and thoughtful essay!
Can we amend our Constitution and add in ostracization - if ever there was a time to use this solution it is today.
4
Not mentioned in the piece is whether a nation without an adequate educational system can have a viable democracy.
7
Here is my view.
The first three major democracies in history are generally agreed to be classical Athens, the Roman Republic and USA. (ok all you ax grinders, I know, most of the people could not vote, slavery was there, etc. etc. so save the ink, but these three are considered the closest to a democracy).
Athens and Rome lasted app. 250 yrs., where America is today.
Despite this bad omen, today they are many other democracies in the world unlike in classical times and it is more accepted and thus less likely to fail although it still can.
Ironically the Roman Empire which was really a poor man's democracy ie after you were conquered if you gave in you became a full citizen (subject to demographics) lasted much longer. It ended in the west when they could not integrate "barbarians" into the empire.
I think the key to success is acceptance and control of the military. Athens could not accept Sparta into a full union, Rome let the military take over with Caesar and the Roman Empire could not accept barbarians.
1
Perhaps the US should try democracy for a bit and see how it works? Our current plutocracy seems to leave much to be desired.
5
I think a crucial factor tied to democracy is religion, a facet of human nature. Greek gods mirrored the natures of their adherents. Some were jealous gods, power-hungry gods, capricious gods and vain gods. Hera fumed while Zeus dallied with his lovelies, as Eros capriciously shot his arrows. Wasn't the Trojan War started because of some vain gods' beauty contest?
The Bronze Age produced its own version of scare tactics, now more demanding with no democracy.
Seems to have been territorial needs and procreation worries, hence the 1st Testament. A bit of oversimplification, but tribal heads needed power. Humility
wasn't an option but power and wars were. The Renaissance brought with it another awareness, and another form of Christianity, with another form of enslavement to an invisible but supposedly powerful entity.
Now, America is divided with those wishing for a theocracy and those wishing for democracy. The crowd is stirred by what they feel is their ticket to a country embodying their religious beliefs. If this group, the Religious Right/wrong,
gets their way, they, along with their god will bring down democracy. Largely uneducated, or Bible educated, they see their direction as divinely inspired, their leader chosen by their god, and their morality dictated by that same god.
Equate democracy with religion. All those admirable Nordic countries (putting the welfare of the citizenry firs)t, are all secular countries. Religious ones have failed.
4
Greed is as much a part of human nature as breathing. Given an opportunity to accumulate wealth and power, humans jump at that. Democracy is always at risk because it flies in the face of power-to-a-few. It sounds like a great ideal, but democracy eventually succumbs to the elite egos who rig the ascension of leaders. The disparity between those who have and those who have not steadily rises until oligarchy prevails.
2
Excellent and thought-provoking essay. All that is missing is the effects of complexity. As Joseph Tainter has written, societies complexify with time, especially when large amounts of energy are available to supercharge the systems. Fossil fuels have provided that energy for us. Humans are, on the whole, unable to cope with complexity, which may also fail of its accord as energy supplies, at least the cheap stuff, dwindles. We may or may not have reached a point where collapse is in sight, but the resource base and social fabric of our democracy is fraying. The clever, aggressive, and just plain lucky can still prosper, but others feel left out and are susceptible to all of the anti-democratic forces that the author describes so well.
4
It's hard to understand why so many articles such as this are couched in terms of "democracy" when the United States was in fact established as a representative republic in recognition of the fact that human beings are deficient, flawed and imperfect and prone to exercise political power to advance their own personal interests.
James Madison in "The Federalist No. 10" explicitly noted that propensity as the primary reason for limiting and subdividing government power and the Constitutional mandate for frequent elections.
In any event, as deficient as we are, and as imperfect as is our system, I suggest that it has provided more opportunity for more people and protected more individual rights for longer than any other.
4
@Sam
... and will only remain though vigilance rather than complacency
2
We need more political parties, with more limited aims (e.g. green, labor, social net) that must work together to create a governing coalition, as in other democracies. And this would mitigate the political strongman possibility.
Yet both democrats and republicans agree and work only to exclude other parties (from debates, from public funding, from access to the trough of power) and preserve their rule over our oligarchy, no matter the cost.
A revolution of some sort certainly seems to be in the cards.
2
@Martin W
Multi party systems don't work. Read what Barry Goldwater wrote about the two party system.
The point about humility is interesting. Right now we are very much in a period when the ideologues on the extremes are dominant. The loudest voices are those who see the world as black and white, i.e., there is a "right" way to see/do things and a "wrong" and mine is the right way. So convinced are they of the rightness of their own positions that they will brook no compromise, my way or the highway. "Democracy" then becomes a push-pull between competing sides, each of which is positive that it has the ultimate right and the opposition is 100% wrong about everything.
The pendulum swings, so one side is up then the other then the first again. Yet, millions in the middle, those who would be comfortable with compromise, are drowned out by the purists. What we currently have is not democracy so much as serial dictatorship.
5
Athens was a small society. A common guess is that there were about 250,000 people, more than half slave, with say, 25,000 free men as the enfranchised.
It seems reasonable that through family connections, these twenty-five thousand were bound tightly together in comparison with the US and its 250 million enfranchised, ten thousand times as many.
Perhaps a wealth-stratified society like Athens, where the richest received several dozen times what the poorest got, can nonetheless avoid rule by the richest, prevented by the power of the tight-knit polis.
But, the looseness of American society means the absence of this obstacle to oligarchy. Perhaps, only by the dramatic leveling of wealth might democracy be possible.
However, the dismal outcome of the socialism actually attempted might be taken as conclusive proof that it, and therefore democracy are impossible.
Even so, the simplest and purest socialism has never been tried. This is market socialism, or libertarian socialism, with exactly one socialist principle: the near-equalization of income.
That is, the richest would receive only twice, or five-times or ten-times what the poorest would get. Other than that, the economy would be competitive and unregulated.
Such leveling would only require changing (radically) the numbers in the IRS tax tables.
It's probably the only chance for democracy. Let's give it a try.
9
Rousseau, a few pages on from this quote, says that governments degenerate when: the prince ceases to administer the State in accordance with the laws, and usurps the Sovereign power [or] ... the members of the government severally usurp the power they should exercise only as a body. Trump and McConnell spring to mind.
9
If I remember "The Brothers Karamazov" correctly, the Grand Inquisitor is speaking to Jesus, who preached and lived compassion, humility and equality in his time. Although the Grand Inquisitor is rationalizing the inquisition, in the end, he kisses Jesus...perhaps acknowledging that the democratic ideal of Jesus has the last word, at least according to Dostoevsky.
At a time when our democracy seems so fragile, perhaps we should be remembering the hopes and sacrifices of those who believed in democracy , and despite its failings, work toward preserving and improving what we aspire to.
2
Who are trying to kid, we have never really had Democracy in this country. Not with something like the electoral college in place. It just gave the illusion the people were picking the President.
9
"Behind the smiling facade of human civilization, there is at work the same blind drive toward self-assertion that we find in the animal realm.'
I often say, the founders never envisioned in their system of checks and balances that one party would gain control over several branches of government, choking democracy. They thought their system was airtight against the whims of a tyrant or a bunch of them.
Clearly it's not. As for the charms of the magnetic personality that people will willingly cave to, it's really astounding the man they worship is so flawed. And corrupt.
Tonight I'm attending a Tecture by Madeleine Albright who undoubtedly will raise the topic of nationalism, and autocracy, in today's world.
But in some small way, this incredible essay actually comforts me by placing the US in the grand arc of history. We've long been the exception, not the rule, so I guess as the song goes, you never know what you had till it's gone.
That said, the inevitability of democracy's abrupt halt is no less painful just because it's more understandable.
6
If two people cannot agree to disagree how can 10, 100, 1000000? ALL democracies fail because the idea cannot be implemented with and real long term success. To those who think we live in a democracy; go read what a democracy is.
Exactly wrong! The founders of America's version of representative democracy knew their history. And many had a bleak view of human nature. They knew that a republic was a fragile thing. They crafted a system of government, not for gods, but for mere mortals. And it's an evolving thing.
When Benjamin Franklin was leaving Independence Hall in Philadelphia at the end of the Constitutional Convention, a friend in the crowd called out to him asking "Dr. Franklin, what have you given us; a monarchy or a republic?" "A republic," answered Franklin, without missing a beat, "if you can keep it."
A republic, if we can keep it! It's up to us. Democracy is a verb; it's something we do, or it's not something we'll have. America wasn't built by individuals, not even by giants like Washington or Lincoln or Roosevelt; it was built by ordinary folks working together in communities: by barn raisings and quilting bees. We human beings are social animals; we succeed and flourish together, in communities, or we perish alone.
And our democracy is not something that happens mostly in Washington, DC. Democracy happens on school boards and in town meetings and at city halls and state houses all across the country. Yes, it's work. But there is tremendous satisfaction and fulfillment in it (as well as frustration!) And it's some of the most important work we'll do. So let's all get to it! Call your representatives, visit their offices, rally at city hall, register, vote, volunteer, run for office!
14
Socio-biological arguments that humans are hard-wired for self-assertion and competition must be balanced by the realization that nature also endows humans with the capacity for collaboration and cooperation. Ideally, we create institutions that put checks and balances on the first and encourage the blossoming of the second.
11
As Tom Paine famously observed, ‘Government is an expression of man’s wickedness’. Some people are more wicked then others so the governments they institute are a reflection of that variability.
1
Confusion in language equals confused thinking. And bad history only makes it worse.
MAD magazine, where are you when we need you to clarify things?
"Democracy", of course, literally means rule by the people. Lincoln expanded this when he spoke of America as having rule of, by, and for the people.
The word has been used most fundamentally to mean sovereignty of those deemed "the people", whether limited to a select few or everyone, in contrast to rule by a monarch.
The earliest humans, living in hunter-gatherer groups, had no ruler -- so in some ways this can be seen as an incipient democracy. Same goes for the early Christians. But as institutional leadership emerged, in response to changing conditions, hierarchy, private property, etc. came with it. And as much as this leadership and hierarchy brought efficiency and strength, it also brought inequality and oppression, and struggle began, challenging the hierarchy.
Human consciousness is part of the cultural evolution that has outpaced biological evolution. Our environment and our consciousness have been part of the larger process of historical change from the beginning. And of course consciousness is a complicated thing.
History has shown us many ways that this "dialectic" has been playing out. And now is no exception. Our understanding and feelings are intertwined with our physical conditions, and the goal of rule by the people remains an important, difficult, and multifaceted one.
And it perseveres, as it should.
1
As said, “Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time”. What can we expect with gerrymandering, all the Citizens United “non-profit” PAC’s, unlimited terms, obstructed voting, Mitch McConnell tactics, and more.
2
Nothing wrong with democracies, it is wealth and the power that it brings that destroys the spirit of the people, tells them that we are not all on a common journey, but instead must devolve into gangs.
And yes, the silicon billionaires are gangsters, and I don't mean that in a good way.
Democracy either goes hand in hand with equality in wealth, or it dies.
Athens, Rome, London, Moscow, Washington...it was the Mitch McConnells that stopped the flow and diverted it to the rich and the powerful, and when there are enough oligarchs, the system collapses.
I think America needs another depression, one that swings the balance back to the people and their needs, and away from the rich and their bullies in the Senate.
Hugh
3
It is still pretty simple. Democracy is a product of the will of the people. If they want rigged elections,a mental case for president, gridlock in government, climate crisis denial, and immigration chaos, they will get it. Overwhelming decision to move forward will produce forward motion. Delay and indecision will be fatal. Not very complicated. But only if people can manage to work together and come to a consensus. .
5
Democracy is for the people and currently it is a vibrant as ever before. Democracy is not for all the countries of the world and attempts to impose Democracy will be futile.There have to be free and fair elections and in the end there has to be a sustainable change that serves the best interest of the people. The world's largest democracy has recently gone through a long election period to elect a stable government with a leader worthy of leading a nation of 1.2+ billion people. As long as people who did not vote to elect a person and continue to not accept the legitimacy of that person democracy will have trying times but will sustain and live on as we see happen in the greatest Democracy in the world.
For the greater good of the country people have to graciously accept the outcome of any fair and free election and wait patiently until the next election to weed out the candidates that have failed to keep their promises or has not behaved honorably while holding an elected office. A vigorous debate at times animated has already been taking place in America. By that I don't mean the circus of TV debates. I mean the one taking place in public places like grocery stores, Unis, in forums such as NYT comments section, at conferences, in places of worship, in restaurants, in gyms as well as in private homes and kitchen tables.
Yesterday I met in a mega grocery store an old friend I had last met and at an event where Obama's campaign advisor had given a speech and we debated.
1
We have a representative democracy which of course is even more complicated and is comparable in essence to the Roman Republic which too came to an end and suffered from corruption due to patronage (special interests). It's a shame that humans vie for power and abuse their wealth. This happens in all types of government systems and the more complex and varied a society becomes , the more problems arise. But it's always the power of money that undoes us in the end. We are a greedy lot, we need ideals and spiritual ones to keep us on track and to help us be more godlike and less savage.
3
When James Madison said, "education is the true foundation of civil liberty" he was referring to the electorate's powers and responsibilities in selecting governing officials.
Madison and anyone operating under the trials of reason would surely see that the American electorate cares more for their fantasies, ie. faith over science, Superheroes--or the Olympians--over real people, or video games and anonymous social media influencers over philosophers and ideas.
Perhaps Bradatan left out the mass of humans lazy complacency in the face of 'idle time' for the reason of brevity, but surely, as citizens we have dropped the ball too.
4
Mr. Bradatan begins his eloquent essay with a claim about human nature, "Fundamentally, humans are not predisposed to living democratically. One can even make the point that democracy is “unnatural” because it goes against our vital instincts and impulses." He goes on to define those vital instincts and impulses as "self assertion...against others". But this is only half of our nature. The other half is pro-social and cooperative, dare I say "democratic"? We would not have survived as a species without both. Yes, we compete, sometimes violently, for resources and dominance. But without our ability for group cooperation we would have been snuffed out on an African savanah by larger and stronger mammals. Democracy is the field where these two natures struggle against each other, hence it is difficult, messy, and fragile. For Democracy to survive we must summon our "better angels" and elect leaders who inspire them.
7
I really don’t like other people making decisions for me. Extra money can sometimes help me avoid that. Why are we surprised that those who have figured this out also tip the scales of investment and taxation to secure THEIR “democracy”?
2
Because of basic decency and morals?
Democracy often fails because we live in a dangerous world where quick and deceive actions count. Democracy is often slow when it comes to respond to existential threats. Also, there is a fine line between democracy and anarchy. I would prefer benign dictatorship to anarchy or lack of decisiveness and living in an autoptic dream as the demos appear to have.
More and more, I've been equating a lack of democracy with corruption. The transparency that comes with democracy discourages corruption. Every antidemocratic decision our current Supreme Court makes encourages corruption.
4
Democracy requires courage, intelligence and education.
Americans are selfish, brutish cowards, in the main. That’s why we are seeing philosophical rationalizations like this one.
Humans have great capabilities, but are mesmerized by their frailty and greed.
A sad species.
4
"Fundamentally, humans are not predisposed to living democratically. One can even make the point that democracy is “unnatural” because it goes against our vital instincts and impulses. What’s most natural to us, just as to any living creature, is to seek to survive and reproduce. And for that purpose, we assert ourselves — relentlessly, unwittingly, savagely — against others: We push them aside, overstep them, overthrow them, even crush them if necessary. Behind the smiling facade of human civilization, there is at work the same blind drive toward self-assertion that we find in the animal realm..."
The author postulates this as if it were fearless iconoclasm. It's more like a stack of canards, intended as support for despairing of democracy as anything other than a naive illusion destined to crumble before the "natural" animal state of humanity. Although the learned professor is circumspect about which system he would expect to emerge as the inevitable alternative, if the striving of human consciousness to transcend rote mammalian programming is destined to fail (because "unnatural"), then the model is obvious: the baboon troop. With more lethal technology.
A philosophy that mistakes the rote default settings of nascent human consciousness for the sum of its potential has no real use for ethics, only ethology. To a view that pessimistic, ethics is nothing more than a word game to serve the will to power of the Selfish Gene. (Definitely not a mystical concept, no way!)
1
One of the most dangerous, or that is to say out of control, notions that has been bred by our democracy is the idea that everyone's opinion is somehow equal. All may speak up, all may, if they choose, speak gibberish BUT all are to be taken seriously because, you see, we are equal. Out of this swirling miasma of opinions comes spewing forth the endless venom of millions of angry voices on the internet.
Having the vote can make one drunk with small power, in a way. Yet, having and holding the responsibilities of protecting and sustaining democracy, whose job is that? If it is the job of everyone, is it then the job of no one?
Can democracy save democracy? No. The systems by which it operates can allow us, the citizens, to save it and, working within those systems, it can be reformed, improved and made ready for a new hopeful era.
We are not, as a society, sufficiently educated to actually handle our major task. We haven't, for all the years of schooling, been taught to think nor have we taught ourselves. We are dumb. We are easily led. We are easily lied to and then, with the encouragement of the crowd, ready to cheer on lies that would destroy us and democracy itself.
As a step toward maturity, we should be taught to strip away all of the preconceived ideas by which our world view was formed and then look for information to build a new one. Instead, we sally forth with hard views and lock on to the information that seems to confirm what we previously believed. Backwards.
1
A good comment, and your first paragraph in particular is perfect.
A perverse pleasure to read this...I say yes indeed to this overall sketch of our political psychology.
Women should have no problem deeply understanding the existence of this eternal scrabble...we -- in general -- don't have the same drive to public power and control or the same drive to hierarchy... and we have been shoved to the bottom of the writhing male pile-up since human time began.
We watch (and duck) in bemused horror.
6
@Sallie McKenna. My thoughts exactly. “We push them aside, overstep them, overthrow them, even crush them if necessary.” This description sounds very masculine (as does the erotic infatuation with the charmer/dictator.) Failed democracies from the ancient time forward have been male dominated. Maybe time to try another model.
In our current state, Democracy means the freedom to choose from among 200 brands of breakfast cereal and that's about it.
4
Perhaps all democracies do decline in time, but this is not what has happened in the U.S. since 2016. The fact is, we now have a dictatorship because the majority of us do not want to make the sacrifices necessary to keep our democracy.
Dictators do not need the majority of a nation's citizens retain power indefinitely. They only need a large, rabid minority. And this is exactly what Trump has -- and his is heavily armed, to boot.
Now, I'm told that the majority of us, some 60% do not want to live under one man rule. Trump voters, of course, love it.
But that leaves the rest of us - the majority of this nation's citizens. We have been far to passive, far too silent these past three years. Oh, there is the occasional march or rally, but these have been nothing more than media events. We have undertaken no massive, sustained resistance to this regime.
Quite simply, the majority of us do not want to sacrifice anything. We would rather live under one man rule than fight for our democracy. And Trump knows we will not fight back. He knows we will continue to cower before his base. He is counting on our silence, our appeasement, our cowardice. And he is right to do so.
Understand that our democracy is over. Trump understands that he may leave office at a time of his choosing, and not a minute more. Because the majority of us will continue in our silence. Because we won't make the sacrifices necessary to take our country back.
3
And what are you doing to stop this?
Cynicism is politics for the lazy. It requires virtually zero effort since one epithet fits all, as in, "They're all crooks." Cynicism, especially when said with a tone of certitude can at times be mistaken for wisdom but cynicism ultimately is a joyless philosophy and never inspires or fulfills.
2
I reemember no erotic anything from Rifenstahl's film. In fact, I found it relatively tame in light of all the similar films made since the end of the war.
There was nothing sexual, erotic or in any way, exciting in a physical way, at least nothing that I recall.
“Why do dictatures fail?”
If you want t address the frailty of democracies, balance it with that of dictatures - and other forms of regimes. Or you'll give a bleak but flawed perspective.
Besides, political regimes do not come pure - there is no capital letter DEMOCRACY - but with a lot of little or large flaws and exceptions to their apparent principles, that help stabilize them. No dictature, ever, has been able to make do without caring to the public opinion, a democratic bend of sorts. Athenian democracy was made possible because of slavery (and perhaps also women's incarceration in the oike). And today, our "representative" democracies come with monarchic head of states, whether elected or not (U.K., Spain...), as well as various strongholds of vested interests: the very heart of checks and balances.
But one thing is clear: if the short-term ability of dictatures to achieve spectacular success is undeniable, long-term growth and social progress has been clearly associated with democratic institutions for the last 200 years. And there has been no exception to that observation yet.
"As members of a community, we should have equal say in our lives together".
It is no wonder the repubs want to blow it up. Thatcher said something like, "there is no society, only individuals".
Every man is indeed an island!
poetically argued, but very reductive
"World history, for the most part, is the story of excessively self-assertive individuals in search of various scepters," Prof. Bradatan writes. True, but the trouble with history is that it leaves out prehistory, necessarily.
Anthropologists find that human societies have gone through several phases of cultural evolution since the invention of agriculture produced greater population densities and, with them, the birth of civilization around about 10,000 years ago. One could hope that humans are naturally inclined toward democracy, but that civilization came along and buggered things up.
Anthropologists have proposed primitive hunter-gatherer societies, whether extant or recorded, as models for prehistoric man, in addition to the archaeological record.
Primitive hunter-gatherer societies are described as egalitarian. (Sadly, they are also described as warlike and sometimes cannibalistic, a controversial view for which there is some archaeological evidence.)
When our democracy seems lost, over-thunk by the overwrought, declare an existential emergency and crack open THE REPUBLIC, by Plato.
American democracy is decidedly not "one of the best versions on the market right now." The author has a biased and uninformed view. American democracy is in serious trouble because it isn't working. You think that by creating a great constitution and throwing together a system of separation of powers that the American founders had created some kind of bomb-proof democratic system. I hope the Trump Presidency has disabused you of that kind of wishful thinking. But the American system was on life support years before Trump owing to gerrymandering, egregious restrictions of voting rights, the biased representation of the senate and the electoral college, and the enormously disproportionate influence of money and dark money on the election process, made exponentially worse by the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. American democracy has been seriously harmed by racism and the Trump presidency. It may never fully recover.
3
if the US were a democracy and not a republic, there might be something to discuss.
spend some time at a school board meeting to participate in a local democracy and discover what a horrorshow that idea is.
1
Ms. Bradatan seems very confused. But that’s thought-provoking (though not itself enlightening).
Democracy is a project of humanity, not an essentialist structure that either appears or betrays itself. Indeed, “genuine democracy is difficult to achieve and...fragile,” like lasting marriages, scientific clarity, and artistic legacy.
In Our evolving venture of cultivating humanity and securing it through good government, “the only true guide” is constructive hope, fidelity to genuine promise—lucidly appealing futures and the life—not history.
The “core idea” that Ms. Bradatan finds to be “disarmingly simple” is ethical life, not yet democracy—not yet good government that serves our evolving humanity well.
“Fundamentally, humans” ARE “predisposed to living democratically,” proven amply by the philosopher Jürgen Habermas: Reason for democracy is implied by our form of life (but that’s a complex philosophical case, made by his “theory of communicative action”).
Ms. Bradatan’s essentialist worry about “vital instincts and impulses” gels with her Originist turn to history as guide, as if there has been no progress in history—as if lives aren’t intrinsic potentials for flourishing in shared ways that seek institutional lastingness.
I wish her humility toward the thriving potential of youth that is working so hard to make democracy flourish.
But I lost interest in commenting on the depressed second half of her article. (Besides, I'm nearly out of comment space).
People should be able to look at democracies and autocratic governments and easily see that democracies are a better place to live. You don't see millions of immigrants trying to get into China or Russia. The place to immigrate to is the US. But the question right now is why do so many Americans prefer fascism over liberal democracy? What is Trump offering that they would give up democracy for? To me there seem to be three main reasons why so many Americans are opting for fascism although they don't usually refer to Trump as as fascist. I think white supremacists believe they will obtain a higher status which they believe they deserve being white and maybe even get rid of nonwhites in the US. Libertarians assume they will be able to make greater fortunes in business without government regulations. And the religious right thinks they will be able to live in a Christian country rather than a secular country.
What is needed, i think, is a democracy where people have a DIRECT, frequent say in the affairs of government, with checks and balances of course, to ensure that the majority decisions respect basic human rights for everyone. Participatory democracy on a large scale, has never been tried in recent times, but i think its time is coming!! Electing "representatives" every now and then, who are then not accountable to those who vote for them until they face them during another election.... this method simply doesn't work very well. since the people that want the most and try the hardest to become "representatives" of the common people, most often are quite un-representative of the people they claim they wish to represent!! Its an uncomfortable but undeniable fact that if you have enough money to put together a decent propaganda machine, you can fool enough of the people enough of the time to become elected to "represent" people you are not like in the slightest, and/or whom you care nothing about.
SAD - sad that Democracy’s potentiality must be disputed on July 5th/2019. Or, part of our awakening, lesson or doubling down since 2016.
Our tribalism is fanned, nor is the digging in of our own making.?
Democrats here will blame Trump. As he created the world or people. Or as “brilliant” politicians like AOC are actually better.
1
Democracy and Communism are doomed for the same reason: human nature. Human beings are delusional and selfish. That says it all.
Communism failed because the lofty ideal of sharing means everyone goes hungry waiting for the next person to put food on the table. What's the motivation to work hard when the fruits of labor cannot be kept and passed on to one's offspring? Share them with neighbors? Fat chance. Selfishness is part of nature. Chinese leaders finally see the light and took a 180 degree turn from Communism to Super-Capitalism. By now China is probably the most capitalistic country in the world. The student far surpassed the teachers such as USA & UK. But the Chinese are clever. They keep the name Communist for their ruling party. Sounds better.
As for Democracy, its Achilles heel has always been the assumption that voters are rational and will make the right choice. Wrong! Voters are delusional, ignorant, clueless, apathetic, emtional and irrational. Look no further than the Brexit mess and Donald Trump. Democracy based on universal suffrage is a bankrupted ideology. Sounds good but suicidal. It breeds internal conflicts, unrest and schism. Again, Chinese leaders are intelligent enough to avoid the mistake of former Soviet Union. Say NO WAY to democracy based on voting alone. China adopted a system based on meritocracy and voting within the party apparatus. Smart.
Costica Bradatan's fantasy of democracy is just a useless dream. Wake up and face reality.
3
In the context of the O.E.C.D, the U.S is really only a pseudo-democracy.
Modern versions of democracy enshrine multi-party cooperation which guarantees an actual majority (50%+) rule.
The success of this kind of cooperation is deep in the DNA of human evolution & mobilizes the ancient common sense of the ordinary person.
Psychopathic leadership is no longer useful, as it once may have been to our 'progress' because now he has the technology at hand to destroy everything.
U.S acedemia should listen outside its naive echo chamber and for example focus on the Scandinavian model of selecting leaders because your antiquated process (and lack of research) is now a threat to us all.
Of course it is for the Gods! Especially in cerebral Western and monotheistic cultures that raise their children under the dark and abusive guilt lined clouds of original sin and angry and authoritarian GODS. Very few have the chops to handle that kind of emotional and spiritual pressure without becoming traumatized, reactive and dangerous, not only to to themselves but to all others as well. For most, except for the few with little dust in their eyes, all it does is encourage self centeredness, greed and anger. It is like being born into a never ending war between good and evil. There is no middle way, just survival of the fittest. People just act like animals. It is a set up for doom and failure! There is no stability. Just painful, wasteful and destructive abnegation of responsibility and endless war.
It is no wonder people go around barking like narcissistic and jealous gods, or if they get their way, end up thinking they are gods and sink into either debauchery or sloth. How can you expect anything else under the circumstances?
There is a better way! Instead of starting by raising our children with original sin, start raising them with original perfection. This way, they don't start life thinking there is no way out of this realm of pain and suffering. Instead of hopelessness, guide and teach them in a way that gives them hope, that encourages care and respect for life for, for themselves, each other and the natural world...for GOD'S sake, for the sake of everything!
Comments show that many readers completely misread the text. Some of us who actually lived under autocracies remember the adulation of the majority for the "leader". To see the accelerating degradation of democracies since the "end of history" in 1989 is disheartening to say the least. Read this NYT piece as a warning and a waking call...
2
This piece would have made perfect sense - before the Age of Enlightenment.
Maybe the author should tell the Scandinavian countries that they’ve got it all wrong.
1
This column got me thinking about elites like Susan Sarandon who have the means to maintain their wealth and security while enabling a trump presidency by withholding their support from HRC while waiting for their socialist revolution. We the people are losers to the nth power.
2
“Why do democracies fail?” I can think of many.
As more immigrants coming from Africa, S. America, Asian, and Middle East, US population becomes more heterogeneous. It will be a problem when European decedents no longer is the dominant race over 50%.
The old saying that "Birds of a feather flock together" will divide the country due to different race, culture, and many other factors. Education will help to minimize the differences. Singapore Founding Father, Lee Kuen-Yew, used to say that democracy requires 60~70% middle class citizen in order to survive. He put a lot of emphasis on education, making Singapore one of the best educated country.
Unfortunately, the current administration put a lot of less emphasis on education. The end result most likely will be that democracy gradually transforms into popularity contest more than ever.
2
I've seen other animals eat, sleep, compete, kill, communicate, nurture and copulate but only humans "seek to survive and reproduce". Part of that fun is letting ideas runaway with us. We get to say 'democracies fall because we're too much like dumb beasts' without acknowledging the subtle way this sounds like rich people imagining making do with less. Where finding ourselves in that world, amongst most of the planet, would indeed seem an acute crisis.
Twice around, though, I never saw anyone "relentlessly, unwittingly, savagely" trying to annihilate anyone else. The very real suffering, injustice, cruelty, inhumanity, are only perceptible because so many people - from all walks of life - get by relatively unmolested or flourish.
And many of these same people care what happens to others even if they can't help . And have and will go on with their lives, their loving, their learning, while democracies sputter and sputter out.
Nor should we forget our own democracy was founded upon a genocide, the beastliest of beastly behaviors.
The roots of the democracy problem lie in our biological and societal evolution. Biologists understand this. Philosophers, not so much.
Primates band together is large groups, or societies, to compete against other groups for scarce natural resources. When I say compete, they kill each other.
We are primates and carry primate behavior deep inside us. Our groups, in their simpler forms, are called tribes. Tribes can grow into large communities with the addition of some kind of governing structure. Tribes compete against each other for domination and survival by killing other tribes. It's called war and war has been humankind's primary occupation throughout history.
What kind of governing structure do humans prefer. The tribal chief. That is our default, root structure. We are programmed by evolution to seek out chiefs because chiefdom is the most efficient type of organization for survival in a brutal world.
Democracy requires us to throw off the yoke of tribalism and think for ourselves. When has that ever happened? People, in general, don't think, they react. They don't reason, they emote. We are emotional beings and everything we do is done to satisfy our emotions. Which brings us back to chiefdoms.
Well educated, learned people can think and reason. If most people were so disposed, this paper would have 200 million subscribers. Most people feel their way through life, not reason their way through.
That's why democracies fail.
1
Democracy is on the skids because it takes work to maintain. We lost in 16, because we took way too much for granted. (“A republic, madam, if you can keep it”). Democracy depends on an independent, educated, thinking, reasoning, citizenry who’s gut is only used for the purpose of digesting food. Superstition, ignorance, hate, and greed, require no work. Just get in line, take the free lobotomy and drool. Every man a king...don’t worry, we’ll take care of the rest. The battle for America’s soul is not between the democrats and what passes for today’s Republican Party. The battle is between those that care to read, listen, reason, and think and those that are content to blindly follow the demagogue offering a path that features a free ride requiring none of those things. The world belongs to those who show up. In 487 days, when the roll is again called up yonder will we be there, or, like last time will we vote for Jill Stone or be getting our nails done?
1
The masses, genetically, are easy to hoodwink and are susceptible to high-minded proposals like religion and self-government, where inspired leaders espouse to virtuous ideas supposed to enhance everyone's life. But it isn't long until the leaders realize how easy the pickings are to come by and how stupid the masses are to believe in the con.
I've just told you all of human history, in every culture on Earth, in less than 75 words.
Mount Olympus was hardly a bastion of democracy!
2
Our version of representative democracy relies partially on the very human shortcomings of jealousy and distrust that helped to doom Greek direct democracy. The system of checks and balances embedded in the Constitution reflects the framers' conviction that the human obsession with power could be constrained only by pitting elected officials against each other.
But James Madison and his colleagues knew that the elegant structure they created could work only if these officials and the citizenry could create a community of common purpose, in which rivalry would be balanced by cooperation. Eli Sagan argued in "The Honey and the Hemlock" that the main threat to this sense of community was paranoia, the human tendency to view people outside one's family or tribe as dangerous.
From this perspective, the fragility of American democracy stems largely from the difficulty of fostering a sense of community among a population whose members differ so much from each other in terms of their ethnic and cultural heritages. The ideals embedded in the Declaration and the Constitution have served as the source of our patriotism, but the unifying effect of these abstract principles weakens in the face of the kind of severe economic inequality that we confront today.
Over the course of our history we have strengthened democracy by making our community more inclusive, but Trump has exploited our inherent paranoia in an effort to reverse that process. That is what makes him a threat.
1
“Why do democracies fail?”
A valid question that deserves a better — and simpler — answer.
Firstly, it’s primed for failure because the central reason for its existence and means of functioning make available a path to the levers of power that many of those availing themselves of it (who may have malign intent insofar as they are interested only in power for power’s sake) would not otherwise have under less egalitarian systems.
And, secondly, it should already be immediately apparent that thriving, truly egalitarian democracy cannot coexist with unfettered capitalism, in which the malign actors mentioned above happily become the bought-and-paid-for creatures of those interested only in money for money’s sake.
Athens in its golden age was a far cry from late Republican Rome in its lack of emphasis on the role wealth should play in governance. Those later Romans who maintained the fiction of their concern for society were awash in wealth (and debts to shrewd moneylenders who used Senators’ indebtedness to dictate their votes), which made Rome’s descent into its four-hundred-year-long imperial monarchy inevitable.
The Bible tells us that the love of money is the root of all evil. It is also the death of all pluralistic societies.
1
Checks and balances! If they can be applied. The Framers seemed to assume that anyone running for office would do so in good faith. That in now clearly not the case. The Framers also left federal elections, their administration and their electoral districts, in the hands of the states--no matter how abhorrent their trickery. On some of the worst mis-administration recently, the SCOTUS has said "whatever." The Framers also left us a constitution that is nigh impossible to amend. Meanwhile, Trump marches deeper into the realms of dictatorship. Jefferson had things to say about nurturing the tree of liberty.
1
The last time I looked (a few minutes ago), democracies are in place today in virtually all of the Americas and Europe, in South Africa and many other African countries, in Australia/New Zealand and the Pacific, in Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Japan, South Korea and many other Asian countries, in Israel, and even tentatively in some Middle East/North African countries such as Tunisia. It's not taking hold yet in Russia or China, hanging on but with difficulty in countries like Turkey and the Philippines, not yet in Cuba, messed up in Venezuela, etc. We have the United Nations, the European Union, and the United States. So, let's keep going. Democracies and international cooperation are the only viable way forward for humanity on this planet.
Of course democracy is fragile. It emerged as a check against autocracy, the rule of one or a few over others. Those few don't give up power willfully or easily.
Democracy is also an ever evolving concept. No sooner do we think we have it right, whether in 1789, 1865 or 1920, then some new group wants to be included in the "we the people" formula.
"As members of a community, we should have an equal say in how we conduct our life together." The real challenge of this not whether we have a say, but the delicate balance of that equal say.
Today we are confronted with the dilemma of winner take all majorities. The inherent principle of this is that the majority will always consider the minority because in a true democracy they might very well be the minority in the next election.
But this is no longer true. Ruling has replaced governing and winner take all has become just that--take all, regardless of the consequence.
It's time for our fragile democracy to experiment with new methods of achieving the will of the people. Weighted voting, proportional representation and party rotation are all options that should be explored.
And then there is that ridiculous notion, care of the Supreme Court that the financial power of a company is the same as the change in my pocket and so we are all equal in the arena of political influence and access.
So today we face the real challenge to democracy. The power of money.
Erich Fromm: 'Escape from Freedom' , 1941 said much the same. Not that all people feared freedom, just a size-able subset; and that subset always gave lip service to freedom.
Democracy is, as the author says, hard work - that is, if it is to be sustained. And as it entails, in its truest form, working in concert for commonly agreed upon purposes and toward agreed upon goals, it is necessarily non-zero-sum. Robert Wright, in his excellent book "Nonzero", demonstrates how, throughout human history, survival depends on cooperation. And never more so than today, with threats of a planet-wide and existential nature. Whether humans are capable of sustained democracy, and I happen to agree with this author that we are not, we must somehow become increasingly non-zero in our behavior, or we simply will not survive.
I agree. We will aspire toward democracy, and we cannot afford to stop dreaming it.
Too fatalistic and philosophical. Democracy - like everything else - involves struggle.
@Times Reader Reading
As a philosopher I'd say: too fatalistic BECAUSE not philosophical enough.
Obviously, as a democracy is a government by and for the people, a democratic society will only thrive to the extent that its citizens accept to "govern", in other words to engage.
And engaging as a citizen, in a democracy, means first of all voting, of course, but what is equally important is to engage in real, respectful debates with those who disagree, because THAT is the de facto foundation of any democracy.
It's only to the extent that those debates tend to become less intensive, that a democracy starts to fulfill its promises towards society as a whole less and less.
So the only thing wrong with America's democracy today is that the GOP is systematically reducing the opportunity to have real debates, by massively spreading fake news, demonizing those with whom it disagrees, and telling its voters 24/7 that those who criticize Republicans cannot be "bad citizens" and their argument should be ignored and ridiculed rather than being debated.
That means that the only way to become more democratic again, is to engage in real, respectful debates with each other again.
And THAT each and every one of us can just decide to do, here and now - in comment sections as well as in real life.
Kindly show GOP voters why real, respectful debates are sacred, in a democracy, and show them (and cynical progressives) how to do this, and things WILL change for the better.
1
Precisely why it cannot be sustained. Struggle is hard, particularly intellectual struggle. For democracy to succeed, it has to be practiced by thoughtful, fairly well-educated, moderate people -- people with, shall we say, shared middle-class values and virtues.
In America today, larger and more unwieldy than in decades past, with more mindless entertainments available to fill empty hours, the habit of rational thinking is being lost. When voters are more interested in their bodies than their minds, democracy is lost also.
Of course, Americans have always been lazy, or superstitious, or angry and erratic, or prejudiced, or conniving.
But now there are so many.
2
Modern democracy is failing under a capitalist system. Under capitalism democracy cannot exist because capital has more influence than the needs and desires of the populace. The premise of this entire thought piece is based upon a false assumption that it’s democracy that’s failing when true democracy has never existed.
1
In how many places in the essay could you replace ‘democracy’ with any other form of self-government, say ‘communism’?
Self governance of any form is unnatural. By definition, it requires an individual to relinquish their own fate and preferences for the collective.
Democracy is one mechanism. Is communism more robust?
I find the thesis of the essay not very convincing. It needs more critical comparison to other forms of self governance to convince me that democracy is somehow more fragile than other options.
2
Democracy is more than elusive. You might even call it an anomaly. In the roughly 10,000 year history of our civilization, true universal democracy has existed for about 100 years. Most of the rest of the time has been totalitarian rule of one form or another. Democracy is fragile. If we lose it, it should come as no surprise. But we should also consider it our own fault.
Democracy is a natural byproduct of the education of a population. And we've never been more educated. But democracy also carries with it the responsibility for the electorate to properly inform themselves. That's where we fail. Most jurisdictions don't teach political science in school as a mandatory subject. We're told you don't talk about politics in polite company. Political discourse at work can get you fired. The most fundamentally basic principle of our existence as a collective, is considered a personal matter. And as a personal matter, many of us find it too boring to consider. Which leaves us vulnerable to charlatans making false promises and spreading lies.
We ridicule dictatorships but take our own democracy for granted. We don't seriously believe we could lose it thru our own neglect. But the old adage applies to democracy like anything else. if you don't use it you'll lose it. It's a mistake to count on people with personal agendas to protect everyone.
8
TL;DR - Humans are tribal by nature and naturally drift towards a set hierarchy within that context to relieve the anxiety caused by democracy.
The anxiety is a by-product of the stress of thinking, which scientists have noted Republicans feel more intensely than Democrats.
5
Without wanting to offend anyone, for a philosopher working in the "continental" tradition, this op-ed contains everything that makes so many "continentals" reject American philosophy as being not philosophical at all.
Why?
Because where Plato invented the very first definition of philosophy by contrasting it with "doxa", opinion, American philosophy, for decades now, has imagined that the history of philosophy must be comparable to the history of science: interesting to study only for historians.
As a result, they've really lost touch with what all philosophical methods have in common, namely a technique to discover, question and change our own deepest implicit presuppositions, which are the ground on which most of our opinions are based, an,d contrary to those opinions, have been put into our heads by our culture, even long after scientists have in the meanwhile proven them wrong.
This article is basically a long series of such typically Western post-Christian post-industrialized presuppositions:
1. No, it's not the West that invented democracy, Asia and Africa practiced it (and on a massive scale) long before us (see Amartya Sen, Basil Davidson, ...)
2. No, human beings don't have a "bad" animal nature and a "good" rational/divine nature. ALL mammals have a "compassion instinct" (D. Keltner, Berkeley), including humans, and it's its cultivation that reduces violence - which itself ONLY arises in societies with scarcity of resources - not "rational thinking" itself.
5
"To live democratically is, mainly, to deal in failure and imperfection, and to entertain few illusions about human society. The institutions of democracy, its norms and mechanisms, should embody a vision of human beings as deficient, flawed and imperfect. "
And this is the form of governance that we "cannot afford to stop dreaming of"?
Well, okay. I get that it's a tricky subject. But begging the question of which humans are "deficient, flawed, and imperfect" is w-a-y easier to nail down than it was in 1776. The difficulty is in getting the masses to trust the science.
We are at a place in history where choosing, by whatever method, a titular head of this or that nation, is all but guaranteed to result in a strong-man form of government. Clearly, even America is not immune.
And yet, we are right now being governed by a Confederacy of Dunces, acting this and acting that, and bold-faced scofflaws the lot of them.
Dreaming? That is exactly what we cannot afford to do.
What we need to do is get real.
1
@Skeexix...agreed, across the board. The only red flag I would throw up is in your last statement. Whose view of "real" gets embraced? Much of our philosophical anguish is a derivative of our conflating true democracy with the democratic republic/representative democracy established here. Like it or not, as much as this system was a reaction to tyranny, it's proven to be a 1/2 measure. Given a backdoor, ego easily slithers its way in to the Establishment when said Establishment allows itself established. That's not democracy. It's a lazy, mock crusade.
I would contend that our mistake is continuing to pretend that the Revolution ended in the 18th century.
With all respect, I couldn't disagree more.
What we see today is that (1) IN THE US (and to a certain extent Europe) (2) CYNICISM is increasing, and with that comes less confidence in democratic institutions and human beings in general.But that doesn't mean that democracy itself would be "for the Gods", quite on the contrary!
It's Socrates who wrote that philosophers "write for the gods". What did he mean by that? That philosophers propose radically new ways of thinking, which are so different from "common sense" thinking and its implicit presuppositions that only beings without any of those can immediately understand a new philosophy. We humans need a little more patience, and study it thoroughly, before we see what it is all about.
Democracy, however:
1. hasn't been invented by Athens (read: the West) AT ALL, but existed for thousands of years both in Asia (see Nobel prize Amartya Sen's books) and in Africa (see Basil Davidson's books). And in many of those cases, it was more egalitarian than in Athens, with its slavery-based society.
2. is NOT an end goal, but a means, as Saul Alinsky so powerfully explains in "Rules for Radicals. A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals". And it only works to the extent that all citizens engage (which tends to go down as cynicism goes up).
Finally, two decades of compassion studies (both neurological and ethological) have now shown that, AS Darwin already wrote, compassion and collaboration are hard-wired in our genes and brains..
2
This essay neglects a crucial factor in the success of the Athenian democracy. Popular culture continually rehearsed and reinforced the high value placed on critical thinking and participating in civic life. In contrast, much of our popular culture promotes magical thinking (superheroes), paranoia, and manichaeism.
4
Agreed. By the end of the 21st century, we may find that capitalism and democracy are no longer the best economic and political models to base a modern society. Indeed, automation and artificial intelligence could mean the end of both capitalism and democracy; and perhaps it should.
At the end of the day, our technology may be evolving exponentially, but we human beings are not. The last few years have demonstrated that humans will always fall back into the same harmful behavioral loops of their ancestors after hard lessons have faded from living memory.
2
Great piece of writing, but I do take issue with the notion that democracy is against human nature, ie. all human nature. One of the main principles of natural selection is having a great variety among a species from which to select. Therefore, not all humans have the same brain; some are more evolved than others, and they do not wish to be bowed down to or to experience "the sweet surrender" of bowing down to anyone or anything. Now, how do we get the more evolved people in positions of democratic power???
2
230 years of uninterrupted elections for Congress (with the partial exception of the Civil War years) and uninterrupted elections for President, with a constantly expanding franchise, and routine rotation of parties in power. That seems to me to be sufficient evidence that democracy has endured in America. (Note: my spinach and feta omlet is not perfect, but it *is* a spinach and feta omlet.)
3
People are not just an unformed collection of our biological needs and hormonal whims. Any political philosophy that assumes that women and men cannot be inspired by ideas, cannot rationally embrace things bigger than themselves, is insipid and (importantly) wrong. Sure, democracy requires that individuals occasionally work against their own biological best interest in favor of the collective. But so did Christendom, which somehow managed to get impoverished Europeans to build cathedrals that they could not possibly have seen to completion, even when this meant whole months without meat, butter, or eggs in order to fund the building of various towers; even when this meant clearing their own houses. Self-sacrifice for this ideal went on for the better part of a millenium in Europe, and this is only one example of people embracing a big idea at personal cost. Why cannot democrats exhort us - and why should we think that we cannot exhort one another - in ways that are inspiring, compelling, and sustainable? We are absolutely animal, but we're not MERE animal, doomed to always revert to spreading our genes at every domineering opportunity: We in America do not, for example, live in a society where a few big men keep a harem of captive women, and few of us (dominant men included) even remember that this might be a practical possibility, nor on balance do they desire this social order. People willingly die to defend ideals they truly believe to be good. We needn't be so grim.
3
I disagree about the nature of humanity.
The struggle is real. The advantage is gained by those who help their grandchildren and nephews and neighbors.
Survival of genes is survival of our genes, not just my genes. Genetically, everything in me is shared in my community, merely in varied mixtures.
Go back only ten generations or so, and we are all cousins. We are literally relatives, savings our extended family like saving our own children. Those without children can do it too, and those with children can do it more beyond just them.
Genetics is community, not selfish. The winner is the community that extends its gene pool, not just one guy who has a few more children.
„Fundamentally, humans are not predisposed to living democratically“
The opposite is true - or it depends!
Democracy is the political equivalent of a group or community which has had time to develope under appropriate security mutual trust and differentiated itself in a way that allows its members to be different (individuate) and being respected as equals and being part of the whole at the same time. Appropriate security means internally benevolent leadership and externally physical security . After decades of working in groups there is no exception from that rule.
Those processes emerge under instincts linked to care, secure binding, procreative instincts. The destructive instincts are provoked - or better become uncontainable - in a group under stress and threat, internally and externally. They are linked to instincts of self preservation, stressing aspects of competition (about resources) and lead to processes shaped by splitting mechanisms (good and bad, us and them ...)
So humans are definitely predisposed to live democratically - if they can!
1
Democracy is cherished in "boiling-pot" or multi-cultural societies – e.g., Athens, the UK, and America – because it allows weaker minorities to assert their voice and to participate in the government. More homogenous societies like China, Korea or Japan – which has been ruled by the same party for over 55 years – don't really need democracy. If everyone is a part of the majority, you don't really need a democracy; you only need a good leader.
So, in a sense, yes: Democracy is an unnatural form of government. It's become a modern ideal partly because modern societies have more diverse populations due to immigrations. The weak and the minorities – black, jews, muslims, asian – depend on a democratic system to participate in the governance and in order to climb economic and social ladders. Thus, naturally, if there is any group that would oppose the democratic ideals in America, it will probably be a part of the majority white, because they are the group that has the most to lose. And that is exactly what is happening now in our country under the Trump presidency.
3
If our democracy is in such bad shape why is Trump's polling so poor? Why did so many more people show up for Obamas inauguration than for Trumps? Certainly things could be tons better but one admittedly bad inning doesn't end the game.
A return to mandatory civics classes in all schools could certainly help especially with a more demanding curriculum than in the recent past. If some states balked at such changes their voting totals would likely not go up. Mandatory government service for a couple of years might also foster greater personal investment in democracy.
1
Maybe a draft that can't be dodged (along with doctors who can't be bought) is the great leveler America requires.
Serving in the military has traditionally instilled in people the spirit of cooperation and a hearty contempt for bullies -- as well as for undereducated sadists.
Undereducated sadists will always be with us, but having to put up with one in your barracks or on your ship might make you less amenable to having one as your leader.
1
It could be argued that elections are not democratic. True democracy would be that anyone from the population could be chosen to serve (by lot, for example). Elections as practiced in the US, and possibly anywhere, are structured to choose only from an 'elite' group(defined by family membership or money or political party), and are easily manipulated by money, media, and education level, and are open to corruption.
4
I think that a large cause of the problems are caused by the sheer scale of what we're trying to manage now. Population is much larger than at the founding of the country, the information technology ( and lack thereof in some places) has changed the way we live in profound ways. The populace is just getting unmanageable as far as agreeing on basic principles and goals.
2
@JP
I find it hard to accept the idea that democracy is not scalable. We have gone through a period within my lifetime when we had less than half the current population and yet we still can reasonably call this a democracy. Certainly we have undemocratic forces and even antidemocratic forces at work within our nation but no more so than in the past.
I am particularly heartened that we have over twenty democrats currently trying to enlist our support and I see no more than one or two who I would not trust to do the job.
1
Why not experiment with some form of sortition to replace elections? The rules are so much simpler and harder to game. We don’t have much experience with it, but perhaps the pros outweigh the cons. Its not too late to innovate new (actually old) forms of democracy.
1
I grew up in a large family where occasionally decisions were made by democratic vote. What do we watch on TV (pre-vcr days), for example. A parent proposes the vote, counts them and implements the decision. It would be hard for a nature documentary fan as minority in a family of police show fans.
Missing in this discussion is the fact that someone always ends up unhappy. Perhaps the challenge for democracy is what to do about the minority.
1
Good article that gets at some of the challenges human nature poses in self governance. We are quite varied in talents and proclivities and many of us are quite flawed in the character our national ideal person aspires to.
But what is the real problem of our democracy, and indeed of most governments of the last 200 years and more? It is the inevitable rise to power of a financial elite (or military elite which then become the financial elite) in the midst of a government that should, philosophically, mitigate against it. Our case is not much different than Russia or China in the notion that None of philosophies of government condone or anticipate rule by financial elite. By whatever means, the extremely wealthy come to be in control of the functioning of government.
Our representative democracy can be restored (fully implemented for the first time) by accepting real human nature and not relying on the 'aspirational good person' in politics. We have to harden our democracy against corruption. We have to End Systemic Corruption and create a system that prevents it from happening and is always on guard for new ways it can manifest.
Understanding that: Money is Not speech in politics, large campaign donations are Bribes and are Corrupting, Corporations are Sociopaths and not persons and are corrupting, the revolving door is corruption, Corporate lobbyists are corruption.
You want Democracy? Warren and Sanders are the Only presidential candidates campaigning FOR DEMOCRACY.
7
But why is the US more oligarchic than many other democracies today? It wasn't always thus. We're now more class stratified than in our past when the middle class was strengthening, when our jobs stayed here with rising salaries, benefits and pensions. State university tuition was low. Wealth taxes were higher, and govt regulations on big business were stronger.
Our class inequality is more pronounced now, than in many advanced countries who not that long ago were ruled by kings and aristocrats. That was the very thing the American colonies rejected.
They overthrew mad King George the 1st, now we must dump mad King Donald the 1st.
In other democracies today, for all their problems, their elections don't depend on funding by oligarchs who set political norms. With health care for all guaranteed for generations, their citizens get more Representation for their Taxation than do US voters. That was the demand of our colonies against the British colonizers.
Now, we're being colonized again, sold to by campaign commercials to the voters, funded by home grown corporate mega donor aristos and billionaire dukes. Their increased power is eased by our Court pretending that big money in elections is 'free speech' protected by 1st Amendment.
Our modern aristos will think up any slogan to justify their dominance. In past eras with no voting rights, they just issued edicts and their subjects bowed.
In 21st C America, they have to persuade us citizens to vote them in.
6
Don't loose heart folks. Remember, we are a republic attempting a democracy. It took us a hundred years to get rid of slavery, another hundred years to get rid of Jim Crow, and we will probably have to wait for another two or three or four generations to die-out (every hundred years all new people) before the need for kindness, respect, and tolerance are accepted and owned. But it will happen because it makes sense, and as the consequences of doing things that don't make sense become ever more apparent and difficult, doing things that do will become more appealing and easier (the young always think things should be easier and more appealing).
1
One of the most grounded essays, closest to my heart, I have ever read in a newspaper. It sees us all with our pimples and our graces. It is realistic while poetic in the aspirations for our humanity. And it calls to the future. Thank you, Mr. Bradatan.
4
"Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education." (Roosevelt)
Great article! Let's all do our best for an education that is "non sibi sed aliis".
4
Winston Churchill said in a Commons speech: "Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
2
The author of this op-ed piece makes a very common mistake. He confuses democracy (the rule of the people) with the pursuit of power and dominance. The former does not preclude the latter. Even in ancient Athens, even among those who were passionate believers in democracy, there was a strong effort for power, dominance and influence. Pericles achieved all of these in a democratic regime, which he defended and re-enforced. In fact, he led Athens to imperial power and to an unfortunate war before his unexpectedly early death by the plaque. Demosthenes, through sheer persistence and force of personality, led Athens to war against Macedon. The fact that the people have the power to choose their leaders, those who attain leadership do not necessarily cancel democracy.
Democracy can be remarkably stable if the power centers in a given state are in "equilibrium". When the equilibrium is "disturbed", or external forces intervene, democracy may be in peril. It is hardly in peril because of human "weaknesses". In classical Athens, democracy did not "die" because of any civic "sins" by Athenians, it died by external intervention. Thus, the whole thesis that democracy is a "delicate flower" and it may be antithetical to basic elements of human character is mistaken
3
The same governments, political parties and leaders that are mentioned here as "failures" of "democracy" are also the same governments, political parties and leaders that either excluded or discouraged women's participation in civic affairs by preaching that "God" and "family values" dictate that women leave the governing to men. For example, in his work "Politics," Aristotle stated "as regards the sexes, the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject." What's missing here is connecting the dots between how toxic masculine norms enable despotic rulers.
The same governments, political parties and leaders that are mentioned here as "failures" of "democracy" are also the same governments, political parties and leaders that either excluded or discouraged women's participation in civic affairs by preaching that "God" “nature” and/or "family values" dictate that women leave the governing to men. For example, in his work "Politics," Aristotle stated "as regards the sexes, the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject." In other words, “traditional” patriarchal gender roles have poisoned the “democratic well” from the beginning, an essential nuance missing from this author’s analysis.
1
It’s irrelevant to the story.
When did we ever have democracy in this country? Get real. Voting in America is a meaningless gesture used to appease process diehards and narcissists that take selfies while sporting “I Voted” stickers. Even local elections are rigged to satisfy corporate interests. If it’s not a shadow electorate telling us what we want, it’s a minority group telling us what we can’t have. Everything in between is just noise. Not even the Greeks had a truly democratic form of government seeing as how the senators at the top of the caste system had greater and more numerous voting rights. The two-party system is just tribalism masking class warfare. Ignoring the presidential incumbent, the DNC is about to foist a fence-sitting hack like Joe Biden on their party when most constituents adamantly do not want him and do not believe the man to be a “front-runner.” Quit pretending like our voices matter, let alone are heard. You can claim that democracy is dead or dying, but I will always assert that, by definition, it’s never existed beyond the page.
1
The same governments, political parties and leaders that are mentioned here as "failures" of "democracy" are also the same governments, political parties and leaders that either excluded or discouraged women's participation in civic affairs by preaching that "God" “nature” and/or "family values" dictate that women leave the governing to men. For example, in his work "Politics," Aristotle stated "as regards the sexes, the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject." In other words, “traditional” patriarchal gender roles have poisoned the “democratic well” from the beginning, an essential nuance missing from this author’s analysis.
Democracy fails when people don’t learn to think rigorously. All else follows.
1
The same governments, political parties and leaders that are mentioned here as "failures" of "democracy" are also the same governments, political parties and leaders that either excluded or discouraged women's participation in civic affairs by preaching that "God" “nature” and/or "family values" dictate that women leave the governing to men. For example, in his work "Politics," Aristotle stated "as regards the sexes, the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject." In other words, “traditional” patriarchal gender roles have poisoned the “democratic well” from the beginning, an essential nuance missing from this author’s analysis.
1
Perhaps all democracies do decline in time, but this is not what has happened in the U.S. since 2016. The fact is, we now have a dictatorship because the majority of us do not want to make the sacrifices necessary to keep our democracy.
Dictators do not need the majority of a nation's citizens retain power indefinitely. They only need a large, rabid minority. And this is exactly what Trump has -- and his is heavily armed, to boot.
Now, I'm told that the majority of us, some 60% do not want to live under one man rule. Trump voters, of course, love it.
But that leaves the rest of us - the majority of this nation's citizens. We have been far too passive, far too silent these past three years. Oh, there is the occasional march or rally, but these have been nothing more than media events.
We have undertaken no massive, sustained resistance to this regime. Quite simply, the majority of us do not want to sacrifice anything. We would rather live under one man rule than fight for our democracy.
And Trump knows we will not fight back. He knows we will continue to cower before his base. He is counting on our silence, our appeasement, our cowardice. And he is right to do so.
Understand that our democracy is over. Trump understands that he may leave office at a time of his choosing, and not a minute sooner. Because the majority of us will continue in our silence. Because we won't make the sacrifices necessary to take our country back.
4
Democracy is a blip that occasionally appears in the timeline of human civilization. Most of our history is one form of authoritarianism or another. Which, to be perfectly honest, is the natural state of affairs.
1
This essay amounts to an ahistoric fantasy.
All humans are inherently selfish.
Therefore generations of teaching children about sharing did not occur?
And, self-centered competitiveness must lead inevitably to brutal domination?
Domination and oppression are common in human societies.
Therefore, the most appealing reponse must be willing submission, because democracy is less erotic and more frigid?
And all knowledge of the history of medieval torture, of slave trading, of facism, of Stalin's Russia, or Mao's China or Pol Pot's Cambodia no longer exists?
Religion may not always fit well with democracy, but the basis of democracy, in recent centuries at least, has rarely been religion but rather common sense.
Democracy (in the modern meaning of majority rule, embedded in the rule of law, separation of powers, human rights institutions, rules of civic interaction, and respect for education, truth, facts and the respect for minority opinions) is indeed no panacea for the challenges and afflictions of the modern age. But it is less bad than any other known governmental arrangements, and in that form -refined over centuries of experience- it has a track record of being the most effective antidote against disasters caused by misrule of the powerful.
1
I agree with the commentators pointing to the relative short period in which women have been fully participated in this, our grand experiment. Now, with a real possibility of a female president in 2020, I say to the male of the species, don’t you dare declare our democracy dead before a revolutionary shift is about to transpire. What our representative democracy needs is Madam Speaker, Madame Chief Justice and Madame President. That will be the fulfillment of our grand ideal.
1
We had a long run and lasted longer than most democracies. I hope that we will return to a democratic form of government in the future, but things look bleak.
3
The world only saw the first democracies in the last century, with the enfranchisement of women (over half of the population) and people of color. Give it a chance. And please stop referring to the patriarchal oligarchies of history as "democracies." They weren't. As Susan B. Anthony famously stated, they were "oligarchies of sex."
1
"Humans cannot sustain" democracy? Just who are counting when you say "humans?" Because women where only recognized as democratic citizens in the last 100 years. Please do not use the term "humans" to refer to what historically was "male humans." When you do, you erase the history of the half of humanity that is female.
3
Read H. L. Mencken's writings on democracy and American politics!
Then you will have savored fine writing by a keen observer and intellect.
Now that's a nice cheerful thought!
1
Peoples first obligation is to their family. Then to a democratic state.
@turbot
How do you suppose those families will fare without a stable society around them?
And not just stable. Equitable and open, supportive and (I hate to say it, all things considered) reasonably democratic.
You can be as family-oriented as you like, but if you're living in a feudal state, or under a not-so-benign dictatorship, your family will not prosper even if it somehow manages to survive.
If you care even a little for your family, you had better get and vote and advocate and participate. Otherwise you have not much to offer them.
2
Wow - beautiful essay. Thank you.
I am a biologist and think in terms of evolution. People evolve in their ideas and (far more slowly) their physicality. In the original clan of 1776, agreeing on how to live together was relatively simple. But we've grown and evolved, and that once-large circle of common thought has diminished to a molecule.
What are we to do? My best guess is that Democracy must die and be reborn. It will be painful, but it is the way of Life.
145
@Kenneth Brady
I have to admit that I'm appalled at the cynicism in this op-ed and comment section.
Democracy has never been an end goal, something that happens once we solved all other problems and all become part of a "circle of common thought", but a MEANS to solve them and get to a better, more thriving society as a whole.
Democracy is - as history has shown, and on all continents, and long before Athens invented its own version - a way to organize and build a community of people who strongly DISAGREE among themselves (as human do), in such a way that disagreement doesn't lead to physical violence.
It has been proven to be the only viable alternative to a society living in permanent (fear of) violence, perpetrated by both a class of disagreeing ruling elites who control access to power and most of the weapons' stock of that society, and by a lowest social class of outcasts, who only have violence at their disposal as a means of survival (also called "criminals" ...).
At the same time, the extent to which a democracy is de facto installed, depends on two things: a Constitution that guarantees its pillars (separation of the 3 branches of government, freedom of speech and gathering, etc.), AND the active engagement of its citizens.
What the GOP is doing for 2 decades now (together with Fox News) is to give up this idea entirely, imagining that people will never accept their view on politics, and then MASSIVELY spread fake news to keep them voting for them anyhow.
1/2
52
2/2
For those Republicans who aren't corrupt (yet), it's based on the presumption that their own policy ideas are necessarily the best ideas, when it comes to political philosophy (= the invention of concepts allowing us to imagine a better future for all) ... COMBINED with what you're saying here, namely that in order for a democracy to survive, the main prerequisite would be to have ALREADY built a "community of thought", a fundamental agreement on all major issues.
And THAT is the weakest point in the GOP's philosophy today, explaining why they support someone as amoral as Trump and even elevate him as their supreme leader.
It's also what directly explains why America's democracy is becoming weaker itself, today.
A democracy where you create an "alternative facts" bubble in order to keep citizens separated from proven truths, no longer allows for a REAL engagement of those citizens, and once that happens, there are much less real, respectful debates, whereas it's precisely that kind of debates that constitute the very core of each democracy, and defines its strength.
So regarding your question (what to do now), historical records are very clear: the ONLY way to keep a democracy alive, is to (1) accept disagreement as its most solid foundation, and (2) remember that ALL citizens need to engage, in order to become collectively more intelligent about the state of the union and how to improve it.
THAT is the "way of Life" of a democracy. It's up to US to decide...
33
I hope not. If a revolution is inevitable, I pray for all of us.
3
The author is just suffering from The Heartache of Democracy, when the other side wins a big election. It's not the end of democracy. There are still dozens of functioning democracies around the world. Interestingly, none of them, as far as I know, have only two parties. It's turned out to be a formula for inaction, a political vegetative state.
So the question is "Why is American democracy failing?". (The answer is not "Trump".) I would rather she not try to drag everyone else down with us. The others are light years ahead of us in terms of providing for "the public well-being", despite the god's, not because of them.
137
@laurence Good answer Laurence.
Let us not forget that we are just another mammal,
not much different from the animal kingdom.
Just because we can build things, which is wonderful,
it doesn't mean we're better than them.
Democracy only works for the rich, because they can
afford them. How else do you explain criminal gangs?
The current situation goes to show that.
Keep it real in bklyn.
2
@laurence
"The author is just suffering from The Heartache of Democracy, when the other side wins a big election. . It's not the end of democracy. "
lol, exactly.
"There are still dozens of functioning democracies around the world. Interestingly, none of them, as far as I know, have only two parties. It's turned out to be a formula for inaction, a political vegetative state."
Another authentically brilliant observation. I note that even cursory reference to the existence of examples of properly functioning democracies and institutions of democratic governance are entirely absent from Costica Bratacan's essay. (These examples can be found in the present day, at that.)
8
@laurence Great comment! I was agreeing with you on everything uptil the end, where the "others" are "light years ahead" in providing for "the public well-being." Could you please provide a reasonable example, that's not in Canada, New Zealand, or not Scandinavian? Cheers.
1
Please help!!
I am starting to believe that a more effective form of government is something like a benevolent dictator. My heart tells me thats wrong but my head says it might be better. The vast majority of us are either politically disengaged or easily manipulated (or both).
See Rwanda? the dictatorship is leading it from poverty and into growth as a leading country in central Africa. China is doing OK too.
See UK and the mess of Brexit? See USA and the chaos of Trump? Democracy requires education and vigilance and most voters have too little of both and even less awareness or concern of their importance.
So, what is a better answer? I dont want to want a dictator...even a kind one...
85
@iain mackenzie If there is one form of government that is surely more fleeting and short lived than democracy, it is a benevolent dictatorship. And China will be no exception to that. In the end, they will be consumed by corruption. Ongoing and continuous attempts at democracy are our best hope, not because "the people" are so wise and deserving, but because nothing else works.
34
Democracy is always better because every other system of government has always incentivized corruption. This is true even if the dictator is benevolent. Business sentiment in China is decreasing precisely because repression and a legal system dependent on the whims of the central authority rather than on the rule of law (a concept unique to democracies) is not truly compatible with a free market system. There are many other incentives for the elite and the dictator to behave against what is best for the country. The incentives for these actions are not only impossible to remove but the actions themselves are actually essential if the dictator and the elite want to retain their positions. This would put even a benevolent dictator in a position where they would have to harm their people and act against what is best for their society to keep their job. Democracy removes these incentives. Even if one doesn’t care about freedom, democracy is still in terms of the outcomes for the largest number of people and for the country as a whole, the best form of government.
15
@Don Carder Thank you for your reply. Having lived in China and Kazakhstan for a total of 7 years, corruption is far more visible here than in UK and USA. Whilst people here are critical of corruption at higher levels, it seems to play an integral part of every day life.
Prior to living and working here, I was arrogant enough to believe that UK and USA government policies prevented or addressed corruption; holding perpetrators accountable. But on serious reflection, I now see this is far from true. ("He who knows only England, knows not England")
17
George Washington spoiled us as did Abraham Lincoln and the two Roosevelts Theodore and Franklin Delano. These were strong men who knew their limitations. Washington could have been King, but stepped aside to let the country grow. Abraham Lincoln struggled with depression and loss, but allowed others to step forward and show their strengths saving the unity of the country and freed a race by putting aside his own preconceptions. Franklin Delano Roosevelt learned what it was to suffer and be human through the limitations of polio. And Theodore overcame severe childhood weakness.
Not everyone suffers and becomes whole and more human. It can also warp and stunt bringing out the worst in a person. Trump is such a person, someone who wants to be strong and attempts to be through the seduction of others. Yes we are spoiled and whether we continue this experiment depends upon whether we can break free of our illusions and become great, more humble and more aware humans. The Trumps of the world will appear, but how we respond is the important thing.
198
@just Robert
FDR attempted to pack the Supreme Court, making McConnell look like an amateur. He exceeded presidential term limits, flaunting the Constitution. And he imprisoned Japanese Americans, one of the worst travesties of justice in American history. As for Teddy Roosevelt, he used his "bully pulpit" to radically broaden presidential powers in ways then thought to be unconstitutional. and he conspired to install a pro-American government in Panama by fomenting revolution. Teddy had an ego as big as the Grand Canyon.
Whatever else you can say about the Roosevelts, and there is much good to say, neither acted as if there were any limitations to their power.
5
@michjas: There were no Term Limits at the time of FDR and we were in the middle of a real war which required a man like FDR to continue the fight.
13
@michjas
Presidential term limits were established in the Constitution after FDR died. They were passed by Congress in 1947 and ratified as the 22nd Amendment in 1951. As far as packing the Supreme Court, the number of Justices is not specified in the Constitution, it is established by Congress and signed into law by the President. FDR went that route, but was unsuccessful.
For Teddy, the Constitution is fairly vague on what powers the President has. Aside from being Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, he can order reports from his departments, he can grant reprieves and pardons, he can make treaties, and appoint people to established offices. Those are the enumerated powers. However, the first sentence of Article II says, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Most of what a President does comes from that one line. And different presidents have interpreted it differently.
1
As a fellow philosopher, I think this is a poorly argued article. I don't think the rise and fall of democracy is nearly as mysterious and arbitrary as the author seems to imply. In their Why Nations Fail, Acemoglu and Robinson give a pretty plausible account of why more democratic systems arise. There's usually a group of people who have accumulated significant social or economic power but who are currently shut out from having political power, so they agitate to expand the scope of who can have political power.
At the other end of the life cycle, Levitsky and Ziblatt, in their How Democracies Die, give a pretty plausible account of how democracies come to an end and some things that worked historically to prevent such a demise once it's started.
Furthermore, Steven Pinker, in Enlightenment Now, makes the case that there's actually been an increase in the number of reasonably democratic governments in the world, despite the focus on some high profile non-democratic countries (Russia and China) and the potential backsliding of some democracies (Hungary, Turkey, the U.S.?).
One doesn't have to fully agree with any of these authors, but it seems sloppy and a bit intellectually shallow to not address the possible validity of alternatives to the fatalistic cynicism expressed here.
262
@Hans
Hans, you missed the philosophical point of the article. The author does not argue for cynicism, but instead says that democracy is a regulative ideal whose value is not decisively affected by the failure to fulfill it. Instead, the ideal persists through its partial failures, and it continues to guide action on the way to "a more perfect union" as the framers of the Constitution memorably put it.
Cynicism is one of the ways democracies die, and I too thought the author was being cynical, until I got to the end of the text. The point made at the end is that the dream continues to shape reality, despite its punctual shortcomings. That's an ethical principle. Its ideality - or some would say, its unreality - is exactly what makes it so useful. An observation about reality, such as "we live in a democracy," can be proven false. An ideal cannot. That makes it dangerous, too because if the ideal itself is ill conceived, much harm can ensue. But the democratic ideal is well conceived and has been of great value for millennia. What we need today is the irrational aspiration to fulfill this ideal - the audacity of hope, as someone said - coupled with the discipline to measure the concrete results that flow from those attempts at fulfillment.
Democracy will always come up short in terms of its realization. The ideal remains as a guide to future efforts.
43
You appear more as a political scientist than a philosopher.
@Brian Holmes and @ Hans.
Hi, Brian. In defense of Hans, I'm not sure that he did miss the point of the Bradatan's op-ed piece. My take on his comment was to point to other authors' views of democracy's rise, fragility, and endurance. I don't think he was cynical.
BUT saying that, your comment is excellent, and it drew my attention back to Bradatan's closing paragraphs. Democracy is an ethical ideal. Thanks for your thoughtful response.
5
On some level I get that an American might feel this way.
How many times has the winner of US President not received the majority of votes? Too many times.
But this week the Union Jack, was put up as a symbol of democracy by Hong Kongers, taking on Beijing.
Many countries still come under the Commonwealth banner and some still even use this symbol on their flags.
Democracy will be maintained.
American democracy is waning though.
In my estimation it is because the US President is elected as if a 'celebrity king'. And doesn't even have to sit in Congress, which is the way it happens in Parliamentary systems.
Tell me, do you think a man like DT would want a job where he HAS to represent a seat in Congress and turn up to debate legislation? I think not.
I put it to you that it is American democracy at risk.
Not democracy.
445
@EC
Judging American Democracy based on one leader or one time is dangerous, American Democracy has been written off many times as a failure....yet somehow it manages to survive threats. Alexander Hamilton was, despite what the musical claims, saw himself much in the same way Trump does, Burr might have done the country a huge favor. We have had weak leaders, we have had the Van Burens and Hardings and Chester A Arthurs, but we also have had strong presidents like Lincoln, FDR, Washington and Jefferson.
Parliamentary systems have some advantages, but they are also prone to bad leadership, too. Do you seriously think Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain were great PM's? For every Disraeli or Churchill, you also have pretty bad players, too. Too, often in a Parliamentary system you are forced into bad coalitions, like in Israel the power of the ultra orthodox is a classic example.
29
@music observer
Sure. There are bad examples of parliamentary leaders. No doubt.
But America is arguably already undemocratic in a structural sense. If, for example, the next US President does not receive a majority of votes, you can forget it. That is NOT a democracy.
40
@EC
No doubt this quibble is from the left--only GOP POTUSes have won the election without the majority of total votes.
I agree a parliamentary government might fare better over our last several decades; however, and for better or worse, our POTUS is also the commander in chief of our armed forces making us militarily ready to defend and--too often in the last centuries--conquer.
2
The problem isn't democracy, its rich and powerful people who, having achieved that state, have become addicts with no will to reform.
Its grubby hangers-on like Mitch McConnell who, unable to raise himself to that level, abuses the trust given him to rob and marry his way to the top and mangles the system he swore to serve.
Communism suffers the same fate. A system sold as a response to the ravages of capitalism falls victim to the greed and hubris of its leaders.
American Democracy is the ne plus ultra of failed political systems, having abandoned politics long ago for banking. Sold it soul at the first chance.
The same for economic systems. We're entranced with the idea that we're a capitalist nation with free markets. Cruel jokes.
Every theorist of capitalism insists on rigorous regulation. Real capitalists are concerned, even before profit, with the health of the society that spawned them...not ours.
Corporations abuse their investors, employees, neighbors, the environment that allows them to exist. They insist they must not pay for the wreckage. Our courts and government agree.
The solution is an active and educated populace. Those with power do their best to obviate both.
Our education system barely attains mediocrity, avoids all talk of citizenship. Our parties make political participation impossible.
The mess we're in today is the mess we want.
Commenters pining for dictators need to look closely at Washington: they're here. Happy?
191
@oogada All good up to 'the mess we want' part. The sovereignty of the people has been usurped over time by the financial elite through corruption of politics and politicians. Control of mass media has certainly helped them as well. But it's certainly not what we (the majority) want. The financial elite have shaped our democracy so there has been no voting option to stop their rise to power. They locked in the two party system and thoroughly corrupted both parties.
There is a path to asserting real honest representative democracy. Warren and Sanders have both made Ending Systemic Corruption (Sanders' phrase) a Cornerstone of their campaigns. The corruption that has thwarted real democracy can be stopped through our existing mechanisms. It won't happen simply by electing one of those two. But it will Start with a win in that election. They will use the bully pulpit to call out corruption directly and to whip the public to vote for candidates that will represent only their districts' citizens' interests. That, in 2 to 6 years, could be enough to change the laws to permanently cripple the power of the financial elite to corrupt politics.
People are sick of corruption. With no good choices against it they make very bad choices against it. Ergo Trump. Sanders will crush Trump as All the 2016 pre-primary polls showed as well as current polls. Warren will too. Biden and the other corporatist democrats will lose like Clinton.
19
@trebor
I am writing Bernie in if I must, one vote, my vote. The DNC can vote too, just not with my vote.
7
@trebor
Beautifully said, and inspiring. Count me in - I'm enrolled.
8
What I see in this opinion piece and some of the comments is that Americans are willing to let go of democracy. The opinion piece has a tone of resignation or defeat that itself has real political consequences. By implying that non-democracy is an acceptable outcome, this opinion piece is de-motivating people to fight to retain their rights at a time when we actually hover on the cusp of tyranny.
The author fails to consider two things.
1) This author ignores that cooperation is every bit as essential to human survival as competition and aggression. Think about it: how long will most individuals survive alone in the forest? To paint human survival as a matter of individual aggression is false--it's looking at the tip of the iceberg and missing the bulk of what keeps us alive. Our species dominates the planet because of our highly sophisticated capacity for cooperation. Never mind that many animal species besides our own are social and cooperative, and their young cannot survive without parental nurture. The view of human nature espoused in this argument is inaccurate because it is so incomplete.
2) The argument fails to warn readers about the consequences of allowing irrational authoritarianism to replace representative government--atrocities committed against vulnerable population groups and world war.
That's why I think this argument is profoundly unethical.
Intimidation through surveillance is more typically how authoritarian governments control people, not "ecstasy."
307
@S. Pfeiffer I took this piece as a warning. Too many of us all over the political spectrum take our democracy for granted. They justify breaking the rules because they see democracy as an impediment to imposing their superior goals on everyone (for our own good, of course). They don’t see what awaits us when we finally kick out the last struts.
17
@S. Pfeiffer Thank you for your beautiful and eloquent reply. You said exactly what I was feeling only much better than I ever could. Keep writing!
5
@S. Pfeiffer
Yes, quite! “Love thy neighbor”.
The primary missing link in failed democracies: Active involvement and knowledge on the part of citizens. That, in my opinion, is what is strangling American democracy--and it's an artifact of "the entertainment industry," which is an aspect of materialist culture. When the pleasures of a culture are seductive, they distract citizens from becoming, and staying, informed of the political realm.
A countering strategem could be rewarding people for being informed and actively participating: say, providing incentives for voting, for attending meetings, participating in voter information events--or turn that around and fine voters if their voting rate falls below a threshold. Make active citizenship something to be gained and valued, instead of a passive, "default" status that need not be given a second thought.
Any way you look at it, American-born citizens look very careless and heedless of what they have, compared to those who immigrate to our shores, study hard to learn the language and history, and take and pass the test to become naturalized citizens. The least of these looks very well-informed, and very motivated, indeed compared to the average "born here" citizen.
100
@Robert
Absolutely. That is why I have long felt that one or two years of political engagement should be compulsory for every citizen upon becoming of age—whether it be in the form of working for one’s community, local or not-so-local institutions, social service NGOs, foreign-help missions...Even campaigning for a cause or a candidate could, perhaps, be made to count...
People need to realize that the public sphere is part and parcel of the private sphere.
They need to feel it in their bones, and never lose sight of it.
10
@Stephanie Wood
That is why introducing compulsory political service should become part of any platform for democracy. Once every individual has had an active, concrete, experience with political engagement, it becomes far more difficult for any government of the few to impose their will based on abstract ideas, from "revolution" to "make America great again", to "Deutschland uber alles", to Brexit.
2
@Robert
I think the last thing we want to do is force more people to vote. We already have too many low information voters who vote based on name recognition or celebrity status. I don't think we need more of that.
1
Speak for yourself. Democracy makes it possible for individuals to act in ways that benefit others, providing avenues for deeply satisfying advocacy. Without that, many of us would suffer greatly. Democracy may be a lot of work, but it’s easier than living without the opportunity to help our fellow citizens. I will never stop fighting to strengthen our democracy. It’s a whole lot easier than doing nothing.
154
Yes. It's about a "more perfect union " not "a perfect" one. Hopefully we will always be a work in progress.
13
@MaraMDolan
"I will never stop fighting to strengthen our democracy."
you say,
I will never stop fighting to weaken the Plutocracy we've become.
I say.
3
@MaraMDolan Please let us know the secrets to how we too can fight as you are. We need guidelines.
1
Mr. Bradatan talks about democracy as if it were some kind of human ideal, or a good thing. In fact, "democracy" denotes unlimited majoritarian rule, which in practice means "the tyranny of a majority over a minority". It is a form of collectivism, or the subjugation of individual human beings to an abstract, greater "good", as expressed by the current vote tally (or the currently favored group spokesperson). A good example from the ancient Athenian government was the murder of Socrates by the state, presumably for having undue influence on the youth who studied with him. As a democrat, Socrates did not dispute the rightness of the government's action.
Unlike a democracy, the US was established as a Constitutional Republic. Crucially, a Bill of Rights was attached to the Constitution, and that document created a sphere of protections for individual persons which could not be erased by majority vote. If we aspire to improve our state institutions today, we should work to reinvigorate the Bill of Rights and ensure that the protections named there are applied equally to all US persons.
1
This is both a reasoned and depressing article; that requires much thought and debate. It pretty much boils down to are we any better than the animal drive that lives within us all. Or to put it another way; are we even capable of overcoming those basic animalistic instincts that lead to violence and war that has been the cornerstone of all human history. I recall with both sadness and no small amount of apprehension the movie "MacArthur" where the general is quoting the ancient Greeks that only the dead have seen the end of war. We do not want to admit even to ourselves this darkness is part of who we are. There is light as well of course; but it seems like the eternal question of which is really stronger. Bobby Kennedy urged us all to "Tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world. If we fail in this; there lies the seeds of our own self destruction; and perhaps that of all life on Earth. One way or the other; we better start asking the hard questions and seek to find answers to break the endless cycle of man`s inhumanity to mankind; or face a very dark future.
4
The old Athenian tradition of sortition, random selection of a president from among the whole population, would have almost certainly produced a better outcome than what we have today.
The major flaw in our version of democracy, as the author puts it, is:
"...the fortunate wealthy few (hoi oligoi) .... typically decide here not only the rules of the political game, but also who wins and who loses."
With the addition of gross mistakes like the "Citizens United" decision by our Supreme Court, we have moved even further away from any semblance of democracy in the US. The affluent present us with a platter of acceptable (to themselves) candidates, and the rest of us just pretend we matter.
4
The author makes the usual mistake of imagining that culture is human nature. Drawing from old sources such as Lorenz, one could not help assuming that humans are genetically wired to be aggressive. But recent work offers a counter: evolutionary biology has found high degrees of cooperative behavior in many species, and anthropology has found evidence of egalitarian, less violent cultures prior to the rise of agriculture and patriarchy.
Just because the hierarchical and aggressive cultures of the last 8000 years defeated the kinder ones doesn't mean it's in our "nature". It's the culture that's the problem.
4
Thanks Costica,
Nobody promised us a Rose Garden, or a democracy. "A Republic, madame, if you can keep it." That is the Final Jeopardy answer, and Ben Franklin, may the Saints preserve him, let us know right from the get go.
Turns out we couldn't, but until we grow up and put war behind us, which is capitalism by another name, we won't be able to keep one.
The wonder of Rome wasn't that it took more than a day to build -- so did Tacoma -- the wonder was how long it took to fall to pieces. Once the national security crowd gets the reins, Vespasian and Titus were their names in Rome, or once the economy is reduced to hyperinflation -- the result of empire that no longer pays for itself -- as Paris was in 1790 and Berlin in 1922, well then, the next step is the strong man.
Can the American Caesar be far behind? Time will tell, but in the meantime, keep calm and carry Yuan. Trump and Co will make China great again, and having learned from the Ming hyperinflation, perhaps their century will last 500 years.
4
@Henry Hewitt:Wise words Henry. I concur with everything you wrote. The tragedy is those who support the Trump`s of this world are like frightened children who cling to the preposterous idea that some strong man is going to save them. Whether the name is Hitler, Stalin, etc.; the song remains the same.
1
This op-ed is discussing governments of history that excluded women (half of humanity) yet the headline refers to "humans," thereby erasing half of humanity (women) by referring to what was historically "men" as "humans." We have very little history of "democracy" that includes all "humans" to be making grand sweeping statements about the efficacy of democracy. Not even one century. It's an important distinction. Many of the problems with democracy mentioned here are directly related to what today we refer to as toxic masculine norms.
15
Human consciousness operates at different levels, so of course democracy is impossible.
I think of the character Woody Allen (yes, I know there are issues there but he managed to make nonetheless some insightful points along the way) played in Hannah and Her Sisters, when, after a fruitless search for religion after a health scare, said about the converts, "I'm not making fun of them. I envy them. I wish I could believe that stuff."
In like manner, sometimes I wonder what it would be like to go to a Trump rally and just turn off your mind, lap up whatever he says with no consideration of the logic behind it, and maybe even scream a little while you're there. What would that feel like?
But I'll never know because I can't even imagine doing that.
Of course democracy will never work.
1
Please do not confuse the troubles of American democracy with democracy. The U.S. Constitution is the oldest national constitution still in effect. To a great degree that is a testament to how much the founders got right, but it still badly needs reform. Of course, there is a mechanism for revising the Constitution, but it is cumbersome by design.
6
@TGF
Of all modern countries today, Iceland is the oldest democracy.
Their Parliament has lasted over a thousand years and one of the reasons appears to be how much social engagement was involved in governing. Being small, monolingual, and isolated probably helped too
https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-europe/ancient-parliamentary-plains-iceland-001926
And yet, democracy of a kind is very frequently practiced by humans in small groups.
Reach back further than Athens to prehistory or to a different continent like North America (north of Mexico) in the centuries before Columbus.
Or even just look to New England every spring when the venerable Town Meeting Day takes place.
Democracy, sometimes looks like a Cherokee style of consensus - in at least some versions everyone was allowed to speak and if even one person was still willing to speak against something it was not settled until that person stopped speaking and full unanimity was achieved.
And in other versions democracy might look like a leader taking everyone's opinions and advice before making the wise choice. Especially if this leader was "elected" by the acquiescence of everyone involved. This is the way many small informal groups are organized, for say, a camping trip.
Or it may look like the New England town meeting where neighbors know each other so well that a look and a nod can determine who will be on the town select board this year.
Democracy is possible, even probable, but never in groups over 500 and never in unequal situations such as when someone has all of the money or claims religious authority.
I have often said that at over 600,000 people Vermont is far too large to have just one governor and legislature. A state this size should be broken up into 5 - 10 smaller states and these should further be broken up so as not to exceed the 500 rule.
2
The savagery of humans to survive and reproduce while stepping all over others in order to do so seems to contrast with other creatures. I am thinking about elephants, for example, who would seem to have a more amiable existence with one another.
3
I don't know that it can work. OK: we put the shorter presidential candidates on a pedestal during debates. Why? People usually vote for the taller candidate. Democrats win during bull markets, or when people are comfortable and optimistic. Republicans win during bear markets, or when people are afraid. I don't know, but I don't believe the Republicans cause recessions any more than Democrats cause expansions - they just happen to be the ones who get chosen during those times.
There is also a saying, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong".
Is there truly any system of self-chosen government that won't end up in a Trump?
@ Andrew gives up. The author gives up. This is the Russian way. Give up, do’t try, because it’s hopeless, anyway. A better Soviet document by the professor-author couldn’t be made. I hear the vodka-infused riffs of the entertainment-documentary “Chernobyl,” documentary in the professor’s thesis.
The Times might have identified further this “Soviet-speak” sounding individual. Philosophy? Russian Literature? Not to malign a people or culture, but the tone of the piece. In a time of danger, resolve against our internal enemies in defense of democracy, that is needed. Not this keening whimper. “It’s hopeless,” would make Trump/Putin proud.
Until people can control their economic lives there is no democracy. Democracy that ends at the workplace door is not democracy.
2
Quite so. Therefore I offer my services as philosopher king.
1
So much noodling touched by occasional purple prose to conclude what we learned from the framers of our Constitution: the competing and ever-growing desires of individuals must be kept in dynamic tension. The best check on a will is another will, or many others. Yes, some are ready to submit to a demagogue, but others are equally ready to submit to an institution, faith, ambition, or whatnot and so long as that menu is lengthy, thwart singular to devotion to a personality cult. Besides, if you'd heard Captain Kirk recite the first few lines of our Constitution ("The Omega Glory," Season 2, episode 23) you might think democracy could be erotic. ;)
1
Thank you for this compelling insight into our humanity. It reminds me a bit of the marshmallow test where a young child is given the option of eating a marshmallow that is sitting in front of him or given a second option of waiting for five minutes and getting two marshmallows. Sadly a majority seem to pick option one to our unfortunate outcome.
3
@Ann Lacey Spot on!
The best defense of democracy I’ve ever heard is from a line attributed to Churchill: Democracy is the worst form of government ever invented. Except for all the rest.
Mill in philosophy and Whitman in literature are brilliant exponents of democracy’s finest aspirations and accomplishments. Who still reads them?
6
There are some very good points in this article. The ideas though, need refinement for the sake of what democracy ultimately must seek. I’ll write on it in the very near future to further pinpoint the errors we’re currently finding, sadly, repeated again and again. It’s not necessarily hard to identify many problems with democracy and describe them, but really too often what we are seeing are descriptions of symptoms. The underlying illnesses remain and contribute to the rampant ravaging of the body démocratique.
3
Seems to me smaller, more cohesive countries are more successful at being democratic. Look at how many Nordic countries are both democratic and at the top of the list of places where people are happiest.
As for humility, my favorite quote from TS Eliot’s Four Quartets is:
“The only wisdom we can hope to acquire is the wisdom of humility. Humility is endless.”
12
Exactly what Democracies have failed?
While I cannot disagree with the author's set of facts, I interpret the history of Athenian Greece and making of a nation, called Greece, I think it was THE FIRST nation, to be a true democracy in action but not for all the occupants.
The movie Theater. People enter a dark place with many seats, to sit next to strangers, and collectively, they suspend their sets of disbeliefs about all matters they are about to see on a screen, a"MOVIE" a FICTION, and set off in the distance of their minds, irritations about their lives, except perhaps paid parking.
Democratic Countries where ever they may be, have resident citizens and occupants who suspend their disbelief in tyrany. Our country couldn't possibly become THAT, despite, the many "intelligent" agencies which torment its residents with privacy violations and acts predatory against just about everyone.
Leaders? I don't think that Alexander the Great inspired bowing. He burned and pillaged every square mile he took. Same with Gengus Khan, and later many Popes, as noted in Il Principe.
My reading of history is that the peasants had only one choice, fight at the frontline of a battle and get slaughtered there, or be tortured and slaughtered later by the opposing country. Take the Battle of Hastings.
3
True... Thanks!
I desperately hope democracy continues in its sort-of way, but even the most well-informed person can only scratch the surface of needed information on most things.
1
No matter how much progress we make in terms of digital technology, the problem is that human brains still have a Cave Man 2.0 operating system.
30
While democracy is fragile, it has had some great success. Countries that do it successfully have become powerful out of proportion to their size. The Athenian democracy not only was powerful enough to defy the Persian empire, but became an incredibly influential cultural center for centuries. The Roman Republic became the most powerful nation in its day. Britain reached its height of political and cultural influence after Parliament had decisively gained dominance over the monarchy. The United States grew from 13 colonies on the coast to a continental state that was the most powerful in the world.
I think the reason for these successes was that democratic and republican societies allow many more people to participate in political and cultural life.
The forces that tend to oligarchy are strong though. The difference between the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire was the lack of participation by the average citizen, with citizen armies being replaced by mercenary armies.
The United States is in danger of moving to a corporate feudalism that leaves the average citizen with little influence. The Trump administration is accelerating that trend, with tribal rallies replacing citizen involvement.
52
When serious people rank the level of democracy of countries, the US is ranked 25th. It provides an explanation for this existentialist article. People in Norway and Canada talk about the environment not about democracy.
We have a bunch of rules about the electoral system including limits on spending and limits on donations to political parties.
The American free for all in politics is an experiment.
18
@Skiplusse
You just had your justice minister quit because your P.M. tried to pressure her to drop an investigation about bribery by his friends.
You live in a province that discriminates against some of its citizens based on the language they speak!
While there may be talk of “The Environment” there is more talk of a pipeline to deliver oil sands oil across B.C. in order to ship it overseas.
Democratic or oligarchic, the human system operates on "will to power". In a democratic system it just takes a little longer to manifest.
2
@John Roberts
Totally disagree. They are opposites.
The most powerful governments on Earth decided at Nuremberg, in 1945, that the time had come for democracy. The very idea that there are now in law crimes against humanity is the idea that democracy is more important than ecstasy. We shall overcome.
16
Wake up, Mr. Bradatan. While you've been sleeping hundreds of millions of people have seen their governments change from autocracy to at least limited versions of democracy.
The world is better, FAR better than it has ever been, and the trend is wholly positive, despite what you might read about Hungary and Poland.
Inclusiveness is spreading. A few Trumps, Putins, and Orbans won't be able to stop it.
13
@Green Tea
That's true. I would never have predicated that Hong Kong Citizens would not only protest about a specific very evil law that they know full well is the worst kind of Nazi in the night grabbing people out of bed, and taking them, out, forever, never to be seen by their families, friends or co-workers.
I am really proud of the Hong Chinese for standing up to a potentionally super killer government. What happened this month in Hong Kong, and I will spare you the legal details, was democracy in action.
Am I misremembering the witty statement (by Churchill, Shaw, or Twain?) that democracy is a terrible form of government, but it's way ahead of all the other forms?
Representative democracy is necessary simply due to numbers. By the sounds of the article, even the ancient Athenians chose leaders (by lot) rather than every citizen being co-equal in leadership (which would be pure democracy: put everything up to a vote, the majority rules).
Also, there is the size of the country. I re-read the Constitution yesterday to celebrate the 4th, & the consideration of distance between communities of only the 13 colonies had to be taken into account. Imagine if the founders had known that eventually the U.S. would stretch from coast to coast & contain 300 million people!
Theoretically, modern technology would allow for direct participatory democracy, except we don't seem to be able to create a secure computer network. It's a shame because the number of voters would likely increase if they could do so from the comfort of their couches (just look at the numbers for those talent show competitions).
What we have to better take into account in our representative democracy is human corruptibility. We need terms limits for Congress & federal judges. We need an amendment for public financing of election campaigns to make it harder to bribe Congress. We need to reduce the power of the speakers of the House & Senate, who can keep bills from coming up for a vote.
Ditto on the state level.
12
@JediProf If I recall the quote was essentially as you say, but actually more like "Democracy is the worst of all governments, except for all those others ... " I believe he also said, during WWII, that America can always be counted on to do the right thing, after all other possibilities have been exhausted.
Let's hope he was right.
22
"This government is not a democracy. It is not a republic. It is an odious aristocracy; a hateful oligarchy of sex; the most hateful aristocracy ever established on the face of the globe ...this oligarchy of sex, which makes father, brothers, husband, sons, the oligarchs over the mother and sisters, the wife and daughters, of every household - which ordains all men sovereigns, all women subjects, carries dissension, discord, and rebellion into every home of the nation." - Susan B. Anthony, speaking about the United States of America in 1872, after she was arrested for voting.
I'd really like authors to stop calling the patriarchal oligarchies of history "democracies." They weren't. Women are the majority of the population. By definition, a government restricted to men only is a patriarchy and a government by the minority is an oligarchy. Our country was founded as a patriarchal oligarchy, as Susan B. Anthony correctly pointed out over a century after the Founders declared that all MEN are created equal.
71
@Amy Luna
If this country wasn’t a democracy, however imperfect at first, feminism would not exist.
When we lose it - I fear for all women.
9
@T Not true. At the time of the founding of the United States, the women of the Iroquois Nation had more rights of citizenship, property and divorce than "American" women. It was that disparity that inspired the women's suffrage movement. So, to correct your misinformation, "feminism" in the United States was the result of an indigenous political system. Which also, incidentally, was the inspiration for our Bill of Rights.
9
@T Not true. At the time of the founding of the United States, the women of the Iroquois Nation had more rights of citizenship, property and divorce than "American" women. It was that disparity that inspired the women's suffrage movement. So, to correct your misinformation, "feminism" in the United States was the result of an indigenous political system. Which also, incidentally, was the inspiration for our Bill of Rights. Your comment (and all the people "recommending" it) is evidence of the same type of historical misinformation this op-ed is perpetrating.
1
The fundamental problem with Democracy, pure Democracy, is that like the ideal gas law, it has issues revolving around human nature. A pure Democracy means that people have to care enough to be involved, since the people are the ones making decisions. Even on a small scale, like a New England town meeting, if people are apathetic it is usually a few, strong, opinionated (and often unreasonable) people who decide things.
It is why few places try Democracy in its pure form, like economics the pure form of it simply is too prone to failure. It is why the US has a constitution and a bill of rights and the system of checks and balances, the founders understood that Democracies can often end up as tyrannies, mob rule of a majority or a minority. It is why the US is not a democracy for the most part (the idiotic system in California with ballot initiatives to modify the state constitution is a classic example of why).
The problem with the US is not the problem of Democracy, in other words, it is a problem both of lack of caring of voters and also a system where a compromise of the founding, the Senate and Electoral college, has been warped into insuring a minority is able to gain power. Only about 41% of eligible voters tend to vote, if young people under 35 voted (19% voting) at 60,70,80%, Trump would not have been elected, if the courts were not a GOP vassal, the gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement efforts would not be allowed...
14
An unfortunate use of the word God in this article's title. Since one of the greatest reasons our democracy is in peril is because of religion, particular Evangelicals, and the exploitation of their ignorance, prejudices, fears and misdirected anger by Republicans (with the help of tele-evangelists) through the use of wedge issues, such as abortion, to get voters into narrow their focus on that one particular issue, turn voter against voter, and con them, by blinding them to the much larger picture, into voting against their own best interests.
Which are the same interests of the vast majority of all Americans, since in reality we share much more in common than not on issues that are much more relevant and significant in relation to ones actual life than all the handful of narrow wedge issues put together—such as the universal common desire for a decent job, affordable quality education, housing and health care, opportunities to advance in life, a healthy and safe environment, the promise of a bright future for our children, their children, and the planet, etc.
The founders were afraid of the ignorant mob so gave the vote only to land owners. Now that the vote has been extended to everyone over 18, Republicans have devised a clever, unscrupulous way to co-op that ignorant mob (see above) to achieve the very same undemocratic and inequality ends desired by the founders.
16
Good article. I would add that a key to the survival of democracies is a reasonable level of social equality. People who think that democracies are about fair rules and procedures are fooling themselves. Democratic ideals are about equality, and are difficult to defend when a few have all the resources. Democracy is about power-sharing, and as we all know, power depends on wealth. If people feel that they're marginalized economically, no amount of elections and rule of law will make them happy. They will choose the next autocrat who promises them a bigger slice of the pie, because democracies depend of sharing rights, but also resources.
16
“The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Winston Churchill
25
@michjas
Interesting. Where did he say that?
@michjas
Democracy is the least bad system yet developed Winston Churchill
Thanks for selling out that which hundreds of million have fought and died for, just because your 'team' (no better than the other btw) lost an election because they arrogantly attempted ala China to run a one candidate race.
People go on about Brexit because they ARROGANTLY think they know everything because they read one source of information and think they 'know it all' but there is MUCH wrong with the EU (see Greece) which is a very undemocratic arrogant German based oligarchy busy removing free speech from Google etc in the name of decency but you will not hear about it here. I am a left wing democrat with Libertarian leanings and I do NOT see China as the perfect model as is implied by this article and you.
We are more and more the prisoners of an oligarchic system and after having falsely paid lip service to the idea of democracy they now are so arrogant they openly question that which they have a DUTY to defend. Said without shame and here you are, the turkey, voting for an early X Mass.
Well done you just stabbed humanity and hope in the back and helped create a Global China, Society as an open prison. in which those who bought us into this crises are rewarded with totalitarian power and those brave humans who fight this and other horrors become 'rapists' and get tortured, harassed, assassinated and we have ever more lies and hatred pushed by a CORPORATE media who divide and conquer.
1
Well, we don't have a true democracy here in America, as you say; rather, it's "oligarchic." But with the large percentage (roughly a third) of the voters being Trumpians, I don't know how well off we would be under a more representative democracy. Sure 2/3 beats 1/3, but the 1/3 is essentially unified, while the 2/3 is a compilation of competing strands, unified perhaps only in opposition to the 1/3.
"Yet democracy is one of those elusive things — happiness is another — whose promise, even if perpetually deferred, is more important than its actual existence. We may never get it, but we cannot afford to stop dreaming of it."
From my life's experience, happiness does exist, it can be felt, and it is the feeling that counts. So maybe true democracy can also be more than something to dream of. Yes, it will take some humility. But I don't put much stock in the short human history, that just b/c it has been fleeting so far means it always will be. We, as human beings, are continually evolving. The only way to eliminate darkness is to bring in light.
3
I'd really like authors to stop conflating "populism" with something negative, because the mis-association is becoming a truism. Populism is of itself not at all negative. And a good democracy is absolutely populist. It is when populism is usurped by fear/hate mongers that it becomes a negative. Populism in a nation at peace with itself creates democracy naturally.
16
@CK
In the US today populism is something very negative!
Populism is only good when the population in educated, informed and fair minded.
A very large percentage of the US population is angry. Republican politicians have stoked anger among their base for decades. The angry mob is what elected and is supporting trump. He stokes their anger even more.
Nobody can put the genie back in the bottle. They've created a monster and now they can no longer control it.
In addition many are uneducated, racist and choosing to remain ignorant by indulging in Republican propaganda. They do this by watching only Faux Noise which is basically fact free whenever facts get in the way of their right-wing agenda.
So in America today, populism is not only bad, it's dangerous and evil. It's what has given us the most incompetent and immoral "president" in US history.
2
@CK, you don't get populism in a nation at peace with itself, populism is always a protest movement. The problem with populism is that it is almost always co-opted by anti-democratic authoritarian movements.
2
@CK
That isn't entirely true, because populist political movements almost always are defined by catering to the emotions of a mass of people. If you look at populists in the past, someone like Huey Long, what you is someone who on the surface strikes a chord with 'the common people', who in his case actually did some good things, but deep down like with Trump, it was a method to achieve power. William Jennings Bryan likewise had a populist message that wasn't entirely wrong, that farmers and common people were being screwed by the 19th century robber barons/trusts and the banks and such, but his methodology was also based around firing up the hatred of anyone not a farmer or the like, and his turning it into a 'religious crusade' showed what his intentions would be had he gotten elected, for he saw himself as a messiah, rather than someone humbled by the job he was running for.
1
The scientific method - questioning, testing, measuring, drawing conclusions, and reconsidering them in the light of fresh evidence - is precisely what we mean by democracy. Democracy is the political realization of the scientific method.
Since elections change leaders regularly and peacefully, democracies are inherently stable.
When the USSR fell, countries that had had Marxism imposed on them were free to become more democratic. Nowadays, Poland, Hungary, Albania, and Mongolia all have gay-pride parades.
11
There sure seem to be a lot of people in the so-called "liberal" media telling us to abandon hope, all ye who enter here, Trump's re-election is inevitable. My concern is that if enough people actually believe this, he and his pals in the Kremlin will be able to fix 2020 to their heart's content with nary a whimper from we, the people...
8
I Cannot Believe That your Prediction As Stated In Your Comment Is Correct. I do not think the American people are better off now vs. prior to his election. But I guess if you continue to promote this thought / point of view you may convince a number of people. It’s our Republic if we can keep it. Please Vote with this in mind.
1
So too is a working government for the Gods. We haven't had a working government in decades. By working I mean a government where our elected officials work on our behalf instead of concentrating their energies on serving their rich donors/masters. Both parties are guilty of this. We see the evidence of our failing government every day.
Our roads are falling apart.
Our bridges are failing.
Our health care system works for the wealth care industry but not for the patients.
Our educational system is mediocre at best.
Our financial industry is engaged in all sorts of shady practices that harm us directly.
Nothing is being done to repair the damages. Indeed one could argue that our elected officials prefer to see things continue this way. One could argue that we do as well if who we vote into office is considered. Trump is merely the culmination of a long corrosive process that started in the 1970s with Watergate. Reagan continued it. So did Bill Clinton with his triangulation form of governing. And last but not least, the GOP intentionally blocked every little or big thing Obama wanted to do to help America.
We have been electing the wrong people to serve us. If we want change we need to consider who and what we want serving us and doing for us. They are supposed to work for us.
21
@hen3ry
Our roads are falling apart. - they are old and need replacement/repair/ refurbishment
Our bridges are failing. Not all bridges are failing. Many have been replaced or are in action to be rebuilt. Take Tacoma Washington, or SF, Bay Bridge. We have to repair the bridges on an ongoing basis.
Our health care system works for the wealth care industry but not for the patients.
Our health care has some of the best practitioners in the world. Patients receive outstanding care.
Our educational system is mediocre at best.
The US leads the world with the premiere educational institutions bar none.
Our financial industry is engaged in all sorts of shady practices that harm us directly.
Does The US have a single Financial "industry"? I think it is mostly global.
@hen3ry
The primary reason that “The Wrong People get elected” is one of the parties (you!) run such lousy,candidates! Run better candidates!
There is no greater threat to democracy than when one faction rejects the legitimacy of another. The most prominent example of that in the US is, of course, the Civil War. Neither the civil rights movement nor the Vietnam War posed insurmountable conflict. Many think Trump may undermine the republic. But that is unlikely. Slavery, segregation, and an unjust war are weighty conflicts. Trump has embarrassed and angered the opposition. But outside of his immigration policies, he has mostly been incompetent and ineffectual. Bad leaders are a part of democracy, a part that we will survive.
4
Finally... Someone willing to challenge our patriotic hubris that begins with “we live in a great democracy” and ends with “we are the greatest nation in history.”
An honest self assessment is critical to our journey towards democracy. If we keep telling ourselves we live in a democracy, we give up our quest for a real democracy. And it’s a never ending quest, as the author points out.
13
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi always taught that a society's success or failure is due less to the form of government, and due more to the enlightenment of the citizens.
This article argues that "humans are not predisposed to living democratically". I'd argue that humans are not any more predisposed to live in any other form of government either. We're imperfect and not fully enlightened.
Arguing that one form is better than another misses the point. Whatever system you have, work on raising the education, intelligence, good will, participation... and yes, enlightenment... of the citizens. That society will work better.
15
The degree of democracy a society possesses is only one variable in the organization.
The degree and character of capitalism is another. And of course they are entangled things. As Prof. Bradatan points out, right here right now we have something like an oligarchy. The essential force of capitalism is to reward capital, not work or creativity or virtue.
I'm reminded of the 1985 movie Wall Street, where the multimillionaire character Gordon Gekko tells young Bud Fox, "I make nothing; I create nothing; I own."
So a nearly-unregulated capitalistic society equates money with speech, imagines corporations to be people (except better), and gives those controlling wealth all kinds of opportunities that most individuals could never even approach. In fact, the institutions presenting the facade of democracy (the Supreme Court, the Executive Branch, Congress) are the facilitators of these inequalities. How could democracy, or even a smoky image of one, survive in those conditions?
Here in the US, no one has voted for a 2020 presidential candidate. The first will do so seven months from now. But second quarter fundraising numbers and cash on hand determine who is taken seriously. It's a classic positive feedback loop.
I disagree with Gekko. Greed is not good. And I agree with Bradatan. More humility is needed. But I'm just arguing that humility won't arise in a money-soaked system.
27
One other point I should mention: "self-assertive individuals in search of various scepters" are not what typically control the flow of history. Historians tend to flock around them and their wars. However, if you take Napoleon and Alexander I, you essentially have geopolitics crashing into a cascading series of miscommunications. Napoleon was not particularly brilliant or even self-controlled. That's a myth of high school history.
The real reason Napoleon was allowed to manipulate continental politics to such a successful degree had nothing to do with military genius. A bunch of French accountants figured out how to finance a standing professional army through tax policy whereas the other European nations could not. May I remind you, that tax policy did include the US purchase of the Louisiana territory. Don't believe every thing you hear about "self-assertive individuals."
11
Democracy is for which Gods?
I've never heard or read of any god or set of gods that are democratic.
Democracy is for those humans who are willing to work to maintain it. No one should expect to be gifted with democracy. Democracy has to earned. Every day.
Just as one is never simply well-behaved. One must choose to behave well at every daily challenge to behavior. Or not.
Democracy does not die simply because a number of people deliberately scorn democracy. Democracy dies because those who claim to value democracy fail to defend it.
Democracy is for the humans the late American poet May Sarton referred to when she wrote "One must think like a hero, to behave like a merely decent human being."
Which makes it easy to spot those who do not alue democracy: Just look for the people who are not decent human beings.
I trust I do not need, in this era, to point out examples of such people.
73
@Robert Henry Eller Excellent post. Thank you very much.
1
It is as if James Monroe and John Adams and Alexander Hamilton and Joy Jay never existed and never wrote what they wrote.
And someone writes grandly as if they had never read what these or others had to say about how to make an American republic when none could be found and as if someone has recently claimed history was ending because the system was so stable.
Shame has been vanquished.
6
Hmm. Sometimes the devil's in the details.
The Athenians did hold elections -- just not for all offices. The most important office, that of the 10 generals, was elective. That's why Pericles was able to stay in power for many years.
Ostracism as a practice ended in 416 BC, while the democracy persisted long afterwards (how long is a matter of scholarly debate). Some historians argue that the fourth century BC form of democracy was the most stable and effective.
Deriving "human nature" from the postulate that all people want to do is survive and reproduce and then citing people like Napoleon and Alexander the Great to prove the point requires ignoring a heck of a lot of contrary evidence. There are plenty of small-scale human societies, both past and present, that operate democratically. Baked into our "nature," too, seem to be impulses to art, music, jokes, storytelling; and considerable research suggests that our capacity for cooperation, trust, and empathy played crucial roles in our evolutionary success.
As others note, the US is not a democracy -- it is a representative republic, so designed in part because the Founders were appalled at Athenian democracy.
We are not angels, it is definitely true -- but nor are we pure and simple devils. We're complicated, and so is our history.
187
@Gary
Thank you for this informed commentary. I also want to bring into the debate the forms of "democracy" practiced by other primates, especially the bonobos. They are our closest evolutionary siblings and have an extraordinarily peaceful culture. Unfortunately, they are on the verge of extinction thanks to aggressive human takeover of any and all habitat.
That particular human trait is unequivocally devil.
6
@Gary Thank you, Gary. I was going to write a comment, but after reading yours, I realized that to do so was not necessary. And, you did a much better job of it than I could have. If only the last two paragraphs could be required reading for all the NYT commenters, many of whom, for some reason, believe our form of government is based on the rule of men rather than the rule of law, we could save a lot of time.
2
@Gary
“As others note, the US is not a democracy -- it is a representative republic.” So do you think reality changes just by using an English word in place of Greek?
Democracy comes from two Greek words “demos” and “kratos” meaning people or citizen, power or rule.
In both cases you are likely to deal with representatives being appointed or elected, where it is not practical to have a meeting with every person or citizen in the country or territory.
1
The United States is a Republic. We are not a democracy. The word democracy is not found in the constitution. The founders were afraid of pure democracy and viewed it as a form of tyranny no better than the Crown. The author does not understand this. We live in a constitutional republic. Designed brilliantly to allow for us to be true to our nature and “pursue happiness” while enjoying liberty. We are only prohibited from infringing upon the liberty of others. We are free and possessed of god given rights. Our republic transcends democracy. We should strive to preserve it.
19
@C, seems more like the constitutional republic was designed brilliantly to enhance slaveholding and bias state power in favour of the slaveholding states. It took nothing less than a brutal bloody civil war to change that. Even to this day some of these vicious built-in biases are still keeping the ancestors of those slaves from fulfilling their potential.
4
@C
That litttle phrase in the Declaration of Independence has always given me pause. Perhaps if I could figure out what happiness is and exactly how to pursue it, I’d go at it full tilt. But it gets complicated. What if my pursuit of happiness, as I conceive happiness to be, runs headlong into another’s pursuit? Back when that was written happiness to a lot of those guys involved owning other human beings. What life’s lessons have taught me is that, although I cannot come up with a precise definition of happiness, I am perfectly capable of discerning it when I feel it or see it in others. And almost without exception what I see and feel is simply a by product of selflessness, a trait that is rarely linked with the headlong pursuit of a prize. So I suppose if I could be so presumptuous as to amend our founding document I would change it to read pursuit of selflessness.
Sortition and ostracization make great sense, but of course, would never be favorable to any politician.
Other quite reasonable ideas to consider in reshaping the country into a reasonably sane place would be utilization of Rawls' concept of a 'veil of ignorance' in legal proceedings, hiring of employees, admissions boards, etc. After all, if age, race, gender, religion, and so forth are all protected and deemed things one should not consider when making a choice, decision, etc., then why are those features of a person even known? They should not unless argument can be given that the information is truly relevant.
And of course, term limits. The old argument is that a good legislator is hard to find, which we know is nonsense; it is merely another argument of the same kind, suggesting that the political system is so difficult, one needs time and many terms to learn how to properly "be" a politician. If that is in fact true, then something is quite wrong with the system. Why should one need to learn much of anything? Why is the system so complicated? I could answer (pontificate) that, but alas, so much blather, so little space.
Nonetheless, why not make public service be a lottery? We have the machinery in place already to pick individuals for jury duty. All that needs be done is for the same mechanisms pick for public service, and if beyond the local level (one pick and you're done), another random pick from the first round, and state or fed is chosen. Easy.
3
First things first: Mongols are the exception.
Democracies are actually a complex variation of egalitarian tribalism. A system of community organization much older than any "complex" society.
Mr. Bradatan mentions ostracization among Athenian citizens. The method is beyond ancient. It's still practiced among hunter/gathers in the Khaliari today.
Instead of receiving praise and adoration, an unusually successful hunter is routinely humiliated in public. People make jokes at the hunter's expense in order to diminish their perceived value within the community. "Oh? You caught something to day? Why don't you bring back something worth eating next time? I might as well chew bark." Things of that nature.
When we talk about democracy, we're really talking about socially complex egalitarianism. Something sufficiently complex to support large populations and public projects. However, something where stratification is intentionally discouraged. In many ways, democracies are much more natural than the "horde." We are social animals just like chimpanzees.
The problem of course is in how you define "community." There has to be an "other" in order for there to be a community. For all our global interconnectedness, humans appear incapable of viewing humanity as one unified community. The scale is too large. There's no better exemplification than our failure to act on climate change. We're killing ourselves because we can't make egalitarianism work for 6 billion people and growing.
21
I do not, and I will never accept that "democracy is rare and fleeting." The democracy of a nation can not be seen myopically. It must be seen in the long view. The reason being that it is made up of people...good and bad, indifferent, weak and strong, powerful and meek, cowardly and courageous. It's dynamic not inert. It's a constant juggling of life, who we are as individuals and what we are as a society. Like a human's life, a democracy is a living entity. Vulnerable, fragile, complex, while simultaneously able to redeem itself, atone if necessary, and certainly evolve in both mind and soul. That is the human condition..to evolve as we have done over eons. Mr. Bradatan states what would seem to be obvious, but I think it needs to be edited: We may never get democracy in "its pure form," but that is no excuse to either stop dreaming of or aspiring toward a most noble cause.
20
What we need is a philosopher-king who does not suffer from human foibles, otherwise we end up with an unscrupulous minority who centralize power and money in the way we see to day. The majority prefer to sleep, and they only awaken when some extreme event or series of events is so cacophonous that only the truly deaf - or the dead - would remain in their slumbers.
“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” - Plato
Each must take on this role as a duty, lest those who have the most continue to privilege themselves on the backs of the rest of us. We have to choose to spend time to parse through all the noise, and to see how we are so easily manipulated by those who have mastered the game for their perpetual advantage.
We have to learn that what Plato said is why the good person must educate themselves, participate socially and politically, and do those things that we would want in a philosopher-king. (We will never realize a philosopher-king because each suffers from the same evolutionary history and biases.) So, if democracy is transitional, plutocracy - government by the rich and hence powerful - is inevitable; what then are we to hope for?
We can work to subvert the means by which we are manipulated. We can look with a longer eye, and a looser definition of kin to find connection. We can work together, sort it, and get on with imperfect but ok solutions. Otherwise we need an Artifical General Intelligence as nanny.
24
@Nicholas
Good, sobering points all.
I'm searching for my optimism.
3
@Nicholas
Sign me up for the philosopher-king form of government. It is difficult enough to get one person to understand the world and make a wise and courageous choice. The chances of getting the majority of people to achieve this before it is too late are basically zero.
Global warming anyone?
2
I enjoyed this rather dark column. Looking up the process of ostracism in ancient Greece, it turns out--not surprisingly--that it was subject to an all male vote. We are not in ancient Greece any more. Our adult citizens may have the right to vote, but many no longer participate in whatever form of democracy we have.
Ancient Greece had its gods, but nothing like the sort of legal canons we have today in the USA. Historical comparisons are fraught.
One of several problems with all of this: how do you define the ideas of democracy and freedom (not just from constraint), and who gets to provide the definition(s)?
It should be no surprise that some of our Founders would be shocked that we lasted this long. Maybe we are not done yet?
5
Interesting article, but I think Democracy is the last thing the Gods would allow among themselves let alone their subjects. Try this sometime; tell your clergy person that you have an alternative platform for how the local church should be run and that you are going to stand against that clergy person in the next election for Minister, Bishop or whatever. Your clergy person will remind you that God was not elected and neither were they. God is the original and supreme authoritarian.
32
@Mr. Jones -- The flaw in your reasoning is that you fail to distinguish between "the Gods" (plural) and "God" (singular). You tell us that the Gods would never do such and such, and then the example with which you attempt to illustrate your point is by reference to a monotheistic entity and its servants. You've missed the point.
And yet, there is still a majority in this country that want to give it a go and strive to make our version of it, while imperfect, better. 2020 will tell whether that majority will prevail or the baser nature of humankind, as described by the author, will choose to continue our grand experiment's decline, possibly for good
47
This morning I wrote the following....I can't figure out whether yesterdays festivities were a testament to the size of Trump's ego or it's fragility. I'd like to admit that my confusion extends to Democracy. Does the fact that 40% of the populace exist in a world hostile to science, intelligence and inclusion show the strength of our Democracy or it's failure?
120
@Rick Gage 40%? Strength. But showing the seams.
3
@Rick Gage
Science has been fighting for authority for a long time: https://networks.h-net.org/node/5280/reviews/6498/keighren-shapin-never-pure-historical-studies-science-if-it-was-produced . There is not much sign the concerns will cease any time soon.
1
@Rick Gage
Hostile to science? Or prisoners of their emotions?
Science takes a lifetime of strong mental effort.
Ignoring or rejecting it takes a lifetime of mental laziness and incuriosity. The path of least resistance wins again.
3
We should stop fooling ourselves into thinking that representative government is a democracy. It is giving up our right to be self-governing to another. Through free elections we can choose who we surrender that right to. A democracy has full citizen participation, referendums, and popular initiatives. If a perfect direct democracy is determined to be impractical or unattainable, a compromise would have citizens voting for approval or vetoing laws written by a legislature. The usual argument against democracy is that the common citizen is not qualified to govern. If the common citizen is informed and has an opportunity to deliberate they are qualified to vote on issues of government. Those two points are missing in our current representative government as our media seeks to misinform us, and we don't have the opportunity to deliberate together. Our qualified representatives took us to war in Vietnam, and Iraq. They caused the financial crisis of 2008. Really, how bad could the common citizen do?
66
@P. J. Brown A semi-direct democracy works well in Switzerland (where I live). Voters even accept raising taxes if the government presents convincing reasons. There is still room for improvement, but I would not want to have another system.
12
@P. J. Brown Brexit was approved by popular vote. Ask the UK how that’s working. Part of America’s problem is that our representation isn’t all that representative. The Senate favors low population states, the same Senate also confirmed justices who allow extreme gerrymandering in House districts. Add all that to the Electoral College, which voted in a president despite the popular vote, and all I can come up with is that no part of the government actually represents the majority.
60
@Jason America's problem is that the populace is not well enough educated to be tolerant of others, to recognize when they are being "played," or to understand the information given them by people of knowledge who study the various elements that make up "the good life" and the well-being of the planet and the lives of other species. Maybe that's too much to expect in a nation as large and varied as we are.
13