Today’s blog asks the question whether the health of the American democracy is relevant to its survival in a contentious and dangerous world.
We all know that democracy, according to its Greek derivatives, means “people rule” or, less etymologically, “majority rules.” We also know that no Western democracy is governed by an Athenian forum where the vote of every citizen determines the specific rules or customs that every citizen must live by. We might call this form of democracy “big D.” Instead, contemporary democracies elect representatives of the public interests and invest them with the power to govern. We can call this form of self-government a representative democracy* or “little d.” The democratic principle of majority rule still applies, not only in the election of representatives but also in their functioning as legislators. The secret behind this form of democracy is that the minority CHOOSES to accept the will of the majority. That choice is based upon an unwavering belief in a democratic system and in its capacity to serve both the present and future needs of its citizens. A minority position may one day be held by a majority as circumstances or societal norms change. For example, decades ago a minority believed that widespread housing segregation and Jim Crow laws in the South were inhuman and contrary to the spirit of our Constitution. Today, a majority agree. Not very long ago, few people spoke in favor of same sex marriage. Today, it has become commonplace. This type of evolution is at the heart of any democracy and explains how America resolves its differences over time. American belief in democracy and its future falters when it excludes support a/o acceptance of majority rule—which explains the American public’s present disaffection with Congress. First, it has at times chosen to ignore the will of the majority of Americans, for example, when it refused to consider any form of gun control or to fund the government. These acts of obstruction are destructive inasmuch as they disregard the safety of American citizens and the integrity of their government. In these instances Congress was not tuned in to the people it represents. Secondly, congressional leadership has often obstructed legislative action by tabling bills it knows would pass. The perfect example of this type of undemocratic behavior is the immigration reform bill, passed by the Senate but tabled by House leaders. This type of obstruction directly splits the American polity into groups of citizens and non-citizens, exactly the same division that haunted the Greeks and endangered their democracy. By any definition, turning a deaf ear to the American majority and suppressing a majority vote within Congress are both undemocratic. Ignoring or preventing majority rule is categorically undemocratic and cannot be justified by claiming the minority opinion is more American. This perversion of a representative democracy is similar to the fiction created by dictators who justify their use of power by pretending to act in the interest of the governed.
The American combination of democracy and capitalism is not loved everywhere in the world. It often faces international opposition. For a good part of the last century the world witnessed a “face-off” between representative democracy and communism. It was called the Cold War; and its roots were planted in the nineteenth century in the contention between capitalism and communism—between the impact of the industrial revolution and the writings of Marx and Engels. They believed in a form of socialism where government was made up of people who, they believed, should not only hold the ultimate power but also the instruments of power, that is, the fruits of their labor to include property, the means of production, and all accumulated wealth. Marx called his tome “The Communist Manifesto” to connote its communal nature. His analysis of the pitfalls of capitalism, specifically wealth inequality, has found a new audience today. But his vision of equality in a socialist commune has never been realized. How could it? Human beings live as individuals with unique perspectives and personal proclivities, including ownership of property they claim as personal extensions of their selves. Besides, how would Marx’s ideal commune govern itself? Even monastic orders are governed by abbots and superiors. Nevertheless, Marx believed that a communist system would eventually be self-governing in order to ward off the ills of capitalism. We can call his form of communism “big C.” Lenin came along later and revised the socialism of Marx and Engels. He advocated for a strong central government that would own everything while assuring its citizens equal access to the products of labor and the resources of society. In his construct the will of the people would be subservient to an appointed apparatchik. And the bureaucrats in his proposed system would guard against the evils of capitalism by eliminating greed and distributing the accumulated wealth of the central government to all in equal measure. We can call Lenin’s view of communism “little c.” He never apostatized from his communist beliefs, he just advocated for a communist totalitarian government as the practical means to the future utopia envisioned by Marx. And thus the face of twentieth century communism was born. When everything is owned by the central government, all power is in the hands of the elite who control that government. People did NOT CHOOSE how they would be governed in this system. Free choice was not an option: acceptance was mandated. In this case, power was invested in the favored minority, thereby violating the very principle of socialism. Lenin’s construct functioned more like a cult where the elite or a strongman might govern with no other expectation from the governed other than their toil and unquestioning acceptance of state policy. Without this orthodoxy, communism would become no more than a form of oppression. With it, communists had created the fiction of a socialist state that was categorically not socialist. This perversion of socialism is the fiction created by dictators who justify their use of power by pretending to act in the interest of the governed.
Either unrepresentative democracies or the contemporary offshoots of communist totalitarian states can become dangerous. Both exemplify the perverted will to power I described as an aphrodisiac in “The Politics of Power.” The contention and competition between these governmental systems may not be a new Cold War, but can be something very much akin to it. Modern democracies, for instances, are challenged by Russian and Chinese governments directly descended from their communist progenitors. These countries play at their respective forms of “free” enterprise under control of a central government and a strongman with near absolute power. While China rattles the cages of Asian democracies with expansion of its military power and economic hegemony, Russia is busy undermining Europe and any projection of American influence in the world. Both countries and their respective leaders are focused on power. China’s President, Xi Jinping, is as concerned with his sphere of influence in Asia as Vladimir Putin is with his sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, Syria, and South Asia. Both are nuclear powers, though neither presents an existential threat to America at this time. But both present a challenge for America and its influence around the world. That challenge, however, differs in each case. China’s exports to the rest of the world give it economic leverage which it fashions mainly to its internal benefit. While it pillages Africa, the Middle East and Latin America of their natural resources, it avoids confrontation with America as long as America does not interfere with its interests in the South China Sea or Taiwan. China’s economic girth as perhaps the largest economy in the world pushes against America’s economic hegemony as the world’s most productive economy, holder of the world’s currency, and foremost international banker. China still has significant economic leverage: it can tweak its monetary policy to add billions of dollars to America’s trade deficit; and it holds 1.246 trillion dollars of the American 19 trillion dollar debt (as of 12/2015). Recently, China initiated its own infrastructure bank, attracting investments that many countries would have made to an American infrastructure bank where it not for a dithering Congress that refused to fund the President’s proposal. And now China is floating the idea of instituting its own monetary fund to compete with the International Monetary Fund that America initiated and largely influences.
Putin, on the other hand, never hesitates to explore every opportunity to extend or protect his hegemony. When Ukraine leaned toward an economic alliance with Europe, he immediately moved to annex Crimea and preserve his naval base there. When he saw his Ukrainian vassal fall from power, he immediately organized an invasion. He acted similarly when Assad’s government in Syria was threatened. He used his military to shore up Assad and protect another Russian naval base. As long as Putin acts within his sphere of influence, the West has been willing to play his game to a stalemate but has simultaneously been reluctant under American leadership to knock his pieces off the board (reference “What Strategy?”). The problem with Putin, however, is deeper than these tactical interventions in neighboring states. He is a former KGB Cold War warrior. Before the fall of Soviet Russia, which he considers the great disaster of the twentieth century, he was actively involved in destabilizing western democracies. Every conceivable right wing group received money and arms from the KGB, even when it was unsolicited. Also, Russian propaganda during that period was relentless in depicting the sins of the West. Today, Putin funds the same type of propaganda throughout Europe and the United States. Fortunately for America, Putin apparently no longer has the resources to fund dissidents in the West. But he is finding some welcome allies for destabilizing western democracies. Daesh in particular has weakened the European coalition with the refugee crisis and the terrorists it has spawned. And the American Congress has done its part to weaken America’s role in international diplomacy: undermining the Iran nuclear deal, refusing to ratify treaties negotiated by the Administration**, and declining to authorize the use of military force (AUMF) in support of the President’s anti-terrorist campaign. Putin has taken advantage of the Daesh diversion and this division in American leadership with his military adventures in Eastern Europe and Syria. In addition, he has given vocal support to the right wing voices emerging in many European countries and, deviously, to one of his admirers in the current American presidential campaign. If limited in resources, there is no better way to win a zero sum game than to encourage your opponent to weaken its self.
The international community is like a gathering of contentious and sometimes warring tribes. America, since World War II, has tried to act as a defusing, organizing, and at times intervening agent. Obviously, it has not always chosen the best means or experienced the best outcome. But it has almost always acted with one voice, until now. What America presents to the world today is a cacophony of voices. Congress tables Administration requests for a 2016 AUMF to fight terrorists or a 2014 AUMF to punish a rogue state for violating international prohibitions against genocide a/o the use of chemical weapons, attempts to undermine a nuclear disarmament agreement, voices agreement with world leaders who oppose American foreign policy—even praising Putin on the floor of Congress, and ridicules any and all agreements the Administration attempts to make with China whether on trade, monetary policy, climate change or coordination of military operations near China and in the South China Sea. In the past, for the most part, issues like these were debated until a vote was cast, and then the nation spoke with one voice. Even when America errored, like in the questionable 2003 AUMF against Iraq or the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that spurred the Vietnam War, it spoke with one voice. Democracies can make mistakes, but they can learn from them too. Broken democracies do not learn from their mistakes, do not resolve their differences, and cannot evolve.
Soldiers who volunteer for military service sometimes fight in wars they would otherwise not support. They do so because they are Americans. Members of the House and Senate debate issues, vote their preferences, and, hopefully, abide by the will of the majority. They do so because they are Americans and are representatives in a democratic system of government. Failure to do so, however, can result in two really bad outcomes: outwardly our nation appears divided and unable to contest or compete effectively on the world stage; inwardly, our citizens become disaffected and disassociated with their government. One might argue that the majority is not always right, as more than a few failed military interventions can attest. But that argument only emphasizes the need for more reasoned debate and an effective media-informed electorate. All governments make mistakes. The main benefit of a democracy is the public forum where issues can be debated and solutions can be found by reasonable compromise. America is now the oldest democracy to grace this planet. But it was not born perfect. And we would not have survived as a democracy if we still had slaves or denied women the vote. America is, as our founding fathers fully recognized, a work in progress. Ironically, America has even incorporated government-managed social services into its representative democracy, thereby saving socialism from its “little c” abortion and giving “little d” the more human inflection of social justice. America will persist in history as long as it continues to progress under the moral and cultural impetus of a majority of its people. But that progress is obstructed by those who use power for their own purposes to the exclusion of the majority. They tear the fabric of democracy and expose us to the viral infection of power seekers both within and without.
*There are a few exceptions to “little d” at the state level. For instance, in California all residents can vote for an “initiative” that has the power of law or for a “referendum” that can and has removed an elected official.
**Most of these unratified treaties were negotiated with the goal of replicating existing domestic law into international law. A few noteworthy examples include The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, The Biodiversity Convention, and The Framework Convention on Tobacco. Executive agreements like the Bretton Woods of 1945 that established the World Bank and the IMF deliberately circumvent the treaty ratification responsibility of the U. S. Senate. These types of agreements represent 95% of all international agreements made by America between 1939 and 1989. Nevertheless, for over a hundred years they have been a bone of contention between several Administrations and their respective Senates. And, as one might expect, they have triggered many Constitutional challenges. So it is understandable that the Obama Administration would call upon his executive authority to negotiate the recent Climate Change Agreement in Paris and that the U. S. Senate would threaten to undermine it.