What would the perfect democracy be like?
It seems to me that to understand more clearly what's wrong with something, it is useful to consider what could be right. Imagine, for a few moments, a democracy in which every citizen took his or her civic obligations very seriously. I don't mean just that they vote, of course.
It starts with staying well-informed. Everyone would read the newspaper enough to know about the issues that affect us all. We would know not just about the economy and the employment situation, but also about prison conditions, the military, domestic abuse, foreign aid, and all of the dozens of issues that affect us as a country. We certainly wouldn't agree on all these topics, but we would know the important factors in understanding them. We wouldn't neglect an issue just because it didn't personally affect us.
We would vote based on this knowledge. We would, directly and through the media, demand thoughtful answers from the candidates on these questions, not just feel-good sound bites. We would know the candidates' stands on issues not only important to us, but also important to the country. A candidate who evaded hard questions would not be seen as someone serious enough about his responsibilities to be elected. We would remember a candidate's past promises, and vote out someone who had not made a good-faith effort to fulfill them. We would not vote for a candidate who attacked his opponent's character, or made charges based on anything other than the opponent's record or statements. Insinuations and misleading statements would be recognized as the equivalent of lies, and punished by the voters accordingly.
We would vote based not just on how the candidates' proposed policies would affect us as individuals, but on how they would affect all of us. We might be ideological, but we would not be dogmatic. Liberals would respect the crucial role played by the free market in a free society, and introduce market principles in government where appropriate; conservatives would understand that sometimes governments must do what the free market isn't equipped to do. We all would encourage our representatives to negotiate to make laws that represent the interests of all of society, not to stand firm on ideology and reject any agreement not perfectly to one side's liking.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jordan Richardson
Also, every woman would look like Jessica Alba and I would pee gold but it wouldn't hurt to pee gold because I would be Jesus - a big, giant gold-peeing Jesus.
2 - Ruvy
Gee, Jordan,
For once, you and I thought along the same lines. That should scare you!
The author would obtain a perfect democracy by having perfect humans. And then he wouldn't need the perfect democracy!
3 - Arch Conservative
The only thing that was left out of this article was the 72 virgins waiting for us at the end. Or is it 76? Who cares...it's a lot of tang any way you look at it.
Right semprini?
4 - Baronius
You don't need perfect humans to move in the direction of this article. You need people to be more informed and ethical. I suspect we're losing ground on both fronts.
The scary thing is, with regards to education, the availability of information has never been greater. Voters can easily become well-informed. People need to make the effort to become well-informed, and they're either going to do that out of good or bad motivations. So it seems to be that ethics can be a prerequisite for voter education.
So let's start there. Let's either find a better starting ground, or answer the question, how can we steer people toward better ethics?
5 - jeannie danna
This was well written and thought out, but I'm not surprised because this article was written by an educator...
This could never be a perfect world but it's OK to dream.
:] Thank you for submitting an intelligent article here.
6 - roger nowosielski
Here is an interesting interview, aired earlier today on NPR's Morning Edition, In Ancient Rome, The Slow Grind Of Compromise.
Let me cite an excerpt:
Throughout the novel, drawing parallels to contemporary politics is unavoidable. To explain the nature of politics he lays out in Conspirata, Harris recalls a quote from the British politician John Enoch Powell, "who is rather similar to the conservative ideologue Cato," according to the author, in which Powell said "all political careers, unless they are cut off at some happy juncture, end in failure."
"It must," Harris concludes. "That is the process. Politics is never a victory, it's just the remorseless grinding forward of events. And so yes, it's very easy, I think, to attack politicians for their hypocrisy. And it's right in a democracy that we do that. But I did quite like the idea of trying to write a novel from the point of view of the hypocrite."
7 - Dr Dreadful
A well-written, thought-provoking article which deserves a lengthy and vigorous debate in the comments.
Two thoughts, to kick off with. Firstly, in your ideal democracy liberals would accept the role of the free market in government and conservatives would accept that sometimes it has no role. I actually don't think any but the most extreme ideologues on both ends of the political spectrum deny this basic truth. The contention arises from where you draw the line. And it all goes downhill from there...
Secondly, here's the thing with elected politicians stumping for projects which benefit their constituents: why, in a way, shouldn't they? They are, after all, elected to serve them. I can understand someone from Florida not wanting their tax dollars going toward some senator from Alaska's pet project, but the senator from Alaska's job is to look after the interests of his state and only federal money is available to him to work with. It's quite the paradox.
And Baronius's comment #4 is excellent.
8 - jamminsue
Roger, #6, listened to the same article. What I found interesting was the comment that a requirement of a politician was to change position with changing times. This is something to discuss here.
It is wrong to change one's position? Politicians are accused of this all the time
9 - roger nowosielski
I do it all the time, Jamminsue, and changing times definitely call for change in thinking.
10 - Semprini
The first three commenters seem to have missed the point here. Their reaction can be summarized as "duh", but the point was not to say that this was the way things could be. I'm new to Blogcritics, so maybe these are just people who would rather snipe and mock than engage in thoughtful discussion. Such people are certainly everywhere, especially in politics.
Fortunately, the commenters since then have made thoughtful comments, which I appreciate. Baronius: Yes, I think ethics are very much a part of the problem here, and maybe even more difficult to change than getting people to be better informed. Better ethics require a lot of things, such as excellent understanding of psychology, as well as self-awareness. We all do unethical things, but persuade ourselves that they're okay, because we don't want to see ourselves as bad people. Self-justification is the No. 1 enemy of ethical behavior. I'd like to see schools, as early as age 10 or 11, begin to teach the basic principles of self-awareness and empathy.
Jeannie Danna: Thanks very much!
Roger: Thanks for the link, it's very interesting; it's one of those things that we'd all be better off by reading. In relation to that, part of my notion is that people could be more aware of the whole process, including what's necessary for compromise and progress. The part about Cicero and the five condemned men is an especially important one: he/they sacrificed the rule of law for what he/they thought were good reasons. Maybe this is similar to Bush 43 and Obama allowing torture committed by those working for the government to go unpunished. It seems to me to be the first step on a very slippery slope, and I wish more people were aware of it.
Dr. Dreadful: Your first point is very well-taken; maybe I should have said it differently, along the lines of 'each side needs to not ignore the legitimate points of the other side'. Of course, that could be applied to any issue, not only in politics. In this case, it definitely is a case or where you draw the line.
As for the regional spending thing, you said, "the senator from Alaska's job is to look after the interests of his state." That is something I wish I'd included in the article. This is the way a representative's job is generally seen, but I think we'd all be better off if it wasn't. I'd rather it was, "the senator from Alaska's job is to reflect the wishes of his constituents." (It's the same thing, unfortunately, in a way.) I would then hope that those wishes reflected a desire for government to do what's best for all, not just what's best for me, my city, or my state.
Jamminsue: Absolutely, and this is another thing most people don't realize or think about. Attacks on politicians who've changed their views call them 'flip-floppers', as if one must never change one's mind. The problem is that most politicians do in fact change their minds not because of genuine reconsideration, but rather political opportunism. (In NY alone, Kristin Gillibrand on gun control and Harold Ford on gay marriage are two good examples.) So, it's easy to be cynical when a politician changes his mind.
11 - roger nowosielski
"I would then hope that those wishes reflected a desire for government to do what's best for all, not just what's best for me, my city, or my state."
Excellent point, Semprini. You've hit on the perennial weakness of the representative form of government. We elect our officials to represent our interests, usually locally-defined. Does that mean, however, that those we elect must remain but a mouthpiece and ignore the greater public good?
Hence the paradox of representative democracies, and its unfortunate that most politicians have not the will, or the integrity, to try to balance these concerns.
12 - Zedd
Doc,
"Firstly, in your ideal democracy liberals would accept the role of the free market in government"
Its been my experience that most do. I think that it is only purported that they don't in order to sensationalize or demonize their position. I have come to the conclusion that the Reps have gained a following and sustained a role in the political game by distorting the entire political landscape, twisting reality in order to make grabs at power. I don't know too many people who want big government, yet listening to Reps you'd think that was #1 on the Dem agenda. I don't know too many people who don't see the merit of a free market, but you'd thing otherwise listening to the rhetoric on the right. off course I don't know too many who don't believe in family values, but....
So I think we go back to the answer being an informed populous. But an informed population isn't pliable and they don't buy stuff that they don't need and allow the wealthy to manipulate them into wars, and health plans that don't serve them best.
13 - roger nowosielski
Consequently, what's good for the country and what's good for those who hold the strings of power is at odds.
14 - Zedd
#8 The accusation of flip flopping is one of those manufactured sins that are used as a political tool to manipulate the fickle public. A wrong is created and the simple minded glob on to it, much like a rumor in high school (what's cool and what is lame for the week, who's ugly or cute, regardless of the very real physical evidence).
Again, the solution comes from a more educated population.
15 - roger nowosielski
Certainly, it's a sure way of discrediting your opponent for being fickle-minded.
16 - Zedd
I truly believe that the best system would come from a solutions focused public and leadership. If the leadership actually knew that they would be booted out for not coming up with solutions.
Also the media would consist of smart people who know what questions matter. They need to nudge the leadership into good decision making.
17 - Dr Dreadful
Zedd @ #12:
Agreed, and as I said in my earlier comment, all but the most dogmatic of left- and right-wingers would agree that there is at least a small amount of middle ground. I think Semprini was just reacting to what he perceives to be a central ailment of America's democracy.
18 - Dr Dreadful
The accusation of flip flopping is one of those manufactured sins that are used as a political tool to manipulate the fickle public.
It absolutely is one of the most absurd things about modern political 'debate'.
First of all, Governor Bloggs charges that her political opponent, Senator Schmoe, is a fool because he supports Position A instead of Position B. Then, when the Senator switches to supporting Position B (which is supposedly what the Governor wanted him to do), she calls him a fool because he changed his mind.
Oy vey.
19 - roger nowosielski
I can't help being more radical than either of you, though Zedd is right in that even the most radical elements of the Democratic party believe in "free markets."
I don't think this belief is justifiable any more.
20 - Baronius
Forgetting for a moment the ugly history of literacy tests, do you guys think they'd help to increase the average voter's knowledge?
21 - Semprini
#20 Baronius: Well, maybe at the margins. But for the most part, I think people just wouldn't vote if they thought the test would be too hard. It's difficult to imagine more than, say, 1% of the population making a special effort just to be able to vote. I think the kind of people for whom voting is important are the kind who would pass the test anyway.
22 - Baronius
Well, you want a society in which the voter is informed. You can get that (or closer to that) by informing more voters or banning uninformed people from voting. That last sentence of yours seems like a worthy goal, that the people who are allowed to vote would be the ones for whom voting is important.
23 - Zedd
roger,
I think what we know about economics and just social systems is being tested right now. We wont admit for quite some time (if ever) that we don't have all of the answers.
I think that we had a tendency to be dogmatic in the past century. We would discover a "new" concept and declare it to be THE solution. What would cement the "rightness" of that concept is the demonizing of the opposing view. Most times the other side would be labeled anti-Christian. Once that label was firmly planted, the new idea would be accepted as a universal principle and other solutions would cease to be explored (else they possibly be evil and unchristian).
We've currently settled on the notion that the idea of free market is as relevant as the theory of relativity. If one suggests a different way of engaging, one always has to "I believe in the free market" but.... As if it is a holy ideal that cant be desecrated.
24 - Zedd
Baronius,
I don't think the issue is literacy. What is critical is comprehension. Having a public that values their own mental processes as aposed to joining a club and going along with whatever that club says is right to believe.
25 - roger nowosielski
It's very interesting you're addressing these matters. And yes, I think the new concept(s) will emerge as a result of practice.
What's just as interesting is the dynamics you're addressing which appears to be at work in forging what eventually gets to be regarded as "normal."
You might want to check parts of the discussion I had yesterday with Alan Kurtz, Cindy and Mark (Eden) on the Jesse Ventura Conspiracy thread, in Politics section.
I would be interested to hear your take on it.