Posts
“WE THE PEOPLE”
and
DEMOCRACY
Introduction
I. Symptomatic observations on the state of U.S.
democracy
1. State of We the People
(social insight)
A)
Societal characteristics
B)
Inequalities
C)
Inadequate education
2. State
of democracy (normative insight)
A)
Potential authoritarianism inherent in democracy
B)
Unreasonable election procedures
C)
Bureaucratic peculiarities
D)
Constitutional constrains
II. Saving
democracy from itself
1. Social (Enhancement of civic
knowledge)
A) Trust in Government, Association with
governance
B) Equality
C) Humanities education
2. Normative (Strengthening
democracy)
A)
Fair election procedures
B)
Bureaucracy’s strength
C) Constitution is to secure democratic principles
Conclusion
Introduction
We have been observing in this Blog world affairs in general
and the U.S. affairs in particular, sometimes with hope other times with
concern. Humanity went through many ordeals in modern times from WWI and WWII
of the 20th century to global terrorism and concomitant technological
revolution of the 21st, both of which caused economic and social transformations.
The manifestation of democracy’s deficiency at its birthplace the U.S., two
hundred twenty-seven years later in 2016 raised a new concern about the
sustainability of democracy. Other democracies in Europe and Latin America are also
caught in a far-right populist wave. Many scholarly publications and statements
and media in the Western world express concern about the survivability and
preservation of democracy. In the dictatorial world, there are cheers of
validation that democracy does not work. A true democrat in a republican system
must participate in the defense of democracy, like searching the causes of
deterioration of democracy and solutions therefor.[1]
This essay is an attempt to fulfill that civic duty. In so doing it is based on two premises: 1) Since democracy is a construct of people for the people, we need to investigate the state of the people to determine whether there are any social problems that affect democracy. An objective and honest assessment of ourselves requires moral and intellectual courage for introspection, a soul-searching; 2) Since democratic principles’ operation is carried out by self-governance, we will investigate any shortcomings in the governance, in the institutional, organic, normative aspects of the government.
While recognizing the difficulty of dissecting and finding effective solutions for social problems, because of the multiplicity of their interacting components, this essay attempts to theorize (in a somewhat post-positivist manner) some corrective actions on the identified threats to democracy, also drawing attention to their feasibility.
I. Symptomatic observations on the state of U.S. democracy
1.
State of “We the people” (social insights)
We know from social and political science publications and from investigative media that mankind generally seeks peace/safety, prosperity/security, and freedoms. As to peace, the world does not seem to have ever found a way to live in harmony with each other, without fear or hatred of each other. As to prosperity, the global economy increased fourfold in about three decades since the end of the Cold War and the beginning of the new high-tech era, which translates into about 1.5 billion people getting out of the poverty line and gaining the technical ability of instant global communication with one and other. Yet, the uneven distribution of prosperity exacerbated the socio-economic inequality. As to freedoms, people were never clearly informed of the definition nor the limits of freedoms, which cause cultural reactions to the excesses of freedoms. These economic and social disturbances caused public grievances reflecting on the operation of self-governance and democracy. In the absence of governments’ timely response to societal changes, a group historically “defiant of social order” considering themselves the owners of the country have been attempting since 2016 to dominate politics, and to exercise an exclusive authority over the destiny of the entire people. A prominent think tank, like many others, observed that Americans are “unsure of democracy’s persistence”[2].
A) Societal characteristics:
Absolute distrust in government
It is axiomatic that Americans in general are distrustful of
a central government and authority, because -as the argument goes- of their historical
multi-state revolution against royal imposition. Distrust of government is
“defiance of social order”.
Unnecessary thus ill-fated political and/or military
interventions overseas since the U.S. was firmly established as the
“influencer” of the world after 1950s, the vitriolic reactionary domestic
politics introduced in 1970s with the religious influence on one political
party, governments’ inability to control narcotics, gun epidemic, illegal
immigration, and economic inequality since 1990s exacerbated the already
historical public distrust in government.
A University of Chicago poll reported that 28% of registered
voters considered “taking up arms against the government”.[3]
The public does not necessarily defend its interests based on complete knowledge of true facts and by full consensus. Governments, in their duty to serve the public interest, must lead the public with full and true facts, not be led by public emotions. One caveat, however, is that if governments act with full authority to respond to a social need they are blamed by people for imposing state power; if they do not act at all, they are blamed for not having carried out their responsibility. Maintaining trust in government by timely and appropriately responding to social changes is a delicate but important skill governments need to have.
Use of narcotics
This is a global scourge, not unique to the U.S. Reports
concerning the U.S. indicate that the
annual death rate from overdose is over 100.000; fentanyl overdose alone even
among children reached 5.000 over the last decade.[4] Yet,
there is a tendency towards decriminalization of growing and trading opioids in
a society already prone to addiction. Flood gates were opened in recent years
for yet another substance whose addictive qualities are confirmed by scientific
studies but does not have deadly affects as “hard drugs”. One report shows that
Americans spent in 2022 more on marijuana purchases than they did on ice cream,
chocolate, and beer.[5]
Liberal attitude of states towards public demand is an example of governments
preferring to accommodate public emotions (presumably for political expediency)
over protecting the public as the governmental duty would commend.
The fast and furious expansion of narcotics use and failure to overcome narcotics trafficking in the age of advanced technology and enforcement ability are unforgivable facts. The expanse of addiction to narcotics reached the level of public health issue. Despite the importance of public health came to light when Covid-19 pandemic took about one million lives and left many with ailments, not to be able to counter narcotics endemic is incomprehensible. Nevertheless, many people, true to their cynicism about the government, consider public health a political issue, and another overreach of government authority. It is utterly irrational not to recognize the fundamental duty of government to monitor and when needed to take all measures possible for the maintenance of the health of general public. Decisive government action is its responsibility, even over irrational objections.
Violence
Beyond the wide use of narcotics, disregard for other
people’s right to live also became so ordinary that the public became numb to
the encroachment of this basic freedom. Increasing attacks on (or threats to)
performers on stage, on health providers, intolerance or hate of opposite or
different views, race, sex, instigation to violence against opposing
politicians and officials, an epidemic of mass shootings blunted the public’s
sensitivities.[6]
These uncivilized examples show how far some people came in defying the social
order, in disrespect for the safety and values of fellow human beings, and
contempt for social peace and safety in general.
This recent social perversity is reminiscent of the
psychotic phenomenon that shocked the public with the infamous Jim Jones mass
suicide by nearly one thousand people in Guyana in 1978, and couple of other
smaller ones in California and Canada, and the latest in Waco, Texas. Those
incidents were also a way of expressing defiance of orderly society, of not
having the liberty of living their own wild way. When consternation finds a
perverse agent to vocalize real or perceived grievances, the minority voice becomes
a movement of resounding confusion, conspiracy, fear, hate, and violence. Astonishingly,
such occurrences are seen by the rest of society as rare, marginal, ephemeral, uncommon
cases that can be overlooked. But the fact that there are always groups of
people that may rally around such anti-social ideas or leaders suggests that
the intellectual level of the people concerned, or their mental condition needs
to be addressed, not neglected. Social scientist L. Lipson observed that a
system that accepts violence “cannot rise to a higher level of civilization.”[7]
According to a study by the Center on Extremism of the
Anti-Defamation League, murders by extremists have been on the rise. Such
murders since 2010 constitute 57% of the total recorded since 1970. [8]
As to mass shootings (those with four or more victims), Gun Violence Archive
web site’s last entry on December 17 for 2023 alone is 640 mass shootings and 721
Killed, 2538 injured.[9]
Compared to data about other advanced countries, this
phenomenon is unfortunately unique to the U.S. The free flow of guns (more
firearms than the population), the availability of combat firearms in
particular, contribute to the severity of violence in the hands of people who
entertain a characteristic culture of defiance of social order. Media reports of
40.000 deaths a year by firearms incontrovertibly portray the level of
intellect, civility, and social responsibility in society.
Unwarranted attacks on governments, institutions, and laws for the sake of expressing grievances gradually chisels away or at least raises questions on trust in the system, in the establishment. Safety of life and maintenance of peace are a major and sole responsibility and duty of governments. But the first and foremost obstruction to overcoming this distrust is the state of mind of the group that defies social order.
Mass migration
This is a global problem. Upsurge in migration from poorer,
mismanaged, oppressive, violent, or natural disaster-stricken countries to
stable and richer countries is a matter of concern for immigrant receiving
countries like the U.S. for various reasons. Although the depth and width of
the U.S. economy is capable and accommodating a steady inflow of manpower, this
economic advantage is burdened with social and cultural problems. Cultural
incongruence creates social divisions, thus political challenges.
International migration problems were discussed in detail in
an article posted on this Blog in 2013. Therein it was noted that problems
created by mass migration were basically due to the absence of clear legal distinctions
between various types of migration, like considering both refugees and asylum
seekers eligible for eventual permanent residence. Whereas permanent residence
status should be reserved to “immigrants” who independently, conscientiously,
and officially apply to relocate their permanent residence. Refugees and asylum
seekers’ reason is protection from duress for various reasons. Hence, they ought
to be granted temporary status, but they are not “immigrants” for permanent
residence, nor entitled to be treated as refugee for temporary residence. As to
the term “illegal immigrants”, they are not immigrants but asylum-seeking
migrants, and they are illegal because the government releases them in the
country awaiting their processing.
Therefore, cultural, social, and political problems arising from “illegal immigrants” are governments’ own doing. Tackling the problem only as a border protection issue will never solve the cultural and social problems that come with migrants.
B) Inequalities
The view since the seventeenth century thinkers is that rulers,
elite or the general public cannot timely and easily adapt to the evolution of
society caused by human ingenuity in science, technology, culture, politics,
etc.; hence people become prejudiced, intolerant, impatient. In the
contemporary world, where cultural differences are amplified by extreme liberalism
of proponents of freedoms, on the one hand, economic inequalities are amplified
by ever-accelerating speed of economic development, on the other, differences
turn to social stratification, divisions, antagonisms.
While inequality is also a global problem, the U.S, being
the richest country, social inequality must be kept at its minimum possible.
Yet, surveys indicate that social rifts widened. Social Progress Index
published annually by Social Progress Imperative shows that there has been
global decline; the U.S. decline was particularly sharp in the last five years
coming 31st after other countries like Czech Rep. or Slovenia in
rights, inclusiveness, and access to basic knowledge.[10]
American public attitude and governments’ policies about public communication
and its accompanying cooperation must be improved for the sake of social peace
and prosperity.
As to economic inequality, governments’ actions to prevent
inequalities face conservatives’ accusations (once again) of government intervention
in the free market and socialism. All the while, the already long-existing inequality
gap widens apace with the fast and uncontrolled growth of new tech industries. Government
intervention, being a governmental duty to protect public interest, should not
be considered intervention in economy.
Economic inequalities in a free capitalist system basically originate from the private sector, while governments try to alleviate the impact on the public. Public sentiment seems to corroborate this assessment. “Nearly three-quarters of U.S. adults (73%) say major corporations in the country have too much power.” And “55% of U.S. adults say that government should do more to solve problems, while 43% say government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals.”[11]
C) Inadequate education
To begin with, learning by parents’ example of
self-discipline, conduct, behavior, ethics and human values suffers because of
the inadequacy of intellectual level of parents (what J. Dewey called "inchoate public"). Several generations already
grew up under inadequate circumstances. Fathers in the social order defying
group of people lost their model role for their children due to changes in
social and economic conditions in the last several decades. Instead of leading,
or at least contributing to the improvement of the health and wealth of the
family, they abdicate that role, and in some instances, they even become a
burden on the family and the society.[12]
Leaderless families are more susceptible to producing self-righteous, unruly,
disrespectful, selfish, rebellious, anti-social, violent off-springs.
Henry Grunwald, for one, warned back in 1990 about the sad
state of education in America.[13]
Reversing this negative trend at its advanced stage may be by overhauling the
current education system in a way that children are better prepared for a
civilized democratic society.
In a country -unlike many others- that lacks natural and historical social binding elements and also follows an open-door policy on immigration (which causes multiplicity of races, ethnicities, cultures, languages, religions, among many others), there ought to be some substitute unifying elements to maintain unity, peace and order in the society. Such American substitute is allegiance to the state and its law and order, both of which directly address the question of peace and order in society. This historical characteristic of the state must be inculcated to citizens. Yet, the education system in the U.S. fails in this respect for the following reasons.
Home schooling
According to Washington Post’s excellent detailed
investigative reporting on this subject, official recognition of home-schooling
in many states is growing. There are a dozen states using public funds to
support home-schooling, which are also financed by private organizations. They
have about two million student body.[14]
Of course, the insanity of school shootings, local governments’ and parents’
politically motivated interferences in schools may be some of the reasons for
this upward trend. It is also a fact that evangelical push is at the roots of
home-schooling. Conservative Christians persuade parents to home school their
children by claims that public schools are anti-Christian. “(H)ome schooling
became a tool for binding children to fundamentalist beliefs … that would seek
the political power and cultural influence to reshape America according to
biblical principles.”[15]
It is further reported that there is little regulation or oversight on home-schooling.[16] The failure of regulation and oversight may suggest that some home-school educators might be teaching young minds intellectually, scientifically, morally, socially insufficient or inappropriate material that develops dogmatic instead of inquisitive minds. Home-schooled people must be either at a disadvantage or unfairly competing in the job market with the regular school graduates.
Dogmatism
Lower quality of education opens the way to susceptibility
to ideological dogmas like nationalism, racism, xenophobia, religious
fanaticism, etc. The frequency of religious, ethnic, racial, and sexual
orientation vitriol is the proof of the growing size of fanatics. Expressions
of international isolationism and berating other countries and international
bodies are signs of exceptionalism and xenophobia among the public.
The presence of these anti-social feelings and their
expression under the protection of freedom of speech constitute a serious
danger to democratic pillars of freedoms, rights and equality, and to social
unity and national safety. Unfortunately, the size of such groups of people is
large enough to influence the political parties.[17]
Thus the social order defying characteristic finds its way into legislation,
like it does also in the case of home-schooling.
It may be considered bringing clarity to freedom of speech so as not encroaching on the freedom of others and/or endangering public interest and democracy.
Disciplinary practices
Disciplinary methods used not only in home schooling but also in some regular schools, although rare, seem to be medieval.[18] Physical punishment or abusive criticism of the young is uncivil; they inculcate uncivility in children. Such practice must certainly contribute to raising children prone to violence in their later years. There is yet another teaching of uncivility among social order defying section of the society, a culture of encouraging boys to be bullies.[19] This state of mind must be one reason for the prevailing condition of roughness, dominance, and masculinity.
Nature of education
U.S. middle and high school education is not at par with European
and some Asian countries’ secondary education level.[20]
Whereas this age group is the most appropriate for preparing individuals for
life prior to the higher professional education. Social and civic knowledge, a
sound education in Humanities (in its socio-political meaning instead of
historical), in cultural interface is fundamental to better quality and
sustainability of democratic life, irrespective of and in addition to individual’s
professional expertise.
Concentration on technical knowledge and loss of interest in
so-called liberal education deprived young minds of thinking in social and global
terms, in humanistic moral values that are necessary for a successful democratic
society. The prominent philosopher of modern times A. N. Whitehead’s
observations on social problems of the twentieth century apply to the current
state of society:[21] Specialization in
knowledge is good for the specific field of specialization, but “the remainder
of life is treated superficially” (p.176); Although science is progress, it
neglects values by creating “competitive business morality” (p.181); Wisdom,
“should be the aim of education” (p.171). However, as regards the wisdom
education, he somewhat contradicted himself when he added, “The problem is not
how to produce great men, but how to produce great societies. The great society
will put up the men for the occasion.” (p.183). And sure enough, people who
rallied around Trump proved Whitehead wrong in this respect and made his
argument in favor of wisdom education stronger.
Some modern-day philosophers, like I. Babbitt and R. M.
Hutchins, were concerned about the rush to empirical science teaching at the
expense of liberal arts.
Colleges do not provide Humanities education. Yale Law
Professor A. Kronman wrote in his book, liberal arts colleges were disappearing
because they provided education in humanities, like sociology, political
science, economics, history and philosophy, not vocational education. Yet,
college education were to prepare students for life. Life knowledge is
fundamental for global civilization, “a normative guide to” progress, reforms,
and modernity. Science overtook the entire field of education. Humanities was
relegated to the bottom. Then the Church claimed authority over this abandoned
knowledge. Consequently “fundamentalism now prevails in America”. The Church
claims that the adverse social effects of science are due to the absence of
morality in scientific work, which falls within the realm of the Church. In
reality, what is needed is the reintroduction of secular humanism in education
to infuse morality in science.[22]
Unjustified, exorbitant higher education costs at commercial
business levels[23] (mostly operating as
sports enterprises) also keep many students away from seeking university
education. Universities retain world excellence in the education of specialized
fields, but they have administrative failures (in addition to high costs) like
inability to find the right balance between the benefits of tenure and term
limits for their faculty, and inability to practice equitable student
acceptance instead of economic status, race, and alumni relationship of
applicants. Mass shooting delirium, which started fifty-seven years ago at the
University of Texas, having become part of life in schools and campuses
understandably raises safety concerns among students. These realities must be one
reason for the recent phenomenon of keeping some young people away from seeking
higher education.
Transparency in government, business community, and all
public services for keeping the public continually and timely abreast of public
administration is the essence of democracy for keeping the public “associated
with governance”. Provision of accurate knowledge to the public is “public
education”, a government responsibility. Yet, fake information on social media
platforms is allowed to run free, in the name of freedom of speech. As a result,
the confused portion of society either does not follow political news, or if
they do, they do not trust it.
The dilemma in improving the level of general education in the U.S. is that it is considered by the public to be a parental prerogative up until the end of secondary education, instead of a social thus national interest. The rest of the world considers it as such. This mentality will need to change. As to secondary education, the absence of humanities education and school safety against mass shootings must also be considered national issues.
In sum: Intuitive distrust in government and contempt of social order, social afflictions like narco addiction and violence caused by excesses of freedoms, cultural concerns caused by uncontrolled immigration, enduring social and economic inequalities, chaotic education and public information system make democracy vulnerable to its inherent foibles.
2.
State of democracy (normative insights)
Democracy is a political concept, not an organizational or
institutional type of governance (like self-governance is in representational
republic). Democracy is a choice or will of the people, and what people
understand from democracy. It is generally seen as rights, freedoms, and
equality of individuals. This close relation of democracy to people explains the
sensitivity of democracy to the culture and the
intellectual level of the people. The intellectual level specific to
societies affects the sustainability of democracy and the nuances in its
practice by different societies.
One of the original proponents of “absolute freedom” J. S.
Mill recognized, in cases of public interest, freedoms may be altered. Also, De
Tocqueville, who admired the American democracy, was at the same time concerned
that liberty and equality in democracy, could also work against it. When
individuals do not recognize freedoms’ twin sister of obligations, unlimited or
undefined freedoms slow down progress. Or unsatisfied masses may move to change
the establishment even with violence, instead of debating in an effort of
persuasion. This is why the oft repeated banality of “democracy isn’t perfect”,
“democracy is an experiment”, or “democracy is prone to (or carries with it)
chaos and self-defeat” is the currency of the day. All the democratic system
needs to be successful is to build a rational, knowledgeable citizen body who
can bring to power a political and executive system that is able and determined
to preserve democracy.
Democracy’s sensitivity to the culture and knowledge of the
people subjects it to political winds. Political winds may sway the pendulum of
the republican regime between democracy and autocracy. For the pendulum to rest
on democracy depends on the degree that people associate themselves with
democracy and with republican government, and on the ability of the government
to fight for democracy. A well-informed and knowledgeable society responsible
and active in the republican governance can achieve real and enduring
democracy. Adjusting to the requirements of social change is preserving
democracy, populism is destructive revolution in the name of democracy.
If excesses of liberties cannot or are not moderated by recognizing
the views of minorities, by elevating the level of education of masses, by
reducing inequalities, and by asserting the rule of law, democracy morphs into
one of the autocracies, whether nationalist, populist, etc. The type of
autocracy is determined by the type of public grievance that challenges
democracy, like cultural clashes caused by immigration paves the way to
nationalist autocracy, or economic inequality to socialist or communist autocracy.
Accordingly, “populism may be considered an inherent and insidious element in
democracy. It may be said that it is a dormant infirmity, an auto-immune
disease of democracy waiting for the opportune time to attack itself.”
(Reclaiming Democracy, sociopoliticaviews.blogspot.com)
A)
Potential authoritarianism inherent in democracy
After the nationalist autocracy’s defeat in WWII, and Cold
War won by Western democracy in 1989 against communism the bi-polar era ended; the
free world’s economic globalization spread along with the rapid advance of
technology. The liberal movement of goods helped bring a globalization of Western
culture as well. This econo-cultural invasion had a profound global social
effect exacerbating economic inequality and creating cultural animosity in
effected societies: terrorism. War against terrorism, combined with coincidental
climactic calamities, led to mass migrations. Russia took advantage of the
negative effects of the West’s war against terrorism revived bipolarism. She
exploited the civil war in Syria, invaded Crimea. In this restive climate many democratic
countries’ political color changed to protectionism, nationalism, or populism.
Nationalism inspired by terrorism and then by mass migrations turned into
radical right, populism. Different shades of autocratic regimes emerged in
Venezuela in 1999, Turkey in 2003, Hungary in 2010. Far right political parties
in several European countries gained grounds closer to power, particularly in
Italy, Poland, Austria, France, Germany.[24]
The autocratic trend is worldwide. Pew Research revealed
that the 62% of Americans and 56% of French are not satisfied with democracy. “Among
young Americans, nearly a fifth think a dictatorship would be preferable.”[25]
An Open Society Foundation survey revealed that “More than a third of
respondents between 18 and 35 said they would support a strongman leader who
would do away with elections and assemblies."[26]
In the U.S., during the last few decades, the power-hungry party
politics put in motion a “populist movement”. [27] The
party that came to power in 2016 promoted America’s greatness, exceptionalism,
xenophobia, use of force against conspired fears like “ethnic replacement”
(white supremacy), “unbiblical cultural trend” (like abortion, same sex
marriage), and “socialist economy” (social assistance from public funds). “The
succeeding unorthodox administration in fact, confirmed by word and action that
its base and its policies are National Populist. National Populism is exactly
what Italy was in 1930s leading up to WWII. All Presidential statements and
appearances during 2016-20 reminded us of Mussolini, the utmost representative
of fascism.” (The Changing American Social Character and Its Effect on
Politics, July 2020, sociopoliticalviews.blogspot.com).
Although people voted the populist government out of office in
2020, the populist section of society (a large minority of population) did not
disappear. In fact, being large in numbers, already having experienced the
possibility of gaining power, they have become more encouraged and emboldened
to reclaim power. The question now is not whether populism in the U.S. is
possible; it already being here, the question is what to do about it. Unfortunately,
we are at that inflection point. F. Wolkenstein recalls F. Panizza’s three
alternatives: “breakdown of the political system”, “discrediting of political
parties”, "changes in society.[28]
We may end up with all the above.
Media and politicians target only Trump the demagogue for
the rise of populism. Yet Trump is not a sophisticated sociopath to have a
political ideology, or any conviction for that matter, to organize a social
movement. He simply has an unsatiable desire to be popular; he seems to have,
however, dexterity in manipulating anti-establishment people to fulfill that
desire for him by any and all crooked means. The American nationalist populism did
not come to power with a preconceived program. In the absence of any program,
they adopted the anti-establishment crowd’s nationalist, religious, aggressive,
combative stance without any single social issue objective. They are not
interested in, nor capable of dealing with the interests of the people. They
are consumed only with fighting and destroying the establishment. It thus
became a “social movement”, which is not seeking “equilibrium”, a “consensus
building approach”, it is a revolutionary and destructive movement.[29]
This social order defiant mass constitutes at least 20% of voters,
not a small minority. Therefore, even if you were to take their leader out of
the equation this social movement will continue to exist as a political force. Tyranny
by such a large minority may prevail at the peril of much social damage in a
society that already has some social and institutional weaknesses to facilitate
their success. Their oft expressed deification (reference is to ‘orange Jesus’)
of their leader may end the system in fascism. As to the rational majority, they
do not dare to point the finger at and blame that large portion of their fellow
citizens. Optimists expect public rationality will prevail. But the majority
forgets that force is more powerful than wisdom. In fact, we are frequently
informed by the media about desertions from Congress, State legislatures, and
officers in charge of elections under frustration and/or intimidation by the
anti-establishment minority. This is the real “replacement theory” in action.
The result could be the disposal of democracy in the name of democracy.
President J. Biden stood at the Statuary Hall of Congress on the first anniversary of Jan. 6 insurrection in Washington D.C., and said “At this moment, we must decide. What kind of nation are we going to be? Are we going to be a nation that accepts political violence as a norm?”. Media sounds a crescendo alarm that it may be the latter. Presumably because we do not need a majority or an organized force to start a civil war. Short of a civil war, a protracted, metastasized adversarial divide plunging the country into an economic disaster, social unrest, and foreign power threats cannot be ruled out also considering the proclivity of the anti-establishment crowd to violence, free flow of all sorts of firearms, inflexible originalist/textualist understanding of basic laws by the judiciary, which blocks possible legislative solutions to problems.
B)
Unreasonable election procedures
Participation in U.S. elections is low in comparison to
other advanced countries. Participation
in 2020 elections, which was considered to be better than the average, was
reported to have been 67%, and the vote count was 155 mil. out of about 206
mil. eligible voters. (80 mil. of the estimated 331 mil. population were not
eligible to vote -74.2 mil. under the age of 18; 5.1 mil. felons). But about 50
mil. out of 206 eligible, about 25%, must have declined to vote. Of course,
less participation skews the democratic representation in one direction or the other.
One reason for the low turnout may be the frequency of elections.[30]
Getting caught up in a continuous political wrangling and constantly being in a
position to discern the truth and facts from mis and disinformation do
understandably cause voter fatigue.
Discrepancies in the ratio of the number of representatives
to the number of populations of states they represent skew the representation
weight of states. In 2020 elections, California with the highest population of
39,538,223 sent 52 representatives to the House. This makes 761,091 residents
per representative. Wyoming, the state with the lowest number of populations of
576,851 sent 1 representative to the House. A state in the middle range of
population like Massachusetts with a population of 7,029,917 sent 9
representatives, which makes 781,497 residents per representative. The
difference between the representation weight of Massachusetts and Wyoming in
the House is about 35% to the disadvantage of Massachusetts, and about 31% to
that of California. Representation of States in the Senate may also be skewed
in favor of one party or the other, if both Senators are from the same party. In
such an event in Wyoming, for example, the state would have an incomparable
weight in favor of one party in both chambers. Clarity must be brought to
whether Congressional elections are for equal representation of states or for
demographic weight of states.
Frequent gerrymandering by the political party in power is
yet another political manipulation of public representation. This problem has
been under continuous scrutiny and changes without a final solution or much
improvement.
Another major problem with the election procedure is the oddity that ballots are prepared. They give the impression to the voter that he/she is voting for the president and VP, although his/her “vote” is for a choice for the Electors to vote for President and VP (CA Code 6901 and 13103(b)(2); NY Code 6-102 and 7-104.3(a); VA Code 24.2-614). Electors are “appointed” by state legislatures and are not bound by the voters’ choice when they are voting for President (Constitutional Article II.1.2). Granted that a majority of states (33) require their Electors to vote along the choice of the majority of voters; but the minority of states (17) or even if it were a single state Electors vote against the majority’s choice the Constitutional fiat will not change. Nowhere in the Constitution is it provided that presidential election would be by popular vote. States (political parties in state legislatures) power over presidential choice is also specified in Articles XX.3 and 4, whereby in the case of no presidential candidate receives the majority of the electors the House of Representatives will elect from among the three candidates with highest votes, but with one vote for each state. Another important constitutional point that confirms the precedence of states legislatures over the President is in Article II.2.2, whereby executive powers are bestowed on him/her by States. All these provisions make clear that the President is the President of states; this is the consequence of the federative nature of the Constitution. Therefore, the practice of ballots giving the impression of popular voting for presidency is misleading the voters and allows the public and the media to claim a discrepancy between the presidential election results and the so-called “popular vote”. In effect, there is no popular voting for President in contravention of the Constitution.
C)
Bureaucratic peculiarities
The long time allowed for the presidential transition period
after the election is prone to the creation of unnecessary difficulties. The
outgoing government is a lame duck during the two and a half months in question,
particularly if either the presidency or one or both legislative chambers
change hands between parties. Taking the right decision would be chaotic, should
a very urgent and important national emergency arise during that period. It can
also give plenty of time to a contentious outgoing President to take undemocratic
or vindictive actions (as we witnessed after the 2020 elections). Shortening
the transitional period to the extent possible could reduce the possibility of such
difficulties.
The regularly exercised privilege of incoming administrations to replace about 4.000 government officials, who have the experience in and dedication to public service, adversely effects the provision of public services, smooth transition, and institutional memory provided by bureaucracy for the undisturbed continuation of government business.[31] Confirmation processes of higher officials, especially involving judiciary positions, seems to have locked the system in a two-party competition. Such practice allows calling officials and judges inappropriately Democrats or Republicans. The political labeling of officials is a gross violation of independence of public and national service. All these practices slipped into the system with occasional party machinations in Congress, which cause unwelcome and unnecessary frictions and delays in addressing substantive matters before Congress. This practice of politicization of bureaucracy is an excessive empowerment of the legislative branch over the executive.
D) Constitutional constrains
Some of the weaknesses of democracy arise from the
Constitution. Therefore, the defense of democracy requires possible amendment
or in the absence thereof its appropriate interpretation.
The Constitution notes in its objectives the establishment
of a union, justice, domestic peace, common defense, promotion of general
welfare, and security of liberty. The wording of objectives suggest that the
Constitution was inspired by the Articles of Confederation, which was adopted by
the Continental Congress of thirteen states to fight for liberation from the
British reign as a Union of independent states. In fact, the signatories
of the Constitutional document affixed their signatures with the statement, “by
the unanimous consent of the States present”.
Although the Constitution was submitted to state
legislatures for ratification (presumably seeking people’s representatives
vote), wording throughout the Constitution makes it clear that it was conceived
strictly for the formation of the Union and organization of relations between
the federal and “independent states”. Central state’s powers were subordinated
to that of states. There is no reference to a type of regime for governance, except
obliquely in Art. IV Section 4, “The United States shall guarantee to every
state in this Union a republican form of government” (curiously there is no
mutual guarantee by states).
Democracy is not mentioned, but freedoms and rights were
introduced as limitations on state power in the first amendments to the
Constitution as the Bill of Rights. More importantly, Articles IX and X of the Bill of
Rights recognize rights “retained by the people” and “powers… reserved … to the
people”. We can thus rest assured that democratic principles are
constitutionally protected. And the Constitution provides for the possibility
of amending it.
But the Constitution having been conceived as an inter-state commitment of sovereignty rather than national sovereignty, amendments become very difficult. Thus, the republican regime and democratic principles are anchored in the Constitution but with a loose central authority to ensure their preservation.
In sum: Flaws in election procedures like in the organization of voting, gerrymandering and presidential election, the politicization of appointments of officials in bureaucracy and the judiciary are detrimental to trust in democracy.
The defense of democracy to conform to contemporary changes requires amendments to the Constitution. Democratic principles are anchored in the Bill of Rights amendments, and the Constitution provides for the possibility of amending it. But the Constitution having been conceived as an inter-state commitment of sovereignty rather than national sovereignty, amendments become prohibitively difficult.
II. Saving democracy from itself
1. Social (Enhancement of civic knowledge)
A)
Trust in Government, Association with governance
The preservation of democracy, i.e. freedoms, rights, and
equality, is not the responsibility of republican governments alone, by
definition it is also the responsibility of the people. There are two critical
requirements from citizens for democracy to function true to its principles and
be protected against saboteurs from within and without: a will to associate themselves
with self-governance (republican regime), or association with common interests (which
A. de Tocqueville called the science of association) and an adequate level of
intellectual qualification to establish that association.
The revolutionary historical argument given for the distrust
of government by the American society is not supported by the fact that the
distrust is against the central government but not local governments, and that
the revolution was against a colonial ruler in old times long past, that it is
no longer valid. U.S. is no longer a union of states remotely and comfortably
tucked away from the rest of the world between two oceans. Now, there are many
contemporary reasons for a strong central government. A change in mentality
will substantially help better self-governance.
It is very difficult to discern a common specific identity,
a social bind in such a racially, ethnically,
culturally diverse, politically resistant-to-compromise society as the U.S.
It is difficult to form unity in the presence of continued immigration that
spawns constant addition to races, ethnicities, and cultures. The introduction
of artificial elements of unity becomes necessary. Those presently available
are allegiance to the rule of law, and economic opportunity. Therefore, a just
and strong law enforcement and judicial system, and a liberal economic system
are indispensably and uniquely important in the special case of the U.S.
Ever increasing narco-addiction is clearly a public health
issue. As such it is a governmental basic duty to fight against drugs, as if
fighting a biological pandemic.
Gun violence, on the other hand, is not a mental problem as many
people claim it to be. It is not a public health matter, but a public safety
matter. As such, it is also a governmental duty. Yet bizarrely, governments are
impeded by some groups and the judiciary to discharge that duty. The legally unreasonable
and politically biased interpretation of Second Amendment is the source of this
unacceptably shameful carnage characteristic to the U.S. Any legal text, the
Constitution, first and foremost, must be interpreted and applied with a view to
the public’s best interest. The civil use of firearms, being lethal objects,
must be regulated, like hazardous materials, cars, etc. are regulated. They
must be subject to registration, license, and insurance requirements. This
decades-long carnage, which constitutes one of public sorrow and anger,
degradation of civility, and international embarrassment must have the highest
urgency in any Congress’ agenda. A
rational interpretation by justices of Article II of the Constitution, and
concomitantly improving the intellectual level of the relevant section of the
society are imperative.
In this respect, the definition of freedoms in general may
also come to question. Uninhibited freedom is a recipe for a disorderly society,
hence grievances, hence invitation to an authoritarian rule. The regulation of
guns and definition of freedoms being Constitutional issues, they are further
discussed below. Clear definitions of freedoms could delineate their limits to
help avoid freedoms’ abuses.
As to possible solutions to problems raised by immigration, they, being a growing international issue, must be addressed internationally by clearly distinguishing them from refugees and determining the legal status of asylum seekers. In the interim, in the U.S. immigration must be limited to those who formally apply for residence, and to refugees for temporary residence. Asylum seekers should not be referred to a judicial review, but to an administrative review by border officials on the spot, just like passport officers do for regular travelers. If a border official would need legal decision, he/she may seek it from the court of area jurisdiction, while keeping the asylum seeker in detention. With this type of procedure releasing asylum seekers in the country as “illegal immigrants” to await court appearance could be avoided.
B) Equality
Social inequalities occur generally in differences of
opportunities or services in education, work, health, property, or justice. Failure
in the observance of equality of opportunity, services or rights understandably
causes discontent and distrust in government. It is, therefore, prosaic to
state that the avoidance of such failures, and consequently of public
grievances that constitute a potential threat to democracy, is solely and
completely a matter of good governance.
Furthermore, the private sector, being the origin of economic
inequalities, must be expected to share responsibility with governments, and cooperate
with the latter for achieving equality. Responsibly operating business would
obviate legislative or executive interventions.
Several thinkers were of the view that equality in democracy
would be tantamount to mediocrity. Some even went so far as to suggesting
governance by intellectuals alone (Gramsci). This observation brings to mind
the need for the majority of well-informed citizens for equitable and
well-reasoned decisions. The long practiced 51% majority may be a source of
dissatisfactions and inequality, because 51% majority’s decision means the view
or vote of 49% is ignored. This is a very large minority to neglect, and a very
small margin for inequality. The concept of majority is abused in a variety of
fields. For example, as mentioned above the votes of the majority of states’
Electors are overruled by the votes of the minority Electors, or one Senator
can withhold the promotion of about 400 military officers against the
overwhelming majority of his colleagues.
An agreement on an appropriate proportion for the definition
of majority may be difficult to reach, but starting to debate it will be the
right option.
C) Humanities Education
The term “education” used in this essay needs clarification,
because it does not mean secondary or tertiary school diploma only. It means elevating
the general knowledge and the intellectual level of people, an education based
on rational and critical thinking, and forming enlightened citizen body.
“Education in this context means cultivation of the mind to
become as knowledgeable and rational as possible about the inter-relation and
inter-dependency between humans and their social environment. It may be termed
as being a “learned person” in addition to being otherwise professionally or
vocationally educated person. Training the thinking, behavior, and
worldview of people towards responsible, humanist, rational, progressive, and
environmentalist direction is the most important instrument for improving the
civilizational level. It
has been long overdue to break the shackles of the traditional approach to
education, to be able to think outside the envelope (or the box) we sealed
ourselves in, and rethink the education system. It is of the utmost importance
and urgency that all education without an all-encompassing worldview, but with
exceptionalist, absolutist, determinist thus divisive nature, like religious,
racist, or nationalist education, must be banned for good. In
addition, all specialized (professional) education must be preceded with
learning the consequences of our actions on the social environment (humanist
and rational thinking ability).” (Civilization Queried,
sociopoliticalviews.blogspot.com, February 2015)
Such education starts at home, within the family, which also
makes the parental acquisition of this knowledge paramount. Society cannot get
out of its current shameful state with immature parents. Education in this
sense is, therefore, a generational issue. An effective, national public
informational campaign may be considered for achieving such a large endeavor.
The medieval, socially self-destructive practice of home
schooling must be a large contributor to the improper state of educational
level of a country among the most industrially advanced. In any other advanced
country such uncontrolled practice in a very important social matter like
education would be banned as a national and social threat. People’s education,
like public health, food safety, consumer protection, public safety are within
the responsibilities of governments. Not to provide the same service for intellectual
development is abdication of public service duty. National interests must
overrule any argument offered in defense of this devastating primitive
practice. Reasons given by parents not sending their children to regular
schools must be addressed by the government, instead of shifting this service
over to parents or to some dubious uncontrolled unprofessional so-called
educators. Raising generations with the latest scientific information, with
inquisitive creative minds, and with rational and moral foundation is the only
way to prosperity and peace of societies.
The reintroduction of humanities subjects in secondary school curricula is key to raising the intellectual level to the minimum necessary level. Basic knowledge like civics, national values and interests, sociology, world cultures, humanity, and philosophy are taken for granted, while professional/technical knowledge takes over the entire field of education. Professional education alone, even at its level of excellence, is not conducive to preparing the individual for a democratic society, and for governing him/herself. Because professional education prepares the person solely for egocentric personal livelihood. Education in social interactions prepares the individual to be an altruistic participant in the prosperity and peace of society where he/she finds the comfort of living. The suggestion is not to make the same mistake of overemphasizing empirical sciences, but to adopt a balanced approach of providing both empirical and social sciences. In short, the type of education to develop a knowledgeable citizen prior to becoming a professional, is fundamental for the success of society and democracy, not only of him/herself.[32]
A wealth of scholarly opinions leaves no doubt about how fundamental it is to
have an enlightened citizenry for the success of democracy: [33]
T. Jefferson thought “well informed” public can govern well.
E. Durkheim lectured; rational people constitute the
democratic society.
C. Willeck and T. Mendelberg’s view is, “enlightened
population” is the strength of democracy.
H. Entwistel makes a convincing attestation/demonstration that
election right alone is not democracy; for liberal education (education of “the
whole of human knowledge”) is what makes an individual a real participant in
ruling the country.
M. Oakeshott added that participation in democracy necessitates
knowledge of politics of other countries.
L. Krauss and R. Dawkins were of the opinion that a
civilized society needed to get rid of ignorance.
Finally, it is remarkable that Commonwealth of Virginia
Constitution provides: “Government and progress rest on knowledge … by an
effective system of education.” Article I Section 15.
We may add to this abridged selective list Atatürk’s view that “Science and
knowledge are the guides for the nation’s political and social life”.[34]
Humanities curriculum has an added value, in that philosophy
teaching has the component of ethics. In a highly diverse and combative society
without an identifiable ethos such as the U.S., ethics has a very important role
to play in personal judgements, particularly in public and civic relations,
discourse, acts, and decisions.
Montesquieu’s view that virtue is the soul of democracy is
well known.
E. Durkheim lectured that social actions must have moral
discipline.[35]
A. Einstein considered that humanity’s civilization depended
on moral forces that comes from people educated in their early years.[36]
W. Lippman observes, unless a man is educated and acquired wisdom he becomes a grown-up child, “that life owes him something”. Moral values developed by human experiences are to be learned.[37]
In sum: A public education on clarification of freedoms must be launched , as well as on outdated culture of distrust in Central government, and on people’s association with governance. Corrective actions for social afflictions must be recognized as governmental responsibility. Private sector’s cooperation with government against economic disparities must be encouraged. Education system must be subjected to a serious review of modernization.
2.
Normative (Strengthening democracy)
Reliance by people solely on government leads to the accumulation of power in the hands of a few special interest groups, like political parties or corporations, hence totalitarianism, or oligarchy, minority tyranny, majority despotism. Political parties become too powerful to be led by the people. Politicians keep in contact with their constituents for being elected or re-elected, but once they get back to work, they have to walk the party line, which is the unwavering line of grabbing or staying in power. Electors’ expectations and national interests take the back seat.[38] Consequently, governance by the people required by democracy turns into governance by party (a long time ago, a good friend called such system ‘partycracy’).
In the best of circumstances, the democratic process purges
itself by elections to render the party totalitarianism temporary. However, if people
of democratic society fall asleep at the wheel, party totalitarianism may morph
into populism. Populism is not temporary. Populism empowered by masses presumes
absolute mandate and authority, including continual hold on power, hence it
does not give a chance to democratic process to purge itself from populism.
In the current state of the U.S. political life some people have over-confidence in the democratic system to prevail, or they think it is not necessary to challenge the populist wave. They may be of the view that current populism and demagoguery is a passing aberration. What they overlook, however, is that even if the demagogue mouthpiece of populists disappears, a populist core of at least 20% of voters, which is a large minority of almost 40 million people, will continue to test the possibilities of grabbing power, if necessary, by treachery or force. To put it allegorically, they could test the doors of the Capitol again. The only way of avoiding the surrender of democracy to populism is for the non-populist majority to be courageous and determined enough to make use of all people-power available to them to avert populist takeover of power, like improving the election procedures, the stature of bureaucracy, and the Constitution.
A) Fair election procedures
A low number of participants in elections does not do
service to democracy. It gives, in fact, a chance to occasional manifestation
of democracy’s potential weaknesses. Countries around the world address that
problem in different ways. Voting can be made mandatory by imposing a small
pecuniary fine, and the voting process can be made as easy as possible like extending
voting period, voting by mail, voting day holiday, or increasing voting
locations. The organization of elections in the U.S., mostly falling under the
authority of states, simplifying voting method may be made by a joint conference
of all the states.
Since the type of the central State is a states-federation,
dominance of states in central governance by their equal representation is
unavoidable. But to conform to republican and democratic principles the House
of Representatives must be reserved for the representation of their local
constituents, not of their states. Gerrymandering must be eliminated. Election districts’
boundaries may be reviewed prior to every national election by independent
commissions, which should include census specialists, not state legislatures.
The resolution of these matters requires bi-partisan agreements in both chambers of Congress, making a change very difficult, if not impossible.
B) Bureaucracy’s strength
If the legislature is the heart of government, and the
judiciary the brain, the executive is the moving parts of the system. The
neurol system that moves the parts is the bureaucracy. It must be healthy and
strong to ensure continuity and efficiency in administration, to avoid
interruption, delay, or malfunction in services to public, to ensure
consistency, objectivity and equity in administrative decisions, credibility of
and trust in government. These qualifications require political independence of
bureaucracy.[39]
Responsibilities of bureaucracy are endangered particularly at
times of transfer of power between the outgoing and incoming political parties.
Consistency, objectivity and equity in decisions and actions must be guaranteed
by preserving the institutional memory and impartiality of bureaucracy. The practice
of incoming administrations to replace officials must be limited to higher
echelon officials only and disallowing the replacement of staff solely on
political grounds.
Two and a half months interval between the elections and the
new administration taking office instituted for possible challenges to
elections and for transition of power may be abused by a one term President or
by any unruly President, as we witnessed after the 2020 elections. It may be
prudent to shorten this dangerous lame duck period of the outgoing
administration. The dates for the convening of the newly elected Congress and
the President’s assumption of duties having been determined in the Constitution,
the election date can be reconsidered by Congress for shortening the
transitional period.
These difficulties, not involving constitutional provisions, may be resolved by cooperative action in Congress. As J. Bentham advised better progress could be made in social issues, if questions of fact were to be addressed instead of questions of principle.[40]
C) Constitution is to secure democratic principles
Some actions that may be taken to protect democracy from
turning into populism are by amendments to constitutional provisions, as
mentioned above.
There is an oft repeated view that democracy is an
experiment. This view may have taken life because its proponents, aware of
never having succeeded in securely mooring democracy for good, took refuge in
this apologetic expression. Democracy should not be subject to trial and error.
If we want freedoms, rights and equality democracy is to be cherished, protected,
and strengthened against its foibles. Democratic principles are anchored in the
Constitution as indisputable reference points for republican governance.
Where constitutions are adopted by public referendum, they are
commitments between people to define their choice of governance reflecting
their interests and values. In the case of the U.S. the Constitution being that
of the union of states the commitment is for the union and as well as for each
state to govern with a republican regime respecting individual rights and
freedoms (democracy). Accordingly, it is the responsibility of the Federal and
all the states, not of the people, to ensure that the democratic principles
anchored in the Constitution effectively serve the contemporary (evolving)
interests and values of the public.
Yet, the Court (at least the current politicized Court
gutted with conservative judges) reads and understands as it was written to
meet the needs of a society of centuries ago. Textualists must be reminded that
even the language has changed over time by society’s usage. And originalists
must be reminded that the Constitutional provisions were conceived with the
knowledge and for the needs prevailing at the time of their writing. Such
anti-democratic methods of legal interpretation by the Court are the imprint of
conservative justices appointed by conservative Presidents. District Judge
Carlton W. Reeves’ ruling in relation to a Supreme Court decision regarding gun
rights made a very articulate and powerful point about the wisdom of subjecting
generations to the power of “the dead hand of the past”.[41]
“Constitutional provisions are found either applicable to
contemporary circumstances or may be amended as foreseen in its Article V. The
application of this Article is just as an important duty as the observance of
any other Article of the Constitution.” (The Sequel on the Challenges to
American Democracy, sociopoliticalviews.blogspot.com). And “the Constitution
itself provides that it is an amendable document and was amended substantially
(ten Articles) soon after its adoption (within four years) and two more times
soon thereafter (1794 and 1803). After about fifty years of hiatus, there were
three amendments in 1860s, after about another fifty years of hiatus four in
1910s, followed by twice in 1930s, once in 1947, and thrice in 1960s. But, in
57 years since the last amendment the American polity either thought that the
Constitution reached its perfection or did not care or dare to re-read the
Constitution in the light of the social and technological leaps in the last
fifty years.” (The Dilemma of the American Democracy,
sociopoliticalviews.blogspot.com).
Strangely, it is a near impossibility to amend the U.S. Constitution.
It is reported that out of twelve thousand proposed amendments during the life
of the Constitution only thirty-three were submitted to states for
ratification, of which twenty-seven were ratified.[42]
In the absence of the ability to amend the Constitution, its due interpretation
by the Supreme Court gains utmost importance.
Unfortunately, we cannot expect the Congress or the judiciary ex officio to attempt to depoliticize the Court.[43] A general civil society activism (not wives of justices on their husbands) may exert pressure on the Congress to take the necessary measures to depoliticize the Court and also introduce age limit for justices. The best measure may be to take away the power of “appointment” of justices from the President and to give the power of “electing” them to the Conference of Chief Justices, without, of course, Senate’s “advice and consent”.
In sum: Flaws in organizing elections may be improved by cooperative action of states. Fairer determination of election districts may be achieved by independent commissions in states. Bureaucracy must be depoliticized to achieve its independence and efficiency.
Matters requiring amendments to the Constitution have no chance of improvement because the nature of the Constitution makes its amendment prohibitively difficult, unless the Supreme Court interprets it in favor of democratic principles instead with an outdated notion of textualism and originalism.
Conclusion
It is believed in comparatively advanced societies that
democracy is the best political concept of governing in the interest of the
people. This cursory review of the current state of democracy demonstrates that
it is inflicted with an inherent self-destructive element, and that its
survival is dependent upon action by its creators, owners, beneficiaries, and
gatekeepers who are called the people.
The U.S. is a republic that chose right at the outset to
govern by the republican system with democratic principles. The Constitution
rightly defines the governance by and for the people. As to by,
it is a fact that people may be of many different levels of ability to govern
themselves. For successful governance, we need people to be at the adequate level
of knowledge to govern. (Allegorically, we need doctors and administrators to
run an insane asylum for good care of patients, not entrusting it to the insane
themselves.)
As to for, it should mean nothing other than the
interest of the people. Interests of the people by definition does
not allow democracy to self-destruct. Assumption of governance for the
people brings with it the related responsibility, hence a duty (not an
experiment) of the people to protect democratic governance, eliminate its
inherent self-destructive ills by conforming to the changing interests of the
society.
However, while some improvements in the system seem possible
if public pressure on the one hand and Congressional willingness on the other
would prevail, problems that require Constitutional amendments do not seem to stand
a chance. An organized massive civil activism may be able to implore the
Supreme Court to recognize the supremacy of public interest over the text of
the Constitution when reading and interpreting it.
The populist social movement will have in the intervening
period plenty of opportunity to firmly establish itself. Trump made it crystal clear
in his statements that if in fact he comes back to power his management will be
autocratic, and we may add to that it will be chaotic as well. Yet, if he fails
to come back to power his followers will cause violence and chaos anyway.
The country does not seem to have a good alternative. It remains to ask both the populist masses and those who are waiting for God’s intervention what is better: To go over the cliff with an “authority defiant” crowd following a dem(on)gogue or to form a wide and powerful civil activism to force the government’s all three branches to take measures in defense of democracy as the Constitution charged them with?
December 2023
[3] Quantifying the rise of America’s far right. The
extremists are becoming more deadly. The ideology is becoming more mainstream. The
Economist. April 25, 2023
[4] More
than 100.000, New York Times on-line September 11, 2023
[5] Marijuana
is getting out of hand. The federal government must step in, Washington
Post on-line, August 17, 2023
[6] Bad behavior at ‘Barbenheimer’ reflects a worrying
trend, Washington Post on-line, August 5, 2023
How to reduce American carnage, The
Economist, July 31, 2023
[7] L.
Lipson, The Ethical Crises of Civilization, Sage 1993
[8] Quantifying
the rise of America’s far right. The extremists are becoming more deadly. The
ideology is becoming more mainstream. The Economist. April 25, 2023
[9] https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
[10]https://www.socialprogress.org/static/8a62f3f612c8d40b09b3103a70bdacab/2022%20Social%20Progress%20Index%20Executive%20Summary_4.pdf
[11] In
a Politically Polarized Era, sharp divides in both partisan coalitions,
Pew Research Center Web site December 17, 2019
[12] Men are lost. Here’s a map out of the
wilderness, Washington Post on-line, By Christine
Emba July 10, 2023.
Also Jon Marcus, The Economist on-line, January 22, 2022
[13] H.
Grunwald, The American Century, Time, October 8, 1990, p.46-51
[14] Home-school Nation, Home
schooling’s rise from fringe to fastest-growing form of education, Washington
Post on-line, Peter
Jamison, et.al., Oct. 31, 2023. See also the rest of the serial reports.
[15] Washington
Post Investigation on Homeschooling, Peter Jamison, May 30,
2023
[16] For
many home-schoolers, parents are no longer doing the teaching, Washington
Post on-line by Laura Meckler, August
17, 2023
[17] What
the 2020 electorate looks like by party, race and ethnicity, age, education and
religion, by John
Gramlich, NYT, October 26, 2020
Christian
nationalists - wanting to put God into US government, by Barbara Plett
Usher, BBC News, Tennessee
[18] See
other articles in the same Washington Post series, August 20, 2023
[19] Men’s
groups are embracing an alternative conception of American masculinity,
Washington Post on-line by Tara
Bahrampour August 13, 2023
[20] “The high school class of 2023 received the lowest ACT test scores since 1991, a sixth year of consecutive decline. NYT Oct. 12, 2023
[21] A. N. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, Mentor Books 1959
[22] A.
Kronman, Education’s End, Yale Un. Press 2007
[23] H.
Woodhouse, Russell and Chomsky as Advocates of Humanistic Education, Philosophical
Inquiry in Education, Volume 27 (2020), No. 2, pp. 135–152
[24] A
fresh wave of hard-right populism is stalking Europe, The Economist September
14, 2023
[25] Why Africans are Loosing Faith in Democracy, The Economist, October5, 2023
[26] Chaos in Congress, Washington Post,
October 6, 2023
[27] There
is an excellent analysis of populism by C. Mudde & C.R. Kaltwasser,
Populism in Europe and the Americas, Threat or Corrective for Democracy, Cambridge
Un. Press 2012.
Another good discussion of populism may be found in Populism, liberal democracy and the ethics of
peoplehood, Fabio Wolkenstein,
European Journal of Political Theory, November 20, 2016
For populism’s threat to democracy see Populism as a
Threat to Liberal Democracy, Stefan Rummens, The Oxford
Handbook of Populism Nov 2017, on
line.
[28] F. Wolkenstein
Populism, liberal democracy and the ethics of peoplehood, November 20,2016, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1474885116677901
[29] B.
Useem and J. Goldstone, Theory and Society, Springer 9/8/2021,
https://org/10.1007/s/1186-021-09460-2
[32] C. Willeck and T. Mendelberg, Education and Political Participation, Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 25:89-110, May 2022
[33] Thomas
Jefferson to Richard Price, January 8, 1789,
Library of Congress, Quotes
E. Durkheim, Lecon de Sociologie-Physique
des Moeurs et du Droit, Cituri 1950, pp.101,110,112
C.
Willeck and T. Mendelberg, idem
H. Entwistle, Paideusis 11(1), (Fall)
1997
M. Oakeshott,
Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays, Liberty Fund 1991, p. 64
W. Ebenstein,
Inroduction to Political Philosophy, Rinehart Co, 1952
A.N. Whitehead,
Science and the Modern World (1948)
[34] M.
Camcigil, “Atatürk’s
Thought” A Political Theory of Progress and Peace, Atatürk Society of America, 2020 p.49
[35]
Durkheim, supra, p.16
[36] A.
Einstein, The World As I See It, Citadel Press 1984, pp. 50, 52
[37] W.
Lippman, Preface to Morals, Time Inc. 1964, pp. 171-173
[38] J.
Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Harpers &
Brothers, 1950, pp. 288-290
[39] Ibid, p.
293
[40] W.
Ebenstein, Intro. To Philosophy, Rinehart & Co. 1952, p. 175
[41] A
U.S. district judge calls the Supreme Court’s bluff on guns, Ruth
Marcus, Washington Post, July 7, 2023
[42] American democracy is cracking. These
forces help explain why, Dan Balz and Clara Ence Morse,
Washington Post, August 18, 2023
[43] Brings disrespect, David Leonhardt
NYT February 22, 2022
