Posts
Reclaiming Democracy
The state of democracy in general
While a number of democratic countries around the world transformed
into totalitarianism and/or autocracy in recent decades, the mob attempt to
deny the confirmation of the duly elected president in the U.S.A. brought out
to the open the concern of whether democracy is waning. As noted in the 2021
annual report by Freedom House, global freedom has declined for 15 consecutive
years. The report assesses that 38 percent of the global population lives in
countries that are “Not Free” – the lowest point since 2006. This is an
alarming observation for the future of democracy. The U.S. is cited among the
countries that lost standing. This essay attempts to find the reasons of those
findings, and explores the possible measures to ride the tide before the
undercurrents of the tide swallow democracy to darker depths.
Here it is proposed that this development is closely related
to the nature of democracy. Democracy (for the purposes of this essay defined
as rule of, by and for the people- or briefly self-governance) is born out of and
based on intellectual and humanist principles. Its functioning is slowed down
with endless debates mandated by democracy, which usually end up in compromises
that do not fully meet the expectations of people economically and socially
neglected or otherwise dissatisfied. This dysfunction gives way to disunity,
divisions in society. Distrust not only in government but also in democracy develops.
A democratic government comes under attack by people in the name of democracy
or even in defense of democracy, although, intellectual, humanistic, and other
attributes of democracy would suggest further debate and participation in
resolving the differences.
Political forces lurking to grab power take advantage of
dissatisfactions and exploit the public grievances. Dissatisfied masses become
the tool of the opposition politics.[1]
A populist movement is put in motion.
As such, 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 it.
An excellent description of populism is made by H-J. Puhle.[2]
Being without knowledge or preparation for governing, populism is an ephemeral movement. At first it attempts to manage with the existing institutions, Anocracy (guided democracy). Failing in getting results, it quickly transitions to Autocracy. The transition is to leftist autocracy, if the populist movement arises as a reaction to economic failures of the democratic regime; it becomes a rightist autocracy, if it arises from cultural dissatisfactions, an autocracy nevertheless. Accordingly, democracy carries in its system the potential of destroying itself and creating its anti-thesis, autocracy.
This very brief description of populism reveals two obvious defenses
democracy can have against the forces targeting its own survival. One is any
democratic regime is charged with and endeavors its best to do, the other is
something it does not recognize, understand or outright neglects. The former defense is
to maintain the economic and social equality. The latter is an informed and
knowledgeable population, the main theme of this article. Democracy, being
self-governance, requires for at least most of the voters to be knowledgeable and
interested in the nation’s well-being for it to function properly, to enable the
public to make the right decisions in their own lives as well as in the lives
of their fellow men and women. Correct civic knowledge and responsibility of
individuals is fundamental in a successfully functioning democracy. Not only
the level but also the quality of education is important. Education
unequivocally reflects the cultural (moral/ethical value system) and
intellectual quality of society. The less knowledgeable the voters, the more
fragile is democracy. The more knowledgeable the voters the more stable is
democracy. Despite the on-going scholarly debate about the education’s role in
political participation[3],
it is becoming clearer as the practice in democracy progresses, that democracy
will succeed with an enlightened population. Lack of knowledge leads to
believing (unquestioning and passive submission);[4]
or if democracy were a system where anyone irrespective of their level of
knowledge and skills could be a ruler[5]
it would not be a democracy, but an ochlocracy (or mobocracy). A knowledgeable
and well-informed society that chooses to govern itself is in a better position
to ensure its functioning, to be aware and watchful of the vulnerabilities of
the system it chooses.[6]
Therefore, it is a self-defeating attitude to consider democracy an experiment or to trust that it will self-correct. Democracy is not an experiment to play around with; it requires its owners, the public, to be vigilant to conform to constantly evolving human life, namely its needs and interests. Democracy needs to be tended to firmly and timely so as not to allow its enemies to take advantage of it. Democracy is not an independent existence, it is our own making, it is dependent on us, we should not expect it to tend itself. Complaining about the government, which we hired for doing that job for us, is ineffective. People’s participation in the process and when necessary in course correction is their civic duty. Democracy is not just free and fair elections exercised from time to time. Democracy needs continued participation and involvement of the public to keep it working in their interest.
Recent events are signs of emergency for us to take strong pro-active measures to protect democracy. Other than striving for the social and economic equality among people to the extent possible, we need to revise the electoral, parliamentary, executive, and judicial legal foundations. This article is intended to review the state of democracy in the United States to test the strength of the foregoing observations, because she has been the springboard of democracy of the modern times (in distinction of that of the antiquity).
The state of democracy in the U.S.
First a reminder: People who find democracy flawed and
inefficient should find an alternative to it before toppling it down, for it is
easy to destruct but difficult to build, with chaos in between. Let the long
and bloody interregnum after the French Revolution in its long process of democratization,
as well as the calamitous reign of national socialism in Germany leading up to
WWII, and more than seventy years of sufferance of Russians in good part of the
20th century in the name of absolute equality, all with well-intended
purposes, be a lesson to those who want to establish a new system. The flaws of
the American democracy that strikingly came to fore with recent events is
another reminder of how carefully a system must be designed.
An overview of how the U.S. political life safely ported at its shores for over two hundred years became unmoored and started drifting ending with the mutiny of January 6, 2021, may help us find how the United States of America became Untied (no typo) States of America. Does the attempt to stop the certification by Congress of the results of the Presidential election of 2020 by a mob that got its marching orders from the outgoing President is an assertion of nationalist populism in the country? Is that event the precursor of such show of force in future elections or other occasions? Will this movement be viewed as one of the vagaries of democracy, and will we wait for democracy to correct itself while it festers in the name of freedom? Is this a leftist or rightist populism? And finally, can the U.S. democracy reinvent itself? Sadly, the short answer to the last question is, No. The answer to the last but one question is clearly, a rightist nationalist populism. The realistic answer to the other questions would be, ‘most probably’,[7] though we need to take the pulse of the nation to determine to what degree we are caught in the storm of a populist movement.
1. Socio-economic divide
The worldwide fast growth of the information technologies in
the last few decades benefitted the industry much much more than they did the consumers,[8]
deepening the economic divide. The mass migration from the third world to affluent
countries exacerbated both the economic and social divide worldwide. These
events occurring also in the U.S. around the same period as a non-white President
was elected to office for the first time in history aggravated exceptionalist,
xenophobic, racist, radical feelings among the nationalist/white supremacist citizens.
Economic and social inequalities persist in all societies.
It is incumbent on the people to understand it as a fact and guide and entrust
their government to reduce the divide to the extent possible. The economic
inequality is alleviated with some social assistance policies, but there is in
the U.S. an unfounded (not real or reasoned) aversion to call social economics what
it is, by its name, both in the political establishment and among the people,
although there is a welfare state practice in the U.S. “Americans do not want
the federal authority to interfere with their local preferences. But when
locals are hit by nation-wide economic, climactic, social, racial, or pandemic
difficulties they assistance from the central administration. Yet, “they do not
call it socialism when Social Security, Food Stamps, Public Housings,
Unemployment Benefit programs are introduced, or businesses are bailed
out during economic upheavals. They even welcome the paltry no-questions-
asked hand out during the current pandemic; there are even reports that some
furloughed people had more income than when they were employed. But they
fiercely attack an idea of national health care or national education system as
being socialist or communist idea. … We are groundlessly afraid of entrusting
the federal government with administering some specific public (social)
services.”[9]
Many successful democratic states in the Western world follow social economic
policies.
As to the cultural misgivings of the nationalists, the education policies in the U.S. are not conducive to overcoming any social divide, which sometimes reaches the level of hatred of some cultures. The U.S. education problem is discussed in the following section.
2. The peculiar nature of education
There has been an epistemic crisis in the U.S. which started
after WWII in 1960s. A diminished interest in reading in an environment of
overwhelming distraction by quantitatively increasing but qualitatively
deteriorating information in visual media. Concomitantly, decades long
education policy oriented toward individualism and winning at the expense of
knowledge in humanities and humanist values produced egocentric/materialistic
generations irresponsible towards the society, disdainful of civic obligations,
and disrespectful of national unity and solidarity.[10]
“[G]enerations since 1960s, three generations to be exact,
were taught and raised to be individualists, exceptionalists, fearless
(translation: using force for what we want), and egocentrics. The entire
education system, including the home-grooming of kids (raising them with
the traditional “teaching by example” method), shifted from human values to
dog-eat-dog style winning for success values. As a result, we raised
egocentric, narcissist, hedonist, supremacist masses. …. One glaring
characteristic of our society is that the basic education lacks a solid
structure in humanities, social sciences, civic matters, and world knowledge.
Hence the entry of people of antisocial inclinations into public service or
politics becomes common place. We then become vulnerable to the fallacies of
democracy.”[11]
“The public is currently divided in an epistemic sense to a degree of almost in two equal numbers. It is an insurmountable obstacle to persuade almost half of adults who are the “believer” type. This widespread public attitude may be the consequence of the quality of the basic and general education. A style that nurtures exceptionalism, greatness, superiority, exclusiveness, arrogance, and misconstrued concept of freedom creates a personality that is averse to performing any critical self-analysis, because it is satisfied with itself and afraid of losing that identity. A society boasts being the greatest, because it shuns its weaknesses. It is natural, of course, that if invincibility blinds you, you cannot see the need for change. This is the part of the population that takes the Constitution as a petrified Bible. An entrenched division in the society could diminish trust in government and cause unrest, which in turn would lay the ground for autocracy; autocrats do not descend from heaven or come by their sole power.”[12]
The epistemically invincible half of the population also constitutes a potential fertile ground or a spring board for autocratic foreign regimes to advance their policy that democracy does not work. They exploit that section of the population's grievances against the so-called elites, the establishment, their readiness to believe in "alternative truths", in conspiracy theories. They even aspire to wide-open insidiously a cracked door for an autocratic regime.
3. Lowly politics
Divisions and divisiveness in the U.S. have their roots in the 1950s. It steadily grew and became systemic. The post-war feel-good atmosphere of victory and peace and ensuing economic growth strengthened unity in the country in 1950s. But, sadly, the first seeds of distrust -in modern times- between sections of the public and between the public and the government in the U.S. were sawn also in that period. For the purpose of intimidation or victimization the fashionable bogeyman of the time was communism. Senator McCarthy used that bogeyman indiscriminately against some politicians and celebrities (which even led to some suicides). Although Senate ultimately censured him, the seeds of fear, xenophobia, suspicion, disunity and distrust in each other and in the government were already sown in the psyche of the public. A simplistic (unreasoned, without giving to each concept its distinguishing meaning) and misleading (presumably deliberately) practice got established in political and public discourse equating concepts like unbelief, communism, liberalism, socialism, immorality, evil, threat to America, un-Americanism, and enemy. 1960s were filled with shock waves of rights’ racist movements, high profile assassinations, and the Cold War and Viet Nam war. These controversial events created the first cracks in social unity. In the 1970s the trauma of the defeat in Viet Nam and the turmoil caused by Nixon’s political crime deepened the cracks in the U.S. society. 1980s were ripe for the introduction of lowly politics through those cracks, in the shadow of Iran hostage and Iran-contra affairs. In the 1990s, although Cold War ended, it was replaced by international Radical Islamist terrorism. The venomous political partisanship over terrorism scares led by N. Gingrich, the then Republican Speaker of the House, became the norm. 2000s witnessed more reasons for national political exploitation, namely launching of the controversial war against terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, the start of worldwide migration, and the deepening in the economic divide were more fodder for uncivil political discourse. 2010s were the continuation of the same, but the election of the first black President to two terms was the straw that broke the back of the populist camel, the so-called nationalist, patriotic, racist faction. Consequently, in 2016 the nationalist populism succeeded in gaining control of the government.[13] A very unlikely, unqualified, New York real estate hustler was elected President. The populist faction became so emboldened by this success that when he was impeached and ousted by a fair democratic election in 2020, after a chaotic and destructive four years of administration, they perpetrated an insurrection against the certification of election results by Congress, reminiscing the Bastille raid. This shocking coup attempt and attack on democracy brought the survival of the U.S. democracy into question and to the current public debate about the future of the U.S. democracy, which will have also worldwide repercussions.
The thin veil protecting the civility of democratic
discourse having been violated in 1980s as described above, the lower the
political discourse sank the more disunity and distrust among the public and
towards the government flourished. The low level of politicking became the
method of the opposition party to conspire and rouse sorts of imaginary fears among
the gullible people. In other words, the U.S. democracy is no longer whereby
people’s interest is reflected in political parties; conversely an established
political party exploits the dissatisfied section of the society and deepens their
dissatisfaction with dis- and misinformation.
This movement will only grow and harden further whether
suppressed or accepted as an expression of democracy. We can glean from
numerous reports that already almost 30% of the population is
irrational, and staunch nationalists. However, the hardening of this faction
must be assessed also with the reality that a great majority of its members are
armed with the spiritual power of religion or with the fire power of arms or
with both. “It is reported that there are 1400 hate groups, of which about 600
are Nationalist Supremacist, about 600 anti-government, and about 100 religionists.”[14]
This populist (nationalist-religious) movement portends a scenario of ochlocracy (or mobocracy) replacing democracy in an ugly violent manner.
4. The oddities in the national election system and the government
The preceding list of problems of democracy do not
necessarily come with the democracy package; they are really the exploitations
of democracy’s freedoms and of unavoidable social and economic downturns. There
are, also in the U.S. Constitution, elements enabling the exploitative practices.
A legal enabler of disunity within the U.S. is the electoral system. The
complication caused by the antiquated but jealously defended sovereignty of
individual states against the federal government authority enshrined in the
Constitution is no less responsible for the vulnerability of the American
democracy than the socio-political facts discussed above.
The authority to determine the election date is reserved to
Congress. Determining all the rest of election procedure, the voting hours,
places, and manner are within States’ authority (Constitution Articles I.4.1),
because the Constitution is silent about the time, place, and manner in which
votes will be cast, counted, and certified. Pursuant to Article X of Bill of
Rights “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively”.
Apportionment of electoral districts are also determined by States. The
election of the President and Vice-president is done by electors “appointed” by
each State legislature and equal in number to the total number of
Representatives and Senators the State is entitled in Congress (Constitution
Article II.2 as amended by Article XII of the Bill of Rights). Time and place
of such voting not having been mentioned in the Constitution, they may be
determined also by the respective States. Therefore, in effect, the entire
process of election is within the authority of States, except for the
determination of the date of general elections. While reserving authority to
States may be appropriate for the election of Senators who represent their
States, the election of House Representatives, President and Vice-president
also by States is utterly inappropriate because the latter three are elected to
represent the nation as a whole (there is no Constitutional clarity on the latter point, or are they to represent both the States and the
nation!). Enabling states to organize elections for national officials makes the election of the last three susceptible to the
partisanship of State legislatures. And makes this practice questionable whether
these elections really and properly represent “the will of the people”.
This major legal oddity arose from the distrust of States that
had obtained independence from a tyrannical colonial power. A reading of the
preambular paragraph of the Constitution suffices to remind us of the origin of
the Constitution. Priority was given to States’ sovereignty over national
unity. The main concern and motivation were “protecting and preserving the
Constitution”, for “union, justice, and tranquility” against an autocratic tyrannical
government from which the liberation was achieved. Such protection was not
against the newly established democratic government which became subject to
checks and balances.
Furthermore, when States are identified as Blue and Red
States a political ideological divide among the populace is added to the
economic and cultural divide. The U.S. may become another example of loose
federation of states, instead of "united states".
Transition to an autocratic practice in the U.S. may be facilitated
because of the undue special status given to the President. For example, the
“appointments” to one of the branches of the government, justices to the
Supreme Court, is done by the President, although the three branches are to be
independent of each other (separation of powers) for an effective checks and
balances. The privilege bestowed on him to grant pardons to convicted
individuals is reminiscent of old-time cruel kings’ practice to whitewash their
bad reputations. Also, the impeachment or in any way the conviction of the
President is viewed by the public as a disgrace, thus an insult to national
dignity. This and all the accolades given to Presidency in the media, even by
officials, as “the most powerful man in the U.S.” or even “in the world” are all
contrary to democratic principles of peoplepower, separation of power between
government branches, accountability of government officials, and of “no one is
above the law” concept. Such empowerment and elevated view of the presidency
carries with it the danger of encouraging a President with dictatorial
tendencies to manipulate the system into autocracy.
As to the status of the Judicial branch, the Court does not enjoy independence from partisanship either. Justices are “appointed” by the President like any other Executive branch officials -may it be with the proviso that the Senate consent is required and that the appointments are for life. This system subjugates the justices to the Executive, and more importantly politicizes the judicial branch which is the only institute that is supposed to be apolitical, to be “supreme”! arbiter in legislative disagreements. The appointment of justices for life also increases the possibility of social divisions between generations because their service on the bench lasts over several generations whose values change from one to the next. Especially if the majority of justices consider their function to be only or basically to defend and perpetuate the original values of the society. Court’s decisions in recent decades suggest that the Court believes its function to be just that. This practice runs against the principle that values change as the society evolves. To conform to the needs of the changed society, either laws must be changed, or they must be interpreted appropriately. The unwillingness of the Court to assume the latter skill constitutes another important source of social divisions, as we are in fact currently experiencing in several contentious social cases. The Court is enabled to fill the legislative vacuum created by a Congress unable to legislate. The Court becomes the rule maker; as such exposing it to public criticism thus erosion of its presumed “supreme” (above politics) stature.
Choices
Generally, an ideological group of 10% is a
minority for the record, 20% of such is to be reckoned with, 30% is a powerful minority,
40% is at the tipping point of balance to win an election (because about 20% do
not vote). The closer we move to slimmer margins in election results the
likelihood of the success of populism, with its potential for autocracy, becomes
stronger. Especially when the minority is recognized by the public and officialdom with nonchalance based on the overconfidence typical to the U.S. democracy. “Anytime a high-profile political incident
happens, like freedom of assembly in the context of excessive police force used
in a peaceful protest turned to riot, or freedom to bear arms in the context of
a wild man perpetrating mass killing, or like oddities in the election system
or in Presidential authority an intense public debate over the system ensues.
Not too long thereafter, a general agreement is reached that the incident in
question was due to the system built in the Constitution, and democracy is an
imperfect (maybe messy) ‘American experiment’. As such it is forgotten until
the next such occurrence, which ends with the same lackadaisical conclusion.”[15]
This forecast may be the most likely scenario should the attitude towards
populist movement is considered again an “experiment”.
The probability of averting the onslaught of the present populist
movement is rather slim in light of the facts that economic and social
difficulties cannot be resolved in the short term because they are parts of a global
system, thus economic and social divisions will last. Furthermore, the psyche, the
frame of mind, of the U.S. citizens being as described above, the political and
the constitutional systems will remain as they are. In the meantime, “There
should not be any doubt that the defeated former president and his followers of
the same ilk are not going anywhere but towards the next election; having been
emboldened with the discovery that they command up to forty percent of the
voters and one of the two political parties. It is obvious that our democracy, hence democracy in the world, is
in clear and present danger, because should they come back to power, we cannot
expect anything other than the more of the same calamitous administration on
steroids.”[16]
On the other hand, there is the probability of the progressive group of people and politicians, and the current government to take the necessary measures.[17] The best medium for this probability to materialize is the Congress’ progressive flank.
Some possible actions may be as follows:
1. The
adoption of socio-economic policies that would deflect division in the society:
policies to protect the economic interests of workers and consumers at least as
much as the protection granted to businesses, and policies to promote cultural knowledge
and strict and unforgiving measures against extremisms. Economic and social
inequalities are omni-present (globally affected), other than caused by the
government’s mismanagement. The government’s job is to absorb as best as it can the
effects of global economic and/or social fluctuations. Economic equality may be
improved from the political point of view by looking at the economy not only
through the lens of capital but with a stereo lens of capital and social interests, not only the national wealth in view, but also individuals’ quality
of life commensurate with the national wealth. Economic
opportunity as well as quality education (up to and possibly including college),
good health services, public safety, availability of dwelling and
infra-structure are among some of the important fields. To have an educated and
healthy labor force is also of paramount importance for the capital’s
sustainability.[18] Social services and
assistance should not be considered socialism. Currently, many advanced democratic
countries increasingly provide social services to achieve a strong economy with economic equality. Therefore, the best choice is to embrace a
capitalist policy which includes the economic well-being of the people. A
three-prong participation in a hybrid policy by the government (through taxes),
by the business sector (at a price)[19],
and by individuals (through a combination of required or volunteer service)
would help bring the society together in unity by reviving whatever remnants of
social instincts that may still reside in us.
A just and balanced immigration legislation with cultural consequences in mind, beyond solely economic, race, nationality, or demographic considerations will also help narrow cultural as well as economic divide.
2. The
adoption of a public education policy that includes social sciences like
political science, sociology, philosophy including ethics; likewise, the
adoption of regulations instituting responsibility for the truthfulness of
information made available to public. Public education must be considered no
different than medical health and public safety, or human rights and freedoms. For
knowledge is at the root of all things considered individual, public, or
national interests. Education being of national importance, it must be dealt with
nationally. Nationwide education policy will be the main contributor to national
unity. What is needed therefore is schooling, up to the completion of the high
school, to be mandatory and free (where necessary with federal or state subsidies).
Most importantly, Dewey’s philosophy of education that dominated the education system far too long will have to be reviewed to take into account the experience we had with it and the social changes occurred since. The curriculum that minimized the importance of humanities (liberal education as it is commonly called) must reinstate humanist subjects. Humanities education includes political history and cultures of the world, international relations, literature, language and civic (citizenship) studies of own country, philosophy, and sociology. There is an excellent article by Harold Entwistle (1997) on the importance of liberal education for the democratic citizenship.[20] Enlightened reasoning acquired from humanities education will help people participate also in the furtherance of global peace and prosperity, thus reducing divisions beyond national borders as well. “Directing the way of thinking towards the support of humanity will certainly prevail.”, and “Working for the prosperity of other nations is working indirectly for the prosperity of your own nation. … Humanity is one, nations are its members.”[21] Simply put, the "critical thinking" education is not enough, as history has proven it; the "rational thinking" education is also necessary.
3. The adoption of legislation and ethical standards for civility in political discourse including disallowing dissemination of false information by politicians as well as by officials. Currently, politics dominates over laws, rights, justice, peace, science, reason, etc. It should be the reverse; politics, like everything else in democracy, is for the people, of the people and by the people. It cannot be let work against democracy, against people. Politics is currently the only area (other than the judicial) without any rules and standards. Politicians are to provide service to the public, to respect thus protect public interest no less than public servants, media and even businesses are expected to do. Therefore, dissemination of mis- or disinformation by politicians must be disallowed. If defamation or threat are illegal, if marketing of harmful drugs and food products are controlled, why not controlling potential harm caused by false information. The truthfulness of public statements must be secured by law. Intentionally feeding false information to the public must be considered upsetting the public order and peace. Intentional dissemination of such information must carry with it legal responsibility. After all, freedom of speech must be for expressing opinion, not for spreading untruth. Since freedoms are for our happiness and benefits, they must be exercised for our good, not for causing us harm.
Most importantly, the influence of special interest groups in politics must be banned watertight, including business and ideological (like religious) groups. This means prohibition of financially or otherwise actively sponsoring the congressional election of individual candidates, and lobbying congresspeople (Parties maybe lobbied).
4. The
adoption of legislation regarding the elections for Congress, presidency, and
judiciary that will clearly distinguish and reflect state and national interests
and purposes. As to the archaic oddity of Electoral College, the
discrepancies in nationally held election procedures caused by the silence of
the Constitution about the time, place, and manner in which votes will be
counted and certified may be remedied by the caveat provided in the last words
of Article X of the Bill of Rights, without resort to Constitutional amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by this Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved … to the people.”. The
authority given to the people in this proviso at the end of the Constitutional
Article should mean powers not delegated to States by the Constitution nor
prohibited to States may be decided also nationally, namely by Congress.
As to the rhetoric elevating Presidency to a position of a dictator, it must stop.
On the status of Justices, the third branch of government, a Constitutional amendment is inevitable. The selection of Justices and appellate courts judges must be by national public election similar to the election of officials to two other branches of government. Their appointment must also have a term limit of say sixteen years (equivalent to two presidential terms of eight years, and to a generational period) and an age limit of, say, seventy-five years. The former term limit will allow a justice to serve at the most two consecutive two-term Presidents (most likely from opposing Parties), thus reducing the politicization of the Court. It will also help avoid the imposition of the way-past generations’ values onto new generations. Such measures will profoundly help reduce divisions in the society. “While the flaws of democracy specific to the US are imbedded in its Constitution, the Constitution itself provides that it is an amendable document and was amended substantially.”[22] fifteen times, to wit (without counting the Bill of Rights, which was in fact the first amendment to secure its ratification by States).
--------******--------
Simply stated, we are at the crossroads of either welcoming the
new Republicans or the new Democrats. Either way suggests we need to take a “new”
path.
The required actions are all fundamental changes that can be
taken by the representatives in government of bold, foreword thinking, well
informed, progressive people. The frame of mind of the present U.S. population
is not promising to produce such representation. Progressive actions can be
taken by progressive people, like the youth. Whereas, sadly, the U.S. population
is an aging lot (about 60% above age 30, and 20 % 16-30 years of age)[23],
only 17% (ages18-29) are young voters [24].
Education or re-education of several generations to constitute enlightened
majority is a long-term project besides being a monumental task. An urgent
solution lies in a good number of older citizens, the youth, and particularly
the democratic party joining hands for a resolute and diligent progressive
action.
June 2022
END NOTES
[1]
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 Fabio Wolkenstein Populism, liberal democracy and the ethics of
peoplehood, European Journal of Political Theory, November 20, 2016
For populism’s threat to
democracy which has to be countered see Stefan Rummens, Populism as a Threat
to Liberal Democracy, The Oxford Handbook of Populism Nov 2017, on line.
“Still today, man is not the sole owner of a complete,
absolute, and unconditional power over his own governance, after almost five
hundred years of accumulation of knowledge and trying to free himself from the
grip of extraneous powers. He surrenders his powers now to the majority, or
even to minorities because of flaws of election systems, and/or to influential
groups. In the absence of measures against the abuse of power by majorities and
interest groups, he loses trust in the rule of law, and in state. Instead, he
needs to admit that the ills of the system are due to the absence of adequate
civic education and its expansion to the entire population.” The Illusion of
Self-governance, sociopoliticalviews.blogspot.com.
[2] Puhle, Hans-Jürgen 2020: Populism
and Democracy in the 21st Century, SCRIPTS Working Paper No. 2, Berlin:
Cluster of Excellence 2055 “Contestations of the Liberal Script”.
See
also, Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 2019.
22:111–127 First published as a Review in Advance on November 28, 2018, online
at polisci.annualreviews.org.
[3]
Whether education affects political
participation is a long-standing and central question in political philosophy
and political science. See Education and Political Participation, C.
Willeck and T. Mendelberg, Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 25:89-110,
May 2022.
[4]
“[A] State which dwarfs its men, in order that they be more docile instruments
in its hands even for beneficial purposes-will find that with small men no
great things can really be accomplished.” John S. Mill, On Liberty,
Crofts & Co. 1947.
[5]
Robert Hutchins suggests, all voters cannot be
expected to be educationally equipped to be a ruler. R. Hutchins, The
Democratic Dilemma, Alunquist & Wicksell, 1952.
[6] For the importance of an educated, politically engaged citizenry for a civilized
nation, for rights and liberty, for a republican regime, for dealing with
inequalities, etc. see David Williams, Condorcet and Modernity,
Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Commonwealth of Virginia Constitution recognized the importance
of education in governance: “Government and progress rest on knowledge … by an
effective system of education.” Article I Section 15.
“Science and knowledge are the guides for the nation’s political
and social life” Metin Camcigil, “Atatürk’s Thought” A Political Theory of Progress
and Peace, Atatürk Society of America, 2020 p.49.
[7] “American democracy is in
crisis—and solutions are needed more than ever. Public trust in elected
officials and democratic institutions has plummeted; state legislatures are
restricting voting rights and access to the ballot box; and Americans across
the political spectrum are pessimistic about the future of the nation and
unsure of democracy’s persistence.” Brookings Institute web site on May 10,
2022 event re. “Overcoming Trumpery”.
About
1 in 5 Americans being “supportive of, authoritarianism” and the probability of
violence see William A. Galston and Elaine Kamarck ,
Is democracy failing and putting our economic system at risk? Brookings
Report, January 4, 2022. For a similar view see also Gabriel R. Sanchez,
The Brookings Institution Thirteenth annual Alfred Taubman Forum on Public
Policy Washington, D.C., May 17, 2022.
“The United States remains a Free
country that benefits from a strong rule-of-law tradition and robust civil
society, but it has left the higher echelons of the Free category and now ranks
alongside states with weaker democratic records, such as Romania, Croatia, and
Panama.” Highlights from the report’s analysis, Authoritarian Rule
Challenging Democracy as Dominant Global Model, Freedomhouse Press
Release, February 24, 2022
[8] These differences have long
existed, but they have widened significantly in recent decades, as the
economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton documented in their 2020 book Deaths
of Despair and the Future of Capitalism, NYT May1, 2022
[9]
Rudderless Flagship, Spociopoliticalviews.blogspot.com, August 2020
[10]
“It (The Second American Century) must begin with a recognition that American
concept and practice of freedom have been distorted. To the founders it was
self-evident that freedom required obligations; in the past half-century the
notion of a citizen’s obligation virtually disappeared from public discourse,
while ‘duty’ came to be almost a code word for fascism. About the only thing
that is talked about, demanded, praised is citizen’s rights (some of them
pretty exotic). The Second American Century must involve a new balance of
rights and obligations.” … “It has become a cliché that to restore our global
competitiveness, we need to reform our education system”. … “And we must stop
the practice of simply taking pupils who can’t or won’t learn and running them
through the system toward a meaningless diploma.” Henry Grunwald, The
American Century, Time, October 8, 1990, pp. 49, 50.
About the necessity of including knowledge of politics
of other countries in the national education of politics see Michael Oakeshott, Rationalism in Politics and Other
Essays, Liberty Fund 1991, p. 64
“The absence of a sound and basic humanities education
paves the way to irrational blind belief. This is a fertile ground for
retrogressive forces lingering in culture, like religion, to fill the void.
Because beliefs invested in the past (instead of the future) are more
attractive for people who have no expectation from an unknown future; also
because for an uncultivated or frustrated mind believing is easier than
questioning and reasoning”. Civilization Queried,
sociopoliticalviews.blogspot.com, February 2015.
[11]
The Chainging American
Social Character and Its Effect on Politics, sociopoliticalviews.blogspot.com, July 2020
[12]
The Dilemma of the American
Democracy, February 2022, sociopoliticalviews.blogspot.com
[13] “After about five decades of incubation period the
fearsome large minority ultimately came to the open and to power, as a reaction
to the election of a President of color at the 2008 election. The
self-aggrandizement, the exceptionalism syndrome, the superiority attitude
reached the highest possible levels. The succeeding unorthodox administration
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 remind us of
Mussolini, the utmost representative of fascism.” The Changing American
Social Character and Its Effect on Politics, July 2020,
sociopoliticalviews.blogspot.com
[14] The Changing American Social Character and Its Effect on Politics, July 2020, sociopoliticalviews.blogspot.com
[15]
A Messy Experiment:
American Practice of Democracy, sociopoliticalviews. blogspot.com, December 2020
[16]
The Changing American Social Character and Its Effects on Politics, sociopoliticalviews.blogspot.com,
July 2020
“The weakening of American democracy did not start with
President Trump’s direct pressure on democratic institutions and rights, and
his departure from the White House has not ended the crisis. Disturbing
problems that predated his administration—legislative dysfunction, partisan
gerrymandering, the excessive influence of special interests in politics,
ongoing racial discrimination, and the spread of polarization and
disinformation in the media environment—remain unaddressed.” Reversing the
Decline of Democracy in the US, S. Repucci, Freedomhouse Website
“The novel development is that a ruthless would-be
autocrat has marshalled these fascist forces and shaped them into a cult, with
him as its leader. We are now well into the repercussions of this latter
process – where fascist lies, for example, the “big
lie” that the 2020 election was stolen, have begun to restructure
institutions, notably electoral infrastructure and law. ‘…… Donald Trump has
shown others what is possible. But the fascist movement he now leads preceded
him, and will outlive him. As Toni Morrison warned, it feeds off ideologies
with deep roots in American history. It would be a grave error to think it
cannot ultimately win.” Jason Stanley, America Is Now in Fascism’s Legal
Phase, The Guardian, 22 Dec 2021
Generals Paul Eaton, Antonio Taguba and Steven Anderson
wrote in a Washington Post op-ed about their fear of another insurrection
succeeding in 2024. 3 retired generals: The military must prepare now for a
2024 insurrection, Washington Post, December 17, 2021
[17] "Whenever the people are
well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever
things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to
set them to rights." Thomas Jefferson to Richard
Price, January
8, 1789 Library
of Congress, Quotes
[18]
“Socialism
failed because of the increasing financial burden caused by uncontrolled
welfare services. Communism failed because the superiority of collectivism over
individualism killed individual motivation and created autocracy. Nationalism
failed because it degenerated into ethnicism. Secularism failed because of
neglect of its necessary component of education. Democracy is now failing
because groups more powerful in numbers or in wealth take advantage of
democracy to dominate the rest. Capitalism also has been on the path of
self-destruction, for some time.” Adulteration of Capitalism,
sociopoliticalviews.blogspot.com, Jan. 2009
[19] “Capitalism
is not only private ownership and entrepreneurship. It is an undertaking of a
business to deliver a service to the public in return for an income.” …. “The
economy in the plural sense means us, the people. It is not a certain
corporations’ or government`s exclusive domain. Therefore, any economic system
(ending with “ism”), like capitalism, must be first and foremost for the public
good, not for private benefit alone.” Adulteration of Capitalism,
sociopoliticalviews.blogspot.com, Jan. 2009
[20] Entwistle, H. (1997). Liberal Education: Elitist
and Irrelevant to Everyday Life? Paideusis, 11(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.7202/1073175ar
“Nations who insist on the
preservation of baseless and illogical traditions and beliefs can hardly
progress or cannot progress at all. … They are doomed to be dominated by
nations who widely respect the philosophy of life” M. Camcigil, “Atatürk’s Thought”, p.
49
“Education makes a nation
free, independent, respectable, and advanced.” Idem p. 51
“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 environment as a
whole. 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.[35] 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 in ourselves, and rethink the
education system. It is of the utmost importance and urgency that all education
without an all- encompassing worldview, or of exceptionalist, absolutist,
determinist thus divisive nature, like religious, racist, or nationalist
education, must be banned for good.[36] In addition, all
specialized (professional) education must be preceded with learning the
environmental consequences of our actions (humanist and rational thinking
ability).” Civilization Queried,
sociopoliticalviews.blogspot.com, February 2015
[21]
M. Camcigil, Atatürk’s
Thought, pp. 53 and 59
[22]
The Dilemma of the American Democracy, sociopoliticalviews.blogspot.com,
February 2022
[23]
From US Census Bureau statistics, April 1, 2020
[24] John Gramlich, Pew Research Center, October 26, 2020.
