Strong Democracy in America: An Incompatibility of Cultures

(I wrote this for my Democratic Deliberations class, so it is very specific to the text we covered, but my argument for the American Republic should still be clear, and I think it's an important one.)

Benjamin Barber, in his Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age, describes “strong democracy” as a democratic system where the people truly hold the power, contrasted with “weak democracy,” as which he classifies modern Western democracies. Strong democracy, says Barber, is a system with participatory politics and the strongest value placed on political activity. He sees American “Pluralist Representative Democracy” as having a system of bargaining politics with the strongest value placed on liberty. This definition is spot on, and it is exactly why Barber’s “strong” democracy will never be synonymous with American democracy. Our societal and political cultures are simply incompatible with the ideas of strong democracy.

As a society, Americans are individualists. It has been that way since the framing of the Constitution, and it has never changed. We believe that, in general, acting for your own self interest will end up being in the interest of society as well. We are “I-thinkers.” Barber admits that strong democracy calls for “we-thinkers.” He prefaces this by saying that “We…remains an abstraction when individuals are represented…” Perhaps this is exactly why Americans are individualists. We are content with being represented. Pre-Revolution propaganda would have the average colonist believe that representation is exactly what should be sought from government, and this ideology has prevailed for over 200 years. But we are not only individualists in regards to our political system, we are individualists socially. We are motivated by what is good for “me,” not what is good for “we.” Advertisers know this; that is why nearly every commercial focuses on the benefit that you yourself will receive from a product. This is different than advertisements often found in other, more collectivist “we-thinking” cultures such as those found in East Asia. Every aspect of American life is affected by our individualism, which is seemingly incompatible with strong democracy. However, it is not only our culture that is incompatible with strong democracy, it is our idea of democracy itself.

As alluded to earlier, Americans seem to be perfectly content with our Republic and its fundamentals. At the heart of the American Republic is a fear of popular tyranny, majority rule, and compromise. Alexander Hamilton, in Washington’s farewell address, articulated his fear of factions, those groups that would rise up and attempt to take control of government for their own ends. One could argue that, in many ways, this is articulating a fear the Framers had of large-scale participation by the citizenry. If indeed the political mode of strong democracy is a participatory one, then it is completely incompatible with a fundamental idea of the American Republic. Although the argument can also be made that our political parties are indeed the type of factions Hamilton warned of, they are far from the ideological consensuses found in the political parties of other countries, meaning that there is still a strong competition of ideas within the major parties. Also, this country did not even provide for the direct election of Senators until 1913; there is obviously a fear of direct participation articulated by the Founders and rarely challenged in the more than 200 years since the framing. In regards to Barber’s idea of transforming conflict, a noble idea in theory to be sure, American politics is in many ways built on compromise. Without a firm belief in compromise, there would be no Constitution, and no United States.

In its current state, American democracy cannot be, and does not desire to be, a strong democracy. We are a proud Republic, and value our freedom, false as Barber claims it may be. Americans do not value participation above all else, we are not we-thinkers, and we do not seek to transform conflict. These core beliefs of strong democracy are simply incompatible with our culture, both social and political. Unless a massive paradigm shift occurs in the American mindset, America will never be Benjamin Barber’s strong democracy. So if, indeed, “the future of democracy lies with strong democracy,” I challenge that the future of democracy does not lie with America.

-jw

Talking to a Socialist

Note: This essay appears in the Jordan River Forum in the September 23 issue of the Indiana Daily Student in a slightly edited format.

I’m loving IU, but this place is a far cry from Nappanee, Indiana. We thought it was fairly radical when students at my high school were actually supporting Barack Obama, and even crazier when our Republican incumbent had a tight race on his hands to keep his seat in the House. The size of the comfortable ideological spectrum back home is about the size of my pinky.

So suffice it to say that IU is quite the change of pace. Don’t get me wrong, that’s a very good thing. In fact, it’s one of the reasons I chose IU. As a moderate, I used to get excited back home when someone tried to debate with me on the merits of the stimulus package or the war in Iraq, and it would usually turn out that we really didn’t disagree on too much in the end. That’s not the case here.

Talk all you want about the fairly small scope of political ideology in America, but it’s certainly bigger here than anywhere else I’ve been. I got into a discussion with a true socialist the other day. He probably knew more about the system than I know about capitalism and the American system, and he presented his points extremely well. I still cringe at the thought, but just the fact that the discussion took place was fairly incredible to me.

This is what I love about the university system. I could’ve gone to any number of small, liberal arts colleges where I’m sure my ideas would have been challenged, but I’m not so sure my perceptions would have been changed as they have been here. Even though my socialist friend couldn’t convince me he was right, he did convince me that he knew what he was talking about. That’s the beauty of this place; not only can you find a group of like-minded people to fit in with no matter what your interests are, but you can talk people on the complete opposite end as you, and learn so much more about the world in the process.

-jw

The Middle School Dance

Disclaimer (I’ve been using a lot of them recently): I never went to a middle school dance. We didn’t have them. I’m just borrowing the over-used analogy. Moving on:

Sports announcers love to call tournaments (specifically NCAA Basketball) “the big dance.” This strikes me as odd chiefly because dancing is seen as so feminine in American culture (although it is getting more masculine recognition with the advent of dance reality shows). But, with the death of Teddy Kennedy this past week, I decided that politics isn’t “the big dance,” it’s “the middle school dance.”
Teddy Kennedy, love him or hate him, was a master politician. One of the most liberal members of the Senate in its history, yet he had more friends on the other side of the aisle than nearly any other Democrat (unless you count Joe Lieberman or even Arlen Spekter).

Like girls and boys in middle school, Democrats and Republicans fancy themselves irreconcilably different. Why bother with them? They’re stupid and evil and don’t understand us and my mommy says to stay away from them. So, at middle school dances, most of them separate. Girls on one side, boys on the other. What ensues is generally a far cry from a dance, with the exception of the few brave souls. The few boys who think that one girl is pretty enough to risk all their little egos for will always walk away the stars of the show.

This is where the analogy ends, because in middle school that boy would be insanely happy and spend every possible second with said pretty girl who would become annoyed and realize that she really doesn’t like that boy then go home and write him a note saying that he’s a really nice guy but is weird and smells funny and she doesn’t like him anymore but still wants to be friends which will break the boy’s heart so bad he won’t talk to said pretty girl again until Senior year.

In politics, that little boy stays a hero. Because he risked his ego, something probably got accomplished (or was prevented from being accomplished) that all the little girls worship him. This was Teddy Kennedy. It’s John McCain and Joe Lieberman. It’s the men and women who decide that they can reconcile some differences; they can find a common ground where no one else can. They are the great politicians, because the gathered up enough strength to ask that girl to dance.

-jw

Entering the Health Care Debate: Video Blog

Memories: A Tribute to My Grandfather

Last week I visited my grandfather’s grave for the first time since he died three-and-a-half years ago. Most of my writing is fairly impersonal, but he meant enough to me that I feel I should try to put my feelings into writing. He was my father’s step-father, but he was most certainly my grandfather. He was a big, tall man, who would probably have been a rather imposing figure to those who didn’t know him. But he was a loving, kind man who I believe would do anything to protect the ones he loved. He was fiercely devoted to those things that he deemed deserving, namely his family, his country, and his golf game. He served in non-combat status during the Korean War because he couldn’t stand the idea of taking another’s life. I was always impressed by this fact, because, despite this belief, he felt obligated to serve his country regardless.

I always knew my grandfather as Lee, but that was his middle name. His full name was Robert E. Lee, and in many ways that I described earlier I think that he lived up to his namesake. I have always said and still maintain that the greatest tragedy of American history is that Robert E. Lee was born in Virginia. By all accounts he was an honorable, brilliant, and caring man, who fought for his state and its well-being over what he saw as a massively expanding federal government; he never fought for slavery, and institution which he detested. Despite your feelings on the subject, I think we all have to agree that Lee’s legacy is integral to our country’s history. He fought for what he believed in, and I believe that deserves respect and admiration. My grandfather’s legacy is no less important to my own life and history.

I never realized this until about a year after he died, but my grandfather deserves a great amount of credit for the passion and drive for live I now possess. When I was about twelve I came out to visit my grandparents over spring break. During one of our many discussions, what I wanted for myself in the future came up. At the time I think I wanted to be a lawyer. My grandfather wasn’t displeased by this, but he just threw in a quip that someone as talented as myself should find a way to serve his country. I took this to heart, even if I didn’t know it at the time. I became very interested in the military and politics. For a long while, I wanted to attend one of the military academies. Even though this didn’t work out, I do still hold political aspirations. If I’m ever elected, my grandfather will certainly be one of the first people I thank.

This world could use more people like my grandfather; I could certainly do to be more like him myself. Despite countless hardships in his personal life, including the early death of his first wife and problems with his children, I believe he died a happy man. For the last twenty years of his life he traveled the world and was happier than he ever had been. I guess the moral of this story, if this is indeed more than a tribute to a man I loved dearly, is twofold. First, never take your life and those around you for granted. Second, make the most out your time here on Earth; change a life!
-jw

Something Washington Needs to Realize

Politicians just don’t get it. I could be talking about any number of things, (rants for other times) but I’m talking specifically about their insistence on pushing forward without regard to consequences.

Take the Stimulus Plan: Several HUNDRED pages of spending, and I’m not sure if anyone in Congress actually read the whole thing! I hope I’m not alone in thinking that actually READING legislation is most of what legislating is about. I’m not saying that, as a whole, the Stimulus Plan was a bad one, but the fact remains that voting on something you haven’t read is just a bad idea. This country and its lawmaking process are not so simple.

And that’s my main point; our country is much more dificult to run than I think most politicians understand. Some do, to be sure, but they’re in the minority. Another example: we just raised minimum wage by (I believe) seventy cents. For a full-tme employee that’s another twenty-eight dollars a week. About the price of your average tank of gas. Great, right? I mean, we’re in a recession, so people need more money! I’m sure this is what Congress was thinking when they passed this…

But they’re dead wrong! People don’t have money because they either don’t have jobs or their hours have been cut. These have happened because businesses can no longer afford to pay them what they used to. Now we’re making businesses pay them more? Not such a good idea now, eh? I would get a raise out of this, but I won’t work as much. Businesses, especially chains that pay minimum wage to a majority of their employees, will work people who don’t get this required raise more because it’s easier for them to calculate labor cost that way. They will still, most likely, cut everyone’s hours, so the raise will end up being more of a wash.

I anticipate very few people actually making more money because of this, and I also expect businesses to hire less. That is not a winning combination. Did anyone in Congress think this through or ask these questions? Sure doesn’t seem like it.
-jw

Chaos Theory: Why the Quest for the “Conservative Obama” is Futile and Flat Wrong

I haven’t heard many analysts or strategists say it outright, but the rhetoric is clear: The GOP needs their own Obama. Wrong! Why? Chaos Theory. Sound like something out of science fiction, (admittedly, I learned about it by reading Micheal Crichton’s Jurassic Park) but it’s real.

On a side note, that’s why Crichton is one of my favorite authors. His masteful blend of science and thriller-fiction is incredible. His books are both page-turners and intellectually stimulating, and they just don’t get old.
Back to Chaos Theory. Chaos Theory says that complex, nonlinear systems can’t be projected aside from that they are unpedictable. Weather is a prime example. With more than 100 years of weather records and great technology, we still can’t accurately predict it too much more than a week out. Here’s why:

Throw a ball at a specific speed and angle, then repeat with a similar speed and angle, and that ball will wind up near the first. But take a weather system and start it with specific conditions, then take another and start it with very similar conditions, and they will almost always behave very differently. Sunshine and blue skies in the first could translate to tornadoes in the second. This is also sometimes called the Butterfly Effect, from the idea that a butterfly flapping its wings can casue a hurricane across the world.

Weather is unpredictable in nature. So are people, and, more specifically, public opinion. So, if the Republicans find a young, charismatic, black man preaching change over the last eight (or , less likely, 4) years, he probably won’t be nearly as successful as Obama. The conditions will undoubtedly be different, and it will not have the same ending. I’m basically just saying that things don’t happen twice in American politics; it is an unpredictable, nonlinear system.

I’m not saying that a young, charismatic, black reformist would be bad for the GOP (though Micheal Steele does about fit the bill and nobody likes him, so maybe it would?). The focus of the GOP on finding the “perfect candidate” needs to be elsewhere. They need to find someone who embodies the party’s ideals and presents them well. If they are going to win, that’s how they’ll do it. There really isn’t any other way. Obama’s campaign was brilliantyes, but I say that it will only work onc. It’s time for everyone to move on.

The GOP needs to now fcous on providing viable alternatives to Obama’s plans, not winning the White House in 2012. Do your jobs, Congress!
-jw