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