 |
| | | | | The Democratic Debate, Second Edition
Bruce Miroff, Raymond Seidelman, Todd Swanstrom
| | |
| | | | Chapter Overview
Chapter One: Introduction: The Democratic Debate
The theme of the book is that a democratic debate lies at the heart of American politics. Democracy means "rule by the people." Americans agree that democracy is the best form of government, but they disagree about what democracy means in practice.
One of the fundamental disagreements concerns who is best suited for democratic decision making: the masses or political elites. Elites are small groups of people who possess unusual amounts of power. Some people believe that in our democratic system, effective power rests in the hands of a group of highly educated and wealthy elites. In fact, many Americans would argue that the representation of citizens by an educated and wealthy few is in the best interests of the country because crucial decisions should be made by those who are most qualified to make them. For the most part, Americans support elitism not because they believe elites are superior to the common people, but because they believe elites possess the specialized knowledge and experience to make the best decisions in a complex and competitive world.
A strong popular democratic force also pulsates throughout American culture and politics. Most Americans agree that political power should stem from the people. They also agree on the basic principles of democratic government, including the importance of a written constitution and of basic rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Political equality is a strong value in American politics, and throughout the nation's history, movements have arisen to expand democratic citizenship.
Given these beliefs, the thesis of the book is that American politics is characterized by a fundamental conflict between elite democracy and popular democracy. Elite democracy is defined as a political system in which elites acquire the power to decide via a free and fair competition for the people's votes. Once elected, elites should be given a great deal of leeway to rule as they see fit. Popular democracy, with its roots in the direct, face-to-face democracy embodied by the Greek city-states, is defined as a political system in which the people are directly involved, as much as possible, in making the decisions that affect their lives. Popular democrats recognize that representatives are necessary, but believe that these elected officials should remain as close as possible to the people, accurately reflecting the people's beliefs and interests.
Popular democracy is not the same thing as majority rule. A central tenet of the book is that, ironically enough, the masses have often supported elite rule and undemocratic values. Popular democrats argue that democracy requires more than majority rule; it requires a basic level of toleration, respect for individual rights, and equality. People may not always choose wisely in a democracy, but in the long run, popular democrats believe, we are better off with rule by the people. At the heart of American politics, then, lies a tension, or conflict, between elite and popular democracy. But what differentiates this conflictual approach from other conflictual interpretations, such as Marxism, is that the fundamental tension is between two different forms of democracy. The United States does have a radical democratic tradition, but it is rooted in home-grown ideas rather than in socialist concepts imported from Europe.
Origins of the Democratic Debate: The Founding
The U.S. Constitution was born in conflict, not in consensus. Its ratification did not end debate but began a new debate about the meaning of democracy. The men who wrote the Constitution were practical politicians with immediate political objectives. The framers distrusted popular democracy, especially the power of the majority. The supporters of the Constitution, known as Federalists, were the founders of elite democracy. The Constitution they wrote was a mixed one, combining elements of both elitism and democracy.
The ratification of the Constitution was opposed by the Anti-federalists, who were the founders of popular democracy in the United States. The Anti-federalists thought the Constitution gave too much power to the central government and took too much power away from the states and localities. The Federalists and Anti-federalists disagreed about the most basic questions of human nature, society, and politics. To the Federalists, most Americans were driven by passion and self-interest. They believed that elite representatives, likely to be drawn from the wisest and most virtuous segment of society, would rise above selfish conflicts and pursue the common good. Anti-federalists had more faith in the common people. They believed that most people could be educated into civic virtue, that is, be taught to overcome their selfish inclinations and learning to pursue the common good. Instead of elites checking elites, Anti-federalists wanted ordinary citizens to check elites and hold them accountable. People should participate actively in the political process. Viewed from the standpoint of our contemporary understanding of democracy, neither the Federalists nor the Anti-federalists were true democrats. Nevertheless, they laid down the basic principles of the democratic debate that still animates political discourse today.
The Evolution of Popular Democracy: The Logic of Inclusion
If the founding document of elite democracy is the Constitution, the founding document of popular democracy is the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence put forth the radical idea that if government violates people's rights, the people have a right "to alter or to abolish it." The democratic faith of Americans has given popular democrats an ideological advantage and frequently placed elite democrats on the defensive. Two years after the Constitution was ratified, for example, the Bill of Rights was added at the insistence of popular democrats. Nearly all the amendments added to the Constitution since then have moved it in a popular democratic direction.
Although sometimes championed by politicians at the top of the political system, like Thomas Jefferson, more often the impulses of popular democracy have come from below. The 1890s, 1930s, and 1960s were periods when elite dominance gave way to mass participation and popular democratic upsurge. In mobilizing people for mass movements, popular democrats have appealed to the ideas of political equality and rights found in the Declaration of Independence. For example, Elizabeth Cady Stanton's Declaration of Sentiment invoked the founding principles to initiate the women's rights movement in 1848. Also, Martin Luther King, Jr., used the popular democratic language of rights to press the goals of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s.
The Evolution of Elite Democracy: The Logic of Expertise
Elitism is no longer defended on the grounds that elites are inherently superior to the masses. In contemporary society, elites profess democratic values but maintain that elite rule in many spheres is necessary given the nature of modern society. Elite democrats believe that in a rapidly changing, technologically complex, and dangerous world, more and more power must be ceded to elites on the basis of their knowledge, expertise, and experience in decision making. Democracy is viewed as a luxury that we cannot afford too much of.
The elite democratic position has evolved over the years, especially in response to changing economic times. As the country industrialized in the late nineteenth century and large, hierarchical corporations formed, elite democrats argued that the owners of capital should be given freedom to run the corporations as they saw fit. While elites argued that market competition held corporations accountable, a popular democratic movement challenged corporate elites for control of the economy. The Populist movement met its electoral defeat in 1896 as the Democratic candidate, William Jennings Bryan, lost to William McKinley, the corporately supported Republican.
In the political struggles produced by economic changes, elite democrats and popular democrats have reversed some of their original positions. At the founding, for instance, elite democrats favored a strong national government, whereas popular democrats wanted states and localities to retain more power. With the rise of powerful corporations and the generation of tremendous inequalities in the private economy, popular democrats reversed their position and favored expanded powers for the federal government. In the contemporary period, elites have appealed for states' rights or local control in order to protect elite privileges. But the need to expand the powers of the federal government has placed popular democrats on the horns of a dilemma: Although an expanded federal government is necessary to address inequalities and curb the powers of entrenched elites, the result is a government that is increasingly removed from popular democratic participation.
In foreign policy, elite democrats continue to favor concentrating decision making in the hands of the few in the executive branch, while popular democrats continue to be suspicious of centralized power. Popular support for the "national security state" demonstrates that elitism has not been supported only by elites; ironically, in the course of American history elitism often has had widespread popular backing.
Summing Up the Democratic Debate
The premise of the book is that the consensus view of American politics distorts reality. Americans disagree not just about specific policies but about the fundamental rules of the game. In particular, Americans disagree about the meaning of democracy and how far democratic decision making should be extended into society.
The essential points of elite democracy are:
1. Most people are uninterested in politics and uninformed about issues, with the exception of an educated, largely white male elite.
2. When masses do get involved in politics, they are often emotional and intolerant'thus producing a threat to democracy.
3. Democracy basically implies free and fair elections in which elites acquire the power to rule by means of a competition for the people's votes.
4. The main goal of democracy should be to protect the right of individuals to pursue their own interests.
5. Political representatives should filter the views of the people through their superior expertise, intelligence, and temperament.
6. Reforms in America almost always come about gradually, through the actions of elites.
Conversely, the views of popular democracy may be summed up as follows:
1. People are naturally inclined to participate in decisions that affect their lives. If they do not participate, something is wrong with the democratic system.
2. Through democratic participation, people are capable of overcoming their parochial interests and becoming public-spirited citizens.
3. Democracy means much more than fair elections; it implies the participation of ordinary citizens, as much as possible, in the decisions that affect their lives.
4. The main goal of democracy should be to strengthen community; inequalities that threaten to divide the community should be minimized.
5. Representatives should stay as close to their constituents' views as possible.
6. Meaningful reforms in American politics have almost always come about because of political pressure from below by ordinary citizens.
Interpreting Political Facts: The Problem of Participation
It is easy to become confused by the bewildering complexity of American politics. The ideas of elite and popular democracy can serve as an interpretive framework to help us make sense of American politics. For an example of how political facts do not simply speak for themselves, consider how elite democrats and popular democrats view the lack of participation in elections. For elite democrats, the fact that only about half the people participate in presidential elections is a sign of a healthy democracy. People are not naturally inclined to participate in politics. The fact that many people do not participate is a sign of satisfaction. Moreover, we are fortunate that those with less education and tolerance are less likely to vote. Popular democrats see low levels of political participation as a sign of a sick democracy. Popular democrats argue that many people are alienated from politics and thus view their own participation as meaningless. People see the power of money and their limited choices and conclude not only that they have little influence, but that it does not matter who wins. Those who fail to participate in politics are not satisfied they are discouraged.
Interpretations of the political "facts," like voting, are hotly contested, because they directly affect people's interests. For instance, if nonvoting is an expression of satisfaction, then the system is legitimate. If nonvoting is an expression of alienation, then the government loses legitimacy and political protests outside of normal channels are justified.
Conclusion: Joining the Democratic Debate
The authors end with a warning and an invitation. The warning is that while they will attempt to cover both sides of the debate between elite democrats and popular democrats, they are not neutral observers. They will make an effort to defend popular democracy. They feel this defense redresses an imbalance that is embedded in most treatments of American politics. The invitation is for the reader not to accept the book's bias but to join the democratic debate.
|
| | | |
| |
|
