Democracy in the U.S.: Is it broken, or was it never working to begin with?
Popular in News & Politics
- What Exactly Does Nikki Haley Expect Her Voters to Do Now?
- The Real Story of the Glamorous Prosecutor Who Took on Police Violence—and Then Seemed to Implode
- Jamie Raskin Explains What America Could Do to Fix the Supreme Court
- Alito’s Second Flag Has an Even Scarier Story Than the First
For the first time in a very long time, a large number of Americans has started to debate—and worry about—whether American democracy is going to survive. But Americans, like most people, have their own specific idea of what democracy means, based in large part on our own distinct history. In his new book, Can Democracy Work? A Short History of a Radical Idea, From Ancient Athens to Our World, James Miller examines how people have thought about democracy over time and across the world. He views democracy as “inherently unstable” and the American faith in its success as somewhat ahistorical. But does this really mean, I wondered while reading the book, that the cure for an ailing democracy is not, in fact, more democracy?
AdvertisementI recently spoke by phone with Miller, who is also a professor of politics at the New School for Social Research. During the course of our conversation, which has been edited and condensed for clarity, we discussed how the Trump era is changing the American conception of democracy, what we can learn from the French Revolution, and why the internet is just like the printing press—and why that might not be good for democracy.
Isaac Chotiner: It seems to me that your question—can democracy work?—is really two separate questions. One is whether the will of the people expressed in some pure form will inevitably lead to dictatorial or bad outcomes. The second is whether democracy can ever be expressed—whether we can ever have a fair society, with everyone voting, etc., and with the will of the people actually being expressed.
James Miller:The reason I wrote my book is that it’s not entirely clear how we’ve gotten into a position where every regime around the world virtually claims to be some form of democracy, whereas for 2000 years, democracy was a reviled form of government. To even begin to answer your question, it’s necessary to ask what form of democracy we are actually talking about here. In the case of ancient Athens, one of the ways that Athenian democracy was rendered functional was the rise of orators that were popular with the demos, and literally they were demagogues. They could persuade the people and lead them. The quality of these orators varied. Pericles is often cited as a very noble and virtuous leader. There were other mendacious kinds of demagogues in ancient Athens.
Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementBut in Athens, the way “the people” was defined was so narrow and so exclusionary. You had to have both parents who had been born in the city itself. Out of a population of maybe 200,000, only 30,000 were citizens, but the citizens who were participants, they were men, not slaves and not aliens. Because they were a very tiny number, they were able to see themselves as a kind of chosen people. They were paid to participate in assemblies and on juries. I think it’s important to recognize that the world’s first democracy was exclusionary and nativist, and it worked for 200 years. It did not produce dictators. The reason that eventually Athens collapsed has to do with Macedonia and the empire of Alexander the Great.
Advertisement “There’s nothing that guarantees that democracy will produce liberty or liberal outcomes. Nothing.” — James Miller[Then] democracy really disappears for a long time as a word and as an ideal that can be spoken of without hedging your rhetoric. When it reappears, it’s during the French Revolution. In the French Revolution, you have a very complicated specific situation in which a team is in league in part with other monarchs in Europe and is tacitly trying to undermine a constitutional monarchy, which leads to the creation of a great deal of democratic mobilization in the city of Paris, which sets the stage for a constitutional convention, in which [you get] the world’s first, in my view, democratic constitution. Ancient Athens didn’t have constitutions. The constitution itself is never actually implemented because there’s a seizure of power by Robespierre and his friends, which leads to a Reign of Terror.
Advertisement AdvertisementThe standard trope that radical democracy leads to tyranny has its warrant in the actual events of the French Revolution. Lenin was obsessed with not suffering the same fate as Robespierre. The way to not suffer the same fate is to consolidate ironclad power and kill your enemies in ways that Robespierre did not do. There’s a tradition of that being the moral that you took from the French Revolution. The multitudinous forms of democracy on display in the modern world have their antecedents in this kind of key moment. They’re different responses to what you do about the obvious potential that in the right circumstances, democracy could produce a tyranny, because it did, and it has subsequently.
Advertisement AdvertisementRight, but this gets confusing because you could say that if a tyranny develops, then by definition that is ignoring or going against democracy rather than the expression of democracy getting out of hand, and that a real democracy can’t get out of hand because democracy is about these things that are the opposite of tyranny.
Here I lean on Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who understood the paradox this way. He thought the only legitimate government was one in which the people were sovereign. In my view, that is the modern definition of democracy. Here’s the paradox: How do you institutionalize that? How do you know they’re really sovereign and who gets to be “the people” in any given circumstance? A sovereign people, however they’re defined, could as a matter of choice create a government that is a government of natural aristocrats or an elite.
Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementIn other words, one could imagine a sovereign people endorsing a government of checks and balances like that in the United States. One could imagine that in certain circumstances a sovereign people might vest emergency powers in a small group. The original meaning of dictatorship in the ancient context was that. One can also imagine that a sovereign people might actually feel that the most efficient way to meet an emergency would be by vesting supreme power in one great leader. If the people are truly sovereign, they can decide any form of government they want. That’s the profound meaning of democracy. There’s nothing that guarantees that democracy will produce liberty or liberal outcomes. There is nothing that guarantees that a sovereign people would respect human rights as we call them today. Nothing.
AdvertisementIt seems to me that this goes against an underlying idea most Americans have. It’s true that the people could all vote for a fascist. It’s true that Vladimir Putin can have 80 percent approval ratings, even though we do not consider Vladimir Putin a democrat. But I think most Americans would say, “You know what? If you have a free press, if you have a civil society, if you have real access to the vote for everyone, including ethnic or religious minorities, it’s unlikely those things are going to happen.” This is maybe changing in the past couple years because we’re all shaken up by what’s going on, but I think Americans have a sense of, oh, if Russians actually had access to good sources of information and they understood what was going on and all these things, then someone like Putin would be less likely to rise. Don’t you think that’s an underlying optimism of liberal democracy, and do you think that’s changed?
Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementWell, first of all, I think that you very crisply summarized the beliefs that were instilled in me growing up and that most Americans believe, and they believe so profoundly that it’s very, very hard for Americans to understand that democracy has taken different forms.
There’s a tendency, which I certainly feel I was taught, to tie up democracy and truth and goodness in a very tidy package. John Dewey, as a democratic theorist, is guilty of this. It’s bred a certain complacency. I believed that we invented democracy, and we had the best democracy in the world. It was only when I became more directly involved in dissenting politics and became a historian and a theorist of democracy that I saw that that wasn’t the case.
AdvertisementI think that what’s happening now is that some of the [bad things], in terms of the evolution of modern putatively self-governing societies that were taken in Europe, including in the last 100 years, that were unthinkable in the United States for the reasons you’ve explained. It now seems like, Whoa, that might actually happen in the United States.
I’ve noticed this with things like freedom of speech. Twenty years ago when I was growing up, I can remember people saying things like, In the marketplace of ideas, you have good ideas and you have bad ideas, and you talk about them, and together you end up with the best democratic solution or the right idea.
Exactly.
Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementWhereas now, of course, everyone is terrified of bad ideas, whether it’s a fake news story going viral on Facebook or whatever. No one thinks, Oh, you throw all the good and the bad together, and democracy is coming out with the best possible solution.We’re all terrified.
AdvertisementRight. I also think that the whole idea of the marketplace of ideas, I just think there are a number of changes that have occurred in the last 20 years. One of them is the challenge posed by mass migration in various parts of the globe. Also, I think a factor is the appearance of the internet, in that it has been a disruptive technology that should be compared to the invention of the printing press. The printing press enabled the glories of humanism, but it also very quickly devolved into facilitating the Protestant Reformation, the pamphlets of Luther, and essentially produced 200 years of absolutely bloody religious warfare.
AdvertisementOK, so we’re both saying that we need to be real about what all this means, that democracy isn’t always peaches and cream or whatever the saying is. But you can also say, Hey, Trump won with a minority of the votes. He won because of the Electoral College. Part of the reason he’s winning is because money and bad information are distorting politics. You could still make the argument that in fact what we need is more democracy.
AdvertisementWhen I was younger, I thought the great panacea solution to sham democracy was more democracy. That conclusion is no longer clear to me. I think it’s much more complicated. It’s much more complicated because of institutional questions of scale involving political parties, nation states, transnational organizations, but also and at least as importantly, psychological problems of human beings and how much complex information they can digest in a way that facilitates them coming to some kind of reasonable political judgment.
AdvertisementI think that making [your] argument with some acknowledgement of what the true challenges are is helpful. In a way, the most important thing to do in the next [month] is kind of simple, which is: People who often are very cynical or dubious about the power of their vote and whether or not it matters have to be persuaded to come out and actually vote. One of the things that produced Trump’s victory was that kind of apathy. Even in the kind of democracy we have in the United States, which in many ways I think is very strictly limited and could be made much better and more efficient if there were reforms to getting money out of politics, if the Electoral College were abandoned and so on and so forth: Just vote to start with, because there is this power, which has evolved, and we have it in the United States. If you step back and look at world history, almost no country on the face of the earth since 1750 has the ability that we in America actually have.
Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementRight, although I guess you could spin the apathy around voting the other way and say this is actually the success of democracy, right? The reason some people are too lazy to vote is that they’re generally more or less happy with what’s going on, and that if you look at times where there’s an economic crisis like 2008, voter turnout goes up.
Well, that’s what I was taught by my political science professors. Apathy was a sign of a successful democracy. I never bought it, and I don’t buy it. I think that kind of argument in American political science is a byproduct of the fact that one of the peculiarities of the United States is we labor under a Constitution that was meant to be undemocratic and still is. People end up making excuses for some of the results of that.
AdvertisementHas your opinion of these subjects you’ve been writing about changed in the past couple of years?
Well, yes, I felt many of my hopes tempered. I feel sort of chastened. I think what’s happened with Brexit, with Trump, these are all things that happen in democratic societies. There’s a lot of turbulence. If you want a serene and stable form of government, I don’t think anybody should choose a democracy because it involves ordinary people getting involved and making political decisions in whatever specific form it takes in the modern world.
AdvertisementI suppose where I end up in the book is realizing that it’s something that Václav Havel said at the time when he was president. In a modern democratic society, one of the constant dangers is that people become demoralized by the challenges and the difficulties. Therefore, for anybody who still harbors hopes for the capacity of ordinary people to exercise more power and take more responsibility in public affairs, you at a certain point have to reassert as an article of faith that there is a kind of moral consonance that you have to act upon, that really there’s a great wellspring of decency and goodness in ordinary people. Really when the chips are down, you have to bring yourself back to that. I’m sorry that sounds a little corny, but that’s where I ended up.
Everything else you said is depressing, so you can end on corniness.
Thank you.
Tweet Share Share Comment(责任编辑:资讯)
- 广州市白云区供销联社携手6所院校15支队伍,加力提速推进“百千万工程”
- US remains concerned about potential N. Korean nuclear test: Kirby
- Bernie Sanders forgot to mention voting rights in his convention speech.
- More men taking parental leave than ever before
- 两个改造提升项目进入收尾阶段
- 20 Places to Eat Dumplings and Noodles for Lunar New Year
- PowerX's battery
- Entry ban, rigorous screening in place at airports
- [ANALYSIS] North Korea expected to launch another ICBM before Nov. 29
- Sinkhole swallows up car, injuring 2 in Seoul
- Conservatives did not like Hillary’s speech, did like her convention.
- North Korea's record single
- Hillary Clinton’s challenge to America.
-
驿站备有消暑物品供大家取用本报讯8月25日中午,烈日当头,热浪滚滚。环卫工人王芳走进雨城区青江街道汉碑路社区户外劳动服务站点汉驿站,从冰箱里拿出当天的午饭。“我一上午都在马路两侧来回保洁,中午到驿站休 ...[详细]
-
J.K. Rowling uses SpongeBob to sum up her feelings about Brexit
Wednesday, March 29, is a hugely significant day in Britain -- it's the day Prime Minister Theresa M ...[详细] -
The Liberty Bell is too small.
The Democratic National Convention is currently taking place in Philadelphia, aka the Cradle of Amer ...[详细] -
Hillary Clinton’s challenge to America.
PHILADELPHIA—On June 15, Politicoran a story about Hillary Clinton’s bureaucratic speechwriting proc ...[详细] -
Essential Apps to Install on your Windows PC or Mac
You just bought a new laptop, built a new desktop PC, or are simply clean installing on a new solid ...[详细] -
雨城区大兴新区大道是大兴片区重要的灾后重建交通基础设施工程,是改善大兴片区交通状况以及当地群众出行的民生工程。目前,全长1.9公里的新区大道道路建设基本完成;人行道、绿化、照明等配套设施建设正加紧进行 ...[详细]
-
跨越海峡 融聚民族丨精美畲族视频,约你相聚潮州凤凰山_南方+_南方plus(凤凰来仪,跨海相会!海峡两岸民族同胞欢聚凤凰山,时长共4分40秒)潮州凤凰山,千百年来静静地伫立,依着山和水,一代代畲族人在 ...[详细]
-
A TV screen shows a file image of North Korea's missile launch during a news program at the Seoul Ra ...[详细]
-
“精致小春姐”顾春芳:华丽白西装、镶钻水晶拖鞋,带来新兴凉果No.1
“精致小春姐”顾春芳:华丽白西装、镶钻水晶拖鞋,带来新兴凉果No.1_南方+_南方plus“欢迎收听广东‘讲错’电台编外节目之广东省第一届农事运动会乡村直播大赛......”来自云浮市新兴县的村播“精 ...[详细] -
屡获第一的药学优等生黄锦梅:最重要的是热爱_南方+_南方plus白蔹、香薷、青黛、石斛、紫菀、藁本......一个个拗口的名字,对应一种中药材。据了解,仅《中华人民共和国药典》2020年版)收载的中药 ...[详细]
- 多措并举优治理 绘就幸福新图景
- [Newsmaker] Government tries damage control following face mask shortage
- US ups ante, sends furlough notice to S. Korean workers
- S. Korea seizes more than 100 kilo of methamphetamine in 2019
- Spate of defections show Kim Jong
- N. Korea warns Japan of 'high price' for 'persecution' of pro
- [Graphic News] No. of traffic fatalities in Seoul drops 19%