It’S Too Late For Democracy In America

Posted on Tuesday, March 23 at 11:30 by harrisp
Technically, the United States is a federal republic. In principle, and in its posturing about itself, it is a democracy. The Oxford Dictionary of Current English says democracy is: “1. government by the whole population, usually through elected representatives; 2. classless and tolerant society”. In practice, neither of those definitions fits the United States. For Athens, where it all began, democracy meant rule by a mob of land-owning citizens. People gathered in the Agora and whoever yelled the loudest won. It didn’t catch on outside Athens and it was a long time before we got to the stage where dictators and hereditary monarchs were mostly displaced in favour of elected governments; but we did get there. It was a long time before we got past the requirement to own land as a prerequisite for suffrage; but in most countries we are there. It was a long time before we got to the point where we could let go of the democratic dream without even knowing we had done so; but we got there a long time ago. The United States represents the first and greatest attempt at creating a society where the people truly are supreme, where what is best for the greatest number is the order of the day, where the cream can rise to the top. When the US collapses, it is unlikely to go quietly and the reverberations around the globe as this leviathan enters its death throes may very well bring about the demise of all other democracies. For although there are other forms of democracy around the world, with varying degrees of success, this one was different. This one was being built from the ground up rather than evolving from something that went before. From out of the ragtag group of colonial terrorists who threw off the British yolk, arose some of the most intelligent men ever assembled in one place. From the outset, though, these great men signaled that they did not have the faith in the people that their words claimed. Before the Declaration was even signed, they deleted phrases that would have called for the abolishment of slavery and guaranteed the rights of all people. Before the Constitution was signed, they created the Electoral College to ensure that the people are not directly entrusted with the task of choosing the President. Even before it got out of the gate, this great experiment in freedom was being constrained. Still, the United States thrived, with a lot of start-up assistance from the French, and in short order became a major force in the world. It achieved its ‘manifest destiny’ to fill the continent from east to west (even if not from south to north) and opened its doors to the weary and downtrodden of the world, at least to the extent that it needed cheap labour. Today, it is the most powerful nation on earth in every sense of the word, except moral. The moral authority of the United States comes from the barrel of a gun. It is feared worldwide, even by its friends, and dismayed that others don’t unconditionally love it. Yet it is difficult for outsiders to credit that even Americans love it. Not that America is ever far from the minds of almost everyone, but in this presidential election year we are already getting inundated in Canada with the sights and sounds of America once again trying to pretend it is a thriving democracy. It is even overpowering the jockeying of our own federal politicians whose jobs may soon be on the line. The omnipresence of CNN is making sure most of the rest of the world gets its full daily measure of ‘we’re number one!’ and the unfortunate thing is that the world does need to care about what goes on in the United States because of the American proclivity for exporting suffering and despair. Most Americans seem to think that the United States has been a monumental success. Even those who are disaffected would hesitate to say the country is failing. But it surely is. Perhaps it needs the eyes of people outside its borders to see more clearly what it has become and that what it purported to be was rarely achieved. Americans have deluded themselves into a failure to see the disaster they have wrought and the nightmare that is to come. The most common refrain I hear from Americans I have met abroad or who have written to tell me of their experiences outside the United States is that they had no idea what a failure the US has become until they stepped outside their country and considered the other guy’s perspective. The United States is in decline, a society in an advanced state of decay. Its great experiment at participatory democracy no longer excites its people, who stay home on election days in vast numbers. Its love of freedom has been used over and again as the excuse for military engagement on the soil of many other countries and countless deaths among those foreign citizens. Its pursuit of personal freedom at all costs has resulted in a violent and morally bankrupt society. In its quest for power, it has blundered across the world like a colossus, always with the self-assurance of the Godly and with complete lack of concern for other people’s wishes and needs. America began with the genocide inflicted on native North Americans; it enslaved its own people and nearly tore itself apart in a cataclysmic war fought, in part, about that slavery. It has since spread its beneficence and its mayhem around the globe with casual disregard for all others. It remains a highly polarized society grouped together only by a collective fear of everyone else; within its own borders, groups of various sizes adhere only out of fear of other Americans. The United States has relentlessly chased after the ability to annihilate its enemies with firepower beyond belief and convinced itself that it is right and just to do so. As odd as it seems for so powerful a country, America has actually degenerated into a puppet state; a puppet for the few special interest and corporate groups who long ago usurped power from the masses. We know from the experience of the 2000 election that the will of the people is easily subverted although this is not the first time a President has come to office under such clouded circumstances. Read about the Electoral College, the courts, and the state of Florida in relation to the disputed election of the nineteenth American President, Rutherford B. Hayes: George Bush is just a copycat. We also know that the American government rarely works for a more perfect union, or to establish justice and insure domestic tranquility, or to promote the general welfare. Significant effort, however, goes into securing the blessings of liberty for those in high places. Elected officials have as their only goal success in the next election and for that, they need to toady up to the special interest and corporate groups who can fill their pockets. America’s Founding Fathers called their dream “the great experiment” and perhaps that is because they understood this was a gamble; it might be the last conceivable untried form of government. Perhaps they knew that the illusion of ‘people power’ was just that, an illusion. Perhaps they also knew that if the great experiment failed, there was nothing left to try; mankind would have proved once and for all that it was incapable of governing itself in a manner that is worthy of being called ‘civilized’. Well, the experiment is failing. So I come back to my opening question: what do we get next? ---- Paul Harris is self-employed as a consultant providing businesses with the tools and expertise to reintegrate their sick or injured employees into the workplace. Canadian businesses can reach him at paul@working-solutions. He has traveled extensively in what is usually known as "the Third World" and has an abiding interest in history, social justice, morality and, well, just about everything. Paul is also a freelance writer and can be reached at paul@escritoire.ca. He lives in Canada.

Contributed By


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:56 pm
    Very interesting. I agree, what do we do next? I'm not sure it isn't too late for real democracy, though. It will just have to take a form we have not yet foreseen.

  2. by avatar Jesse
    Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:43 pm
    It's not so much we haven't foreseen it, as no one has yet figured out how to get it in place. We're moving towards a true democracy, very slowly and with the help of technology. Getting people involved is the first tiny step.

    ---
    Jesse

  3. Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:57 pm
    I agree Jesse, and I believe Canada could lead the way, if we collectively try. We have the will and we have the moral high ground on social issues, democracy would work if the proper safeguards to prevent corruption were in place. If we could find the 'greed' gene and isolate it, that would be true genius and would really rid the world of all that is really evil. People have good intentions, it's just the temptation to be bigger and richer that always seems to get in the way. Perhaps we could study Mother Theresa, she was known worldwide, worked tirelessly for others and never was corrupted by the fame; perhaps she didn't have the gene?

  4. Tue Mar 23, 2004 9:07 pm
    this is a plan by the rich gobal elite, to create chaos, and out of chaos, a one world order government, to destroy half the world's population, to have a dicatorship....it is here in motion, whether you want to believe it or not....research....new world order, illuminati, some call it a satanic movement, i call it class warfare,....so what do you do, depends....you will be making some kind of desicion, especially when they come after you and your family....
    there are websites claiming that concentration camps are being built, here in canada and the US....sounds crazy, research....and foriegn troops are stationed here in north america,...why...because the ruling elite do not think our own troops will go aganist her own people....research....i know all this sounds like a movie, but with things going the way it is going ,this could be true after-all....research, before they cut the internet off.......

  5. by avatar Jesse
    Tue Mar 23, 2004 9:23 pm
    "They" can't cut the internet off. "They" designed it in such a way that it can't be destroyed, not even by nuclear war. Recent progress with wireless networks is only making it more useful and more populist; it is impossible to silence a distributed network of moving sources.

    The similarities between democracy of the people and an internet of the people are striking. We're moving away from centralised control of both.

    ---
    Jesse

  6. Tue Mar 23, 2004 9:44 pm
    Yes, i agree, this is class warfare.

    ---
    Dave Ruston

  7. Tue Mar 23, 2004 9:46 pm
    What about the potential of restricting access to the network by giving companies more control/ownership though? I'm thinking of cable companies esp. See <a href="http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/03/17/comcast/index_np.html">One cable company to rule them all</a> <P> I agree with Paul Harris in many respects but I think his conclusions might be too America-centric. I don't think if democracy fails in the US that means democracy itself has failed forever. US democracy is not the only kind nor even the best kind. But its failure might prove that having a two-party system and a first-past-the-post system rather than some form of proportional representation (like every other democracy in the world except Canada, the UK and the US) doesn't work. <p> Also, I want to note that I've been learning a lot about our new campaign finance rules in Canada and they are levelling the playing field--now, parties get money based on how many votes they get, and contributions from corporations and unions aren't allowed. It's forcing everyone to head to a more grassroots fundraising strategy. It's also basically a form of proportional representation. I think it should affect things alot, esp by the 2008 election.<p>---<br>Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.--Rimmer <br />

  8. by avatar Jesse
    Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:07 pm
    to exert control, a company needs to own the assets involved, such as wires and routers. With wireless, they would need to control the entirety of the radio spectrum. Currently the spectrum is only mostly regulated, and that is because of historical necessity. Modern technology allows thousands of users to share the small unlicensed bands without issue, because the devices are each smart enough not to clobber each other. There is no reason that the rest of the radio spectrum can't be opened up to the same sort of unregulated use, and the government regulate the endpoint devices instead.

    In a peer-to-peer world, there is no place for monopolies.

    ---
    Jesse

  9. Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:13 pm
    The Internet is still far too decentralized. Cable companies are what's called a 'Tier 2' provider. In other words, they are 2 levels abstracted from the main central core of the internet, the main data layer connecting the interent together. <a href='http://members.easynews.com/L4/opte/www.opte.org/maps/static/1069646562.LGL.2D.400x400.png'>Here </a> is a recent low res picture of how the Internet is put together. Asia Pacific connections are in Red, Europe/Middle East/Central Asia/Africa in Green, North America in Blue, Latin American and Caribbean in Yellow, Cyan and White are unknown.<p> Actual locations of the 'root' servers for the internet are unknown, and most are porported to be extremely hardened and secure facilities.<p> <p>---<br>"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain <br />
    "The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato

  10. Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:05 pm
    sure they can cut the internet off, all you do is diconnect the power..........

  11. Wed Mar 24, 2004 12:14 am
    *whoops* tripped over the cord . . . [no carrier]<p> <p>---<br>"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain <br />
    "The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato

  12. by avatar Jesse
    Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:40 am
    That's hard to do to a cell phone, or a laptop. Besides, such interference is impossible to target; on a dynamic network, if any one person still has a connection, everyone else can still use it. You would have to use blanket interference, which would definitely not be popular with anyone. (imagine the lost ad revenue!)

    ---
    Jesse

  13. Wed Mar 24, 2004 3:18 am
    An EMP or neutron bomb will finish off any and all electrical equipment. Both the Russian and the US arsenals are stocked with these fine weapons.

  14. by avatar Jesse
    Wed Mar 24, 2004 3:33 am
    My point is that you would need so many EMPs and/or nukes to take down the internet, it's no longer worthwhile. Such tactics would be 'scorched earth', and would be overkill of massive proportion if used merely to silence dissenting voices.

    ---
    Jesse



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news