The journey from there to here
Published on November 16, 2006 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

Democracy, like communism, like capitalism, and like many other theories that seem so sound, seem so solid, is a paper standard, and cannot exist in its purest form.

The theory of democracy is, of course, one man, one vote. The idea that you have the control over your political destiny. And it sounds good in theory, and in fact, may work in small groups where the goals are common and the group fairly cohesive. But it does not work well on a larger plane because of the reality of politics.

In many areas, it is not uncommon to find a majority or a minority view. The answer in a democracy is, of course, to follow the majority view. But in some cases, the majority view is not, in fact a democracy, and can lead to the tyranny of the majority as they use their collective will to wipe out the voices of dissent that they find among the minority. This is a lesson our country learned painfully as we struggled against Jim Crow in the south and against the silencing of women by denying them the vote. The minority does not get to express their view as the political pressure of the majority pushes them to an internal exile.

When one person is denied the vote, however, a democracy ceases to be a democracy.

As our country came of age, our leaders realized this, and, gradually, worked to fix the system. But in a twisted paradox worthy of the Joseph Heller novel whose name has become synonymous with such paradoxes, the very actions they took to preserve democracy in fact destroyed democracy. Because, you see, no longer was the majority view capable (in theory, at least) of silencing the voice of the minority. The minority, thus empowered, could then broadcast their views and gain popular support to obtain a majority.

The truth is, to even consider the success of a democratically based government, the government must in fact be founded upon the rights of the individual. Our founding fathers realized this, and gave us the Bill of Rights, a series of amendments that I personally consider to be some of the most inspired pieces of legislation. Those rights prevent (again, in theory, at least) the actions most common in destroying the voice of the minority from being used to preserve their political influence. No longer could you seize someone's  land and drive them out of the realm so that their unpopular views would no longer be a nuisance. No longer could you imprison someone for simply stating a political view that differed with your own. No longer could you quarter your soldiers in the neighborhoods of dissident factions and thus enact a de facto martial law. No longer could you use the persuasive power of the pulpit to demand that your political will was God's will and that noncompliance carried with it not the burden of civil or criminal penalties, but eternal damnation.

But the Bill of Rights made democracy itself impossible because they gave a disproportionate amount of power to the minority by limiting the power of the majority. By creating a Republic, the founding fathers basically ensured that the individual had more power than the group because they possessed a set of rights that effectively could trump certain democratic decisions.

Pure democracy in reality is the most vile form of tyranny that can be foisted on a community, as those who do not conform to the standards of society are left outcast, broken, and often homeless or penniless because of the power of the majority. But the fixes to check the tyrranical power of democracy are, themselves destructive.


Comments
on Nov 16, 2006
This is true.  Democracy in a perfect world is the worst form of government.  But in an imperfect world, such as ours, and in its imperfect form, it is the best we can hope for.
on Nov 16, 2006
But in an imperfect world, such as ours, and in its imperfect form, it is the best we can hope for.


Actually, I'm a growing fan of republic, not democracy.
on Nov 16, 2006
Actually, I'm a growing fan of republic, not democracy.


Well, we actually are a republic. But too often people use the words interchangeably.
on Nov 16, 2006
I think the problem inherent in the LIbertarian model is that it takes government imposition to enforce an absence of oppression. Like in your situation. We'd have to pass laws that enforce the rights you are talking about, and then have a government power to enforce them.

In the end you haven't changed rule by majority, you've just made it so that you have to have a HUGE majority in order to oppress. Like now. We need an insurmountable majority to change the constitution, but in the end, isn't that still majority rule? Do we really believe that having a huge majority ensures fairness?

"Republic" isn't really any more defined in these terms. If you start out with the drafting of a rule of law, and you don't build in a means for the people to amend it, you're basically being ruled by the original creators for eternity, and burderened by the limitation of their thinking. A good example is our own civil war, wherein a LOT of people died because of the limitations of the original document.

on Nov 16, 2006
Geniocracy may have it's advantages.
on Nov 16, 2006
"Geniocracy may have it's advantages."


LMAO... uh, yeah, the most brutal and genocidal maniacs in history weren't all that bright, were they? Serial killers are usually pretty dim, huh? Go back and look at the hateful and oppressive movements that "intelligent" people have rallied behind.
on Nov 21, 2006

One of the things I don't think our Founding Father foresaw was what we now call "political correctness".  That is, those who can't win their argument through logical means, turning to innane allegations and meaningless emotion.

In a day when all a person has to do is brand their opponent as a "bigot" "sexist" "homophobe" "racist" to get their way, analytical thinking has gone by the wayside.   Freedom requires intelligent people to be informed enough to know the difference between someone who happens to disagree with (say) "Civil Rights Leaders" and a racist... especially when many of the so-called fit the true definition of racist better than those falesly labelled.

on Nov 21, 2006
In a day when all a person has to do is brand their opponent as a "bigot" "sexist" "homophobe" "racist" to get their way, analytical thinking has gone by the wayside.


I don't think anything except the labels have changed. Back in those days they were 'effeminate' or 'weak woman', 'homosexual' and 'nigger-lover'.