There continues to be substantial fulmination over U. S. democracy although few seem ready to define what they mean. I thought it might be illuminating to take note of some policies that would be put in effect if the U. S. were indeed a democracy (defined as a majority of people supporting the policies):
- There would be a national health plan
- There would be national vaccine mandates covering federal contractors and companies with more than 100 employees
- U. S. troops would oppose the Russians if Russia were to invade Ukraine
- U. S. forces would defend Taiwan if it were attacked by the Chinese
- More robust enforcement of our southern border
- English would be the national language
- Interracial and same-sex marriage would remain legal
- Marijuana wo8uld be legalized (Ibid)
- Athletes would compete on teams that reflect their birth gender.
- The death penalty would remain legal
I would add that income and wealth inequality and climate change are not major priorities among a majority of Americans.
Note that these are not necessarily my views but they reflect the views of a majority of Americans. I would be happy to add to this list but please include empirical support for any proposed additions.
I do not believe that our present government is democratic and that most of those calling for greater democracy actually seek permanent single party rule. For my part I don’t think that greater democracy is possible without weakening the hold that the party leadership has on both political parties.
Update
- Immigrants brought here illegally as children would be granted legal status.
- Abortion would be legal under certain circumstances.
- Ownership of firearms by private individuals would remain legal but gun control would be stricter than at present.
Americans like a lot of things in theory. The devil, as always, is in the details.
For instance, a national health care plan does poll well when divorced from costs and tradeoffs. When actual plans are introduced, popularity plummets.
My recollection is that although health care systems like those of Swedes or Germans poll well, tax systems like those of Swedes or Germans poll a lot less well.
I couldn’t put my hands on empirical evidence for that quickly so I didn’t include it. But, again, what is meant by “democracy”?
Large majority favor legal status for immigrants brought here illegally as children. The majority of both parties. This has polled pretty consistently and usually higher than those who want to increase border security.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/17/americans-broadly-support-legal-status-for-immigrants-brought-to-the-u-s-illegally-as-children/
Otherwise agree with Andy. Also, we know that a small group that is strongly committed trumps a majority a lot of the time. The sugar lobby is a well known example but also a lot of gun issues. Note that even 70% of Republicans support background checks for private gun sales.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
Steve
I don’t know what people mean by “democracy.” The only clue I have is the context in which it’s used and my own subjective view of how consistently they use it. On that score, one thing I have noticed is that partisans tend to be very selective about it – favoring “democracy” for some things but not for others.
In general, my sense is that most of them are ends-justify-the-means thinkers and so they don’t care about process. But democracy is a process.
Two other examples are abortion and gun rights. Ideology often predetermines whether those subjects ought to be determined by democratic action or not as well as the extent.
There is also the level of government that democracy takes place. It seems some people like democratic action more or less at the federal level compared to lower levels.
In short, it’s complicated. I don’t think one can know about what people mean using “democracy” without asking a lot of pointed, and probably unwelcome, questions.
Democracy has become a synonym for “Government by the People”.
Understood to be good government, compassionate government.
Good luck.
I’ll have to repeat myself here. On this topic it is always Groundhog Day.
The Founding Fathers were opposed to any unfettered democracy, because they believed, rightly, the pure democracy and liberty were incompatible, that in a pure democracy the minority would be deprived of rights. Anyone who has experienced any sort of leftist “participatory democracy,” with its “struggle sessions,” knows they were correct.
So the original Constitution, as originally amended, contained several provisions to circumscribe and thwart the power of majorities, to wit:
the Electoral College (small States’ rights vs. big States);
the Senate (States’ rights, Senators represent State legislatures);
staggered Senate terms (no quick majority in Senate, evolution of power);
the Supreme Court (review of constitutionality of legislation, but only after Marshall’s usurpation of a power not granted);
the Bill of Rights (guarantee of minority and States’ rights, not originally in Constitution, insisted on by several States.).
Multicultural, multiethnic states are always eventually dictatorships of some sort. The only way to keep some semblance of “democracy” (read liberty) in a large diverse country is to install some system of minority rights that cannot be abrogated. Federal states with a large degree of subsidiarity provide some wriggle room for diversity, whereas unitary states (the European ideal, almost all parliamentary systems) impose conformity on minorities, usually via violence. Viz., the EU, UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand. Russians are actually more free, and have more say in their government than any of those countries.
All leftist governments are unitary, top-down authoritarian, and violent. That seems to be our future.
Now reconcile that with the ability of House Speakers and Senate Majority leaders to block any and all legislation and the abandoning of “regular order”.
I can’t.
The term itself has been hijacked.
As Bob said, Democracy is a step on the road to totalitarianism.
But what we have is not democracy, either.
We’re a Bureaucracy posing as a Democracy, well on the way to totalitarianism.
“All leftist governments are unitary, top-down authoritarian, and violent. That seems to be our future.”
Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, Germany (now), Japan, Australia, UK, etc.
Steve
I’m not sure I’d characterize Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, or Finland as “leftist governments”. Norway, Sweden, and Finland are all state capitalist systems with more extensive social safety nets than we have. Switzerland is a direct democracy. The social safety nets are paid for with much higher taxes on ordinary working people than we have. By most reckonings they’re farther to the right than we are.
One thing that all of the countries in your list has in common (other than a more extensive social safety net than we have) is that they’re much more homogeneous than the U. S. has ever been. I’m interested in hearing your plan for rendering the U. S. that homogeneous. The connection between homogeneity and extensive social safety nets is no accident—it’s a necessary part of the package. No multi-ethnic, multi-confessional states other than autocracies have ever put extensive social safety nets in place.
Dave Schuler: By most reckonings they’re farther to the right than we are.
Nordic societies have much more egalitarian political and economic systems than the U.S. That puts them to the political left of the U.S.
Dave Schuler: One thing that all of the countries in your list has in common (other than a more extensive social safety net than we have) is that they’re much more homogeneous than the U. S. has ever been.
Neither Germany or France are homogeneous. Historically, they are cultural amalgams, but still have strong social safety nets. Take France: France has melded the cultures of Greek, Celt, Latin, Frank, Burgundian, Norse, German, Basque, Catalan, Berber, Roma and Jew. In the time of Napoléon, dialects of the French language varied so widely that people from one end of the country had trouble understanding those on the other, while various other languages ancient to France; e.g. Norman, Catalan. Breton; are still spoken even today.
Yes, Germany is diverse. Why it has Bavarians, Swabians, Pfälzer, Saxons, etc.!
I agree that France is very diverse. It’s also not in steve’s list.
Dave Schuler: I agree that France is very diverse. It’s also not in steve’s list.
You had said, “The connection between homogeneity and extensive social safety nets is no accident—it’s a necessary part of the package. No multi-ethnic, multi-confessional states other than autocracies have ever put extensive social safety nets in place.”
France is a counterexample.
Look back at their homogeneity when those social safety nets were put in place. In France, to summarize greatly, the system was put in place in the aftermath of World War II. At that point France’s population was overwhelmingly français de souche. It didn’t have its present racial and cultural diversity.
Dave Schuler: It didn’t have its present racial and cultural diversity.
Français de souche was a motley group, even in 1945. There have been secessionist movements by many ethnicities within the French nation, including the Basques, Alsatians, and Catalans.