Doubting democracy at the impasse
Politics has a bad reputation these days. Polls show that more people disapprove of how President Obama is governing than approve of it. Congressional approval ratings stand at an abysmally low 12 percent.
The reason? Our nation is sliding toward bankruptcy, but the political class cannot agree on how to apply the brakes. The Tea Party backlash of 2010 against the Democrats’ massive but arguably ineffective “stimulus” spending was a shot across the bow of our ship of state. The President’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (the Simpson-Bowles Commission) reported in December 2010, but the president withheld his support.
Earlier this year, unable to agree on deficit cutting measures as a condition for raising the national debt ceiling, Congress punted the decision down the road, entrusting it to a supercommittee of six Democrats and six Republicans. But this week, deadlocked over the choice between raising taxes and cutting spending, that committee failed to produce a plan.
As troubling as this impasse in the midst of crisis is, even more troubling is the growing impatience with not just politicians but with politics itself, i.e., with the mechanics of popular self-government. In September, North Carolina’s Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue suggested that we suspend the upcoming election cycle so that congressional leaders would be free simply to do what is right for the country without having to worry about political consequences:
“I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that. You want people who don’t worry about the next election.”
So it is the view of this state governor that in serious matters it is our system of democratic accountability that prevents our good-natured political leadership from promoting the common good. She is arguing in public(!) that the way to solve our present political difficulties is, essentially, to suspend the Constitution and grant emergency powers to Congress.
Perdue is not the first to say such things. Just 18 months ago, actor-director Woody Allen told a Spanish magazine that Barack Obama needs to be given dictatorial power for just a “few years” to set everything in proper order for moving forward again democratically. This view expresses impatience with the messiness of free government, which is in part the necessity of persuading your neighbors in sufficient numbers to put your views into law.
Well, Hollywood folks say the darnedest things. But immediately afterward, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, a three-time Pulitzer Prize winner, said the same thing on Meet the Press, and veteran journalist Andrea Mitchell of NBC News agreed with him.
Repeating what he wrote in his 2008 book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded, and lamenting the disappearance of the political middle, Friedman mused:

“I have fantasized—don’t get me wrong—but that what if we could just be China for a day? I mean, just, just, just one day. You know, I mean, where we could actually, you know, authorize the right solutions, and I do think there is a sense of that, on, on everything from the economy to environment.”
The Wall Street Journal’s Paul Gigot cried out, “We’d all be in jail if we were China for a second,” trying to wake Friedman and Mitchell from their nostalgie du fascisme.
When times of crisis and deep political division coincide, citizens in a democracy can become impatient with their neighbors and flirt with the authoritarian temptation. In 1944, Judge Learned Hand described the “spirit of liberty” as “the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.” That is the democratic republican spirit. It is humble regarding oneself and respectful of one’s neighbor. Living by the rule of law is one way we express that spirit.
The answer to political paralysis is not less politics, but more: political discussion, political involvement, and political accountability on Election Day.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top27 Comments to “Doubting democracy at the impasse”
I’ve gotta say, if I had to live two solid years of campaign rhetoric – party primaries plus general election – I would get awfully cynical about democracy too. There is nothing less inspiring than a politician looking for election. Nasty personal attacks, inflated promises, and corrupt politicians are all enough to make anyone think of absolute dictators with nostalgia. The only difference between modern politics and the feudal spats between medieval European monarchs is that in modern politics no one actually gets killed – usually.
Report comment to moderator
So the saying I heard is true, people gladly give away their freedom that their ancestors worked so hard for them to have.
But if these folks succeeded in stripping my freedom and not just their own, I will flee to my other country. But if they succeeded in taking away my freedom to migrate and live peacefully in another free nation, I will fight them to the death.
Report comment to moderator
Franklin said we had our freedom, now we have to hold on to it.
This is one of the saddest threads I’ve ever read. That any of the people (even crazy Woody Allen) even thought that a dictatorship would be a good thing indicates to me just how stupid and lazy this society has become. Brought to us by the Left mostly. I don’t know how these people lived through any part of the 20th century and could think that up.
Report comment to moderator
Did they miss Adolf Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Polpot, etc., etc.????
Report comment to moderator
For socialism is not merely the labor question, it is before all things the atheist question, the question of the form taken by atheism today, the question of the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to heaven from earth but to set up heaven on earth.
Dostoevsky, the Brothers Karazamov
Report comment to moderator
Last time I heard even CHINA is in trouble.
Is there ANYONE in gov’t with intelligence?
Report comment to moderator
Even if Obama were KING, he wouldn’t do the right thing.
People are not first to him.
OBAMA’s WAY, or NO WAY.
Obama doesn’t even agree with his own party members.
The only ones Obama agrees with are the ones who agree with him.
#1 Pelosi
#2 Reid
Report comment to moderator
I think this speaks to a subconscious recognition of the fact that the best form of government is ultimately a wise and benevolent dictatorship. Unfortunately, only one person is qualified to serve in that position and he hasn’t come back yet.
Report comment to moderator
“A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier … as long as I’m the dictator.” — George W. Bush
Sorry to burst your “only Democrats do this” bubble.
Report comment to moderator
CONAN,
Please explain this bubble you think exists.
Report comment to moderator
PHOS wrote (at #1) – “There is nothing less inspiring than a politician looking for election.”
I disagree! Actually, there is nothing less inspiring and more dangerous than a politician that does NOT want to bother with inconvenient notions about the consent of the governed.
Report comment to moderator
The quotes in INNES’ article reveal how little many America know about what it means to be an American. There are countless nations thourhgout history and around the world today with politicians and leaders who want or take power with precious little accountability. Centralized authority is old hat and unexception, and so is the repression and exploitation that always goes with it. It seems to me that too many of the secular elites in the media, academia, the Democrat Party and other celebrities want America to just be like all the other coutnries that have essentially ignored…
1. The consent of the governed (”we the people”).
2. A Constitution that limits government and separates powers.
3. The principle of E pluribus Unam.
4. Authentic principles of liberty.
5. Deep Christian roots and the need to seek & trust our Creator.
These are the things that together make America exceptional (and that horrify secular elites and most Democrats and some Republicans in power).
Report comment to moderator
These people (desiring more unlimited governmental power) are UTOPIANS. They never figured out what our Founders knew well, namely that immorality, incompetence and irresponsibility can be embraced by a politician and a government with or without charters, parchments, constitutions, elections and with or without a dictatorship (thus they wanted to limit government).
Listen to our Founders:
* “It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.” ~ President George Washington, Farewell Address, September, 1796.
* “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” ~ John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 – from an address to the military.
* “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?” ~ Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia.
Many other references also affirm that our Founders thought that national morality is the foundation of good government (not documents, politicians, constitutions or police powers–which have value but are not foundational). Here’s what George Washington thought was the foundation of national morality:
* “We cannot expect national morality to prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” ~ George Washington, Farewell Address.
Report comment to moderator
IOW, while a dictatorship is unacceptable and democracy is essential for our republic, nevertheless, unless and until authentic morality and virtue are widespread among the people, America cannot be great or exceptional (regardless of political ideology or structure).
Report comment to moderator
RWHawk: Please. Read the original post and every comment in this thread other than mine. All the examples cited of people expressing a desire for a benevolent dictatorship are liberals, deliberately creating the false impression that unchecked power is something liberals, and only liberals, want. All of the comments are letting that impression stand unchallenged.
I point out that the most recent person with any actual power to have expressed a wish to be a dictator was a Republican, and I’m met with silence and one challenge.
Report comment to moderator
I wouldn’t want a Bush dictatorship any more than I want an Obama dictatorship. That doesn’t change the undeniable fact that there are many Democrats who are openly talking about it in a serious and positive manner. They seem to be putting out feelers. But I wouldn’t expect Democrats to admit that.
Report comment to moderator
CONAN,
Could it be that you took Bush’s comment out of context? One was joking but on your side the talking is serious?
It’s only natural for Democrats, most of whom are fully Cultural Marxists, to want a dictatorship as the power of the state grows and the state is considered their god. Those that desire to return to a proper constitutional republic view a dictatorship with abhorrence and those that run the state with caution.
Report comment to moderator
RWHawk: Could it be that you took Bush’s comment out of context? One was joking but on your side the talking is serious?
Not unless you think Woody Allen has the political influence to make something happen.
Look at the actual content in the original post. Woody Allen might be serious, but he’s also completely irrelevant politically. Friedman is speculating and fantasizing, not making any real proposals.
Perdue is not talking about a dictatorship at all, and her inclusion in a post with “liberals want dictatorship” as a thesis is puzzling. Her proposal is to relieve everyone in Congress — Democrat and Republican alike — of the need to campaign for re-election for one cycle so they can focus more on the people’s business than their own political careers. No dictatorship there at all.
I’m pretty sure Bush was joking, but Innes here gives us not one single example of a Democrat with any real political power of saying anything more serious. He gives us:
A governor whose opinion is relevant but has nothing to do with Innes’ thesis;
An aging idiosyncratic filmmaker who has zero political influence;
and a newspaper columnist who is daydreaming, not making a serious proposal.
I’m not impressed.
Report comment to moderator
No elected Republican has ever seriously wished for a dictatorship, least of all, President Bush (and CONANTHELIBRARIAN knows it) but some eleced Democrats have not only wished it but have sought it for real.
Report comment to moderator
The alleged Bush quote at #9 is a total canard and CONANTHELIBRARIAN knows it. Is was not made with an ounce of seriousness (whereas the statements Democrat Gov. Bev Perdue and leftists New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman were all to serious, as I heard and read them. Who knows whether Woody Allen was serious and who cares. It’s the elected Democrats whose ideology and leftism disturbs me.
The policies and positions of the left prove that they actually do seek more gov’t power, from the top down, to pusue their utopian solitions. It is the left that advocates justices dictating the law on the rest of us through activist means.
Report comment to moderator
CONAN,
So going back to your #9 post, there really was no bubble that you burst. In addition, it appears that it is only those associated with the Democrats that are serious about circumventing our form of govt due to their worldview.
Report comment to moderator
So who associated with Democrats is serious about circumventing our form of government, RWHawk?
DC Innes gives us Woody Allen, who has no power to actually do anything. He MIGHT be serious about it, although from the brief news item Innes links to for support, it’s hard to be sure.
And as I showed in #18, Friedman isn’t serious, just daydreaming, and Gov. Perdue isn’t even talking about dictatorship at all.
Innes’ argument here is amazingly weak. And a simple Google search that both sides are quick to accuse the other side of wanting a dictatorship.
You know Godwin’s Law, which states that the longer an argument goes on on the Internet, the more likely it is that someone will draw a comparison to Hitler or Nazis? The “they want a dictatorship” argument appears to be a less specific version of that, and currently a popular meme in political arguments.
I think it’s just more the usual hot air, and World really ought to be embarrassed for publishing a blog that perpetuates it.
Report comment to moderator
I think it’s just more the usual hot air, …
I look at it as one more dot to connect that shows the degradation our country is experiencing due to a failed worldview that is gaining more prominence.
Report comment to moderator
#22 – “So who associated with Democrats is serious about circumventing our form of government?”
* Just about any activist Justice or judge nominated by Obama or other leftist governors.
* Leftist NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman.
* Democrat Governor Bev Perdue.
*** Obama is even worse. He is not content merely to circumvent our form of government to impose socialistic policies curbing our freedoms, but he planned to fundamentally change our government–a far more radical and despicable prospect for those who actually care about America.
Report comment to moderator
#22 – “So who associated with Democrats is serious about circumventing our form of government?”
Answer: Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat, Minnesota. Quote:
“We want to get some things done on this court.” Klobuchar, on MSNBC’s “Hardball”, May, 2010, giving voice to the liberal Democrat view of the activist role of the Supreme Court. She is a legislator who looks to the courts for “getting things done” politically (which is what she meant). She wants to change society, politics and culture through the courts.
This is a serious misunderstanding of the Supreme Court and of politics in America. It is one thing to say that politicians in congress should “get things done” but quite another to say this of the Court. However, liberal Democrats see the Supreme Court as their backup legislature, giving them all the laws Democrats can’t pass themselves in the people’s assembly.
Report comment to moderator
You didn’t read past the first sentence of my post, did you?
Report comment to moderator
CONAN,
I believe Joel and I both read your post. We just don’t agree with your take. You ask who wants to change the form of govt?
I had answered with the cultural Marxists who are all Democrats/Progressives. I’ll also include many RINOs. Joel capped this with Obama.
Recall the Dems campaign slogans CHANGE, YES WE CAN and FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICA?
As they grow the state’s power to CHANGE and TRANSFORM AMERICA they take away more individual liberty and freedoms. That is changing our form of government as the Constitution gets violated and thrown under the bus each time the state gains more power.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!