Democracy is More Than a Word
I have remarked previously that my true desire for American politics is not simply to replace the ascendent conservative movement with a progressive one but to foster an environment of debate--in essence a democratic environment. In order to achieve this ideal extremism must be purged from the ranks of government and that means welcoming the return of moderate conservatives. To this end I am encouraged to see more voices of dissent from conservative quarters which acknowledge the cultural maelstrom being brewed by the conservative movement's rabid anti-intellectual xenophobia marching in lock-step with jingoistic and unquestioning nationalism. If education is the key to elevating the masses out of poverty into the middle class then the concept of critical thinking is the component of education necessary for democracy to function. In our present climate words like "critical thinking" are now synonymous with "treason," regardless if they originate on the Left or the Right.
Playing fast and loose with language obscures meaning which is why the conservative movement utilizes it. Words such as "freedoom" and "liberty" are casually thrown around without context; that they are used as synonyms for democracy but are not explained in any historical detail. The cultural mood seems to be if you say it, then it's true.
Do we live in a de facto or de jure democracy? We possess the necessary institutions but there is much more implicit in the ideal. An educated citizenry is one. A strong middle (bourgeois) class is another. freedom from want rounds it out. None of these things are found in our founding documents but anyone who has studied the evolution of democratic societies in history knows these things rendered those societies democratic.
Americans tend to believe, with some degree of justification, that theirs is the most superior form of government in the world. This self-righteousness can be benevolent but just as easily messianic. The cultural environment nurtured by the conservative movement has tended towards the latter, which accounts for our failed adventure in Iraq.*
The article that I referenced at the beginning of this post makes notable insights into the role fascism might play in future American politics. Perhaps this passage says it better than anything I've written here on the subject:
I don’t think there are yet real fascists in the administration, but there is certainly now a constituency for them —hungry to bomb foreigners and smash those Americans who might object. And when there are constituencies, leaders may not be far behind. They could be propelled into power by a populace ever more frustrated that the imperialist war it has supported—generally for the most banal of patriotic reasons—cannot possibly end in victory. And so scapegoats are sought, and if we can’t bomb Arabs into submission, or the French, domestic critics of Bush will serve.
*Iraq recently held democratic elections. But can Iraq, right now, be considered a democracy? It has the barest of institutions and it's civil society is in chaos, but if we look at other non-western democracies the issue is considerably complicated. India, for instance, is the world's largest democracy. Yet a staggering number of people live in unbelievable poverty. On the other hand, India has an enormous middle class, though it is not directly comparable to the US middle class, only relative to the rest of India's population. India clearly has social and civil problems but possesses the right elements to make it into a more robust and prosperous democracy. Iraq has considerably more work to do, which is why I do not, despite purple fingers, consider Iraq a democracy at this time.