So, I backtracked a couple of days over at Neptunus Lex to read all of the hubbub in the comments section of his post, “Why do they hate us?” It becomes plainly obvious, upon reading through the comments, that there are some rather smart cookies who frequent Lex’s site. Not the least of which is their host, of course. Two lines hidden within the debate intrigued me, however. First, a rather verbose lady by the name of Michelle, from the land of Labatts and Molson, makes the remark:
“If I hear one more time that America is “the greatest country on earth, the only true democracy …” depending on the source, I may just have to smash my computer monitor or something else.”
Now, Michelle was not America bashing at all, she was trying to help explain how the rest of the world perceives us. A worthy endeavour, and something that we should be trying to grasp, whether or not we deign to attempt to change it. (By the way, Lex has another excellent post on our Exceptionalism from today. While it is related to my topic, it really has no bearing on my point, so I’ll leave it at that.)
Another fellow, an unashamedly proud American (And why should he be ashamed? I am certainly not.) by the name of Lee, retorts:
“America IS the only true democracy imnsho…”
And herein lies the crux of the problem. Just what is a true democracy? Pure democracy, as defined in James Madison’s Federalist No. 10, certainly does not describe our political system. The terms “liberal democracy” and “representative democracy” seem to fit, but in my opinion it is more appropriate to label our system a “constitutional republic”. Regardless, the statement that we are a true democracy implies to me that we are a pure or direct democracy, which we most certainly are not.
Thoughts?
All these American hating countries are irrelevant. Canada? Ha Ha Ha. Our enemies, Russia, China, France, were paid off by Saddam to oppose the US liberation of Iraq at the UN? So what?
They hate us because we make them feel inferior and they are right to feel that way.
Michelle can’t stand the truth so she is going to smash her computer and then stay off the internet where she gets exposed to the truth. There is plenty of pap that she will love on TV.
The problem is that when you don’t accept reality you are not able to function effectively. This is why American hating countries will always be ineffective.
Some thoughts:
* Just because other countries have poor governments, it doesn’t mean they aren’t democracies. Rather, it means the voters are not wise.
* I don’t have any problem with the USA, and I perfectly understand why someone would have pride in their country, but I think it goes beyond pride and into hubris to claim that your country is somehow unique and better than all others. Sure, it’s great in many ways, but I wouldn’t claim my country were the best in the world – even though it is where I choose to live above all others. It’s great but not perfect, neither is the USA, or any other country. I think it’s possible to talk about how great your country is without sounding like you’re belittling all others.
* Democracy is, in and of itself, not that beneficial. The problem is mob rule. The US system, like the British system, attempts to solve this in various ways. Some are more successful than others. I think the US system would be great if the Supreme Court did their job a bit better. The most important thing is that if the government abuses the people, the people have the ability to remove the government. Otherwise you end up with a basket case. Any system which avoids that is a good system, I think. The rest of it is all up to the wisdom of the voters to achieve.
we’re better than the Aussies at bbq’ing.
How you like THEM apples, Nicky?
The first commenter is certainly guilty of hubris. “Irrelevant”? In this day and age, every country has some relevance to us. It’s unconscionably narrow-minded to think otherwise.
Nicholas, I think what I’m hitting at is that I don’t like defining the American system as democracy. It’s a constitutional republic. It is not a true democracy, and most certainly not the true democracy.
However, I do believe John has thrown down a gauntlet here.
John, I think the only way we’re going to sort this out is to have a BBQ-off. Either you’re going to have to come here, or I’m going to have to go there…
Maybe on my next business trip to the US I will have to head on over and we can settle this ;)
Two men shall grill.. one will prevail. But everyone will get a great meal!
Slab, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, Democracy is:
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
I’m pretty sure the USA fits the primary definition. It almost certainly does not fit number 4. However, relatively few democracies do, I believe. Israel may be one of the closest.
As for number 5, that seems highly subjective to me.
The American system certainly is different from ours. It is more of a two-party system by design (although, our system tends towards to major parties too). Also, we don’t have an executive branch as such. We both have problems with partisan divisions which I hope can be solved. I don’t fully understand why the split is so extreme. I have issues with how both sides of the political spectrum exercise their power, but then again, I think most people do. Why that doesn’t result in the rift closing I don’t fully understand.
Anyway, was it Winston Churchill who said (more or less) that Democracy is the worst form of government, excepting all the others?
The definition of democracy has been stretched to fit all democratic forms of government. Democracy is in fact a form of government so unworkable in the modern setting that it would be ridiculous to assert that any modern state is a functioning democracy. I think the most complete description of us would be a constitutional federal republic or a constitutional federal democratic republic maybe. The federalist element is key to what makes America tick. No state on our scale can maintain democratic governance without a great degree of federalism.
but I think it goes beyond pride and into hubris to claim that your country is somehow unique and better than all others.
But what if it /is/? I’m a structural/civil engineer. I do a pretty good job of it, all things considered. However, if the ghost of Gustave Eiffel walked up to me and said “I was better then you’ll ever be”, that’d be ok. Sure, he was French, but he still designed one of the most famous monuments in the world. It wouldn’t be hubris on his part, it’d be simple fact.
The most important thing is that if the government abuses the people, the people have the ability to remove the government.
Which is exactly one of the many reasons why we’re better then you. Most other western countries have almost completely taken this power away from the people. The people of the USA, for a while longer at least, still retain that ability.
Other countries are good, don’t get me wrong. It’s just that the United States, for a bit longer at least, remains /better/.
Nicholas, my point is that true democracy, to me, implies pure democracy, which would fit definition #4 from your source. The Founding Fathers of our country themselves took a dim view of pure democracy, as evidenced in Federalist No. 10.
Brett: Well, that’s open to debate. I would argue the American system of democracy has significant flaws, but is nonetheless quite good. Earmarks and pork are a big example of such flaws. As far as I can tell, there are other democratic systems which don’t suffer from that problem quite to the extent than the American system does.
I find it very unlikely that it would be possible to objectively call ANY system of democracy the “best”. There are always going to be trade-offs, and it depends on what you think is most important how you would rank them. For example, some people might think it’s more important for a system to be fair to the people, than for governance to be particularly efficient and effective. I think there’s a trade-off to be have there.
Who was a better architect – Gustave Eiffel, Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier or someone else? It’s quite possible for different people to come to different conclusions for equally valid reasons.
So I guess I’m saying, it’s hubris to declare that your system is the best bar none, when it’s a subjective comparison.
How has Australia lost that capability, exactly? The next federal election is in about six months and it’s entirely uncertain who will come out on top. “We’re better than you”? Well, I can think of many ways in which I could claim that Australia is better, but I won’t, because it’s rude. If you lived in a shithole like Iran or Venezuela I would go to the trouble of pointing out why your country sucks, because it might help, and it’s far from subjective, but when you’re comparing the “goodness” of two Western liberal democracies a lot of which is better comes down to preference. And I won’t act like my preferences are better than your preferences, I’m not that arrogant.
Slab, well I can see where that argument is coming from, but my question would be, has there even been a “pure Democracy”, and has there ever been a case where that has been desirable, or desired? If not, then I don’t see that “true Democracy” and “pure Democracy” are equivalent. In my mind, “pure Democracy” means, as you say, majority rule. However, “true Democracy” to me is any system which ultimately allows everybody to have a say in how the government is run, even if it’s through a system of representatives that doesn’t necessary give everybody an equal voice. To me, democracy is not about being 100% fair so much as it is about being effective and giving the people recourse. The fact is, what 51% of people agree upon isn’t necessarily always the best course of action.
Anyway I think you could definitely make the opposite argument, that any Democracy which differs from its most basic form, majority rule, is not “true”. But I think historically that has not generally been the aim of anyone calling for Democracy, as there are always compromises that need to be made.
But yeah, I think in the sense of majority rule, the American system is substantially further from it than other systems of government. As I said, I understand Israel is pretty close to being “pure” in that sense.
P.S. Brett – now that I think about it, you’re probably claiming that the American system is better because the people have the (theoretical) ability to forcibly remove the government. I won’t argue with you that that is in general a healthy thing, although I don’t think it is the single most important defining trait of the goodness of a democracy. I’m much more worried about the partisan divide in the American political system than I am about a violent revolution happening any time soon.
*****Warning – Drunk commenting******
Shut up, Michelle.
That is all.
Nicholas…
Your chicken against my tri-tip??
Bring it.
Although, a trip to Australia does sound nice. I know the Air Force flies Space-A into…ummm, I think Perth?