of course america is a democracy, you crazy people
By diana on Oct 10, 2012 | In poly-ticks
Today was my last day in my Military Ethics elective course at the Joint and Combined Warfighting School I'm attending in Norfolk, Virginia. Our final assignment was to write a short paper arguing the justness (or lack thereof) of any given war, then discuss it with the class today. I chose the American Revolution, and argued that it did not (by any stretch) meet the criteria for a "just war."*
* And I am shocked at how many people, even today, take this argument so personally. You'd think I was suggesting we go back to being British colonies.
One of the eight criterion that must be met for a war to be "just" is that it must be declared by a legitimate authority, and in a liberal democracy, legitimate authority comes from the will of the majority. This is straight out of our textbook, so no problems there. As I was explaining how I think we probably didn't meet this criterion, I said, "And in a liberal democracy, which we are, legitimate authority is determined by the majority of the citizens."
At this point, one of our instructors* interrupted me. I'll call him Ben.
* We had two for this elective, an atheist and a chaplain. This was the atheist.
During our first class meeting four weeks ago, Ben had remarked that America is not a democracy. I assumed he was a purist, one of those folks who thinks that when someone says "democracy" they mean "pure democracy" like they had in Athens. I didn't say anything then. I thought I understood where he was coming from.
Nope.
Today, he lit up when I said we were a "liberal democracy," insisting that we are not.
ME: Wait, Ben. I didn't say a pure democracy. That isn't what I mean.
BEN: Me neither.
ME: Wot.
BEN: We are not a democracy! We're a constitutional republic.
ME: Yes, of course we are. But we're also a democracy.
BEN: No we aren't!
At this point, one or two of my fellow students (one of whom is clearly a teabagger) began to defend Ben's position. I gawped at them, and said, "What do you mean we aren't a democracy? Do you vote?" I was ignored.
BEN: We're not a democracy.
ME: I understand that you passionately believe that, but your belief does not change the facts. Anyway...I think we need to do lunch so we can gnaw this bone.
We continued with the class. When we broke for lunch, we walked down to the pub together. I started with this: Please define democracy.
BEN: Majority rules.
I chewed on this for a bit, because I'm not sure I accept that as a definition or that it's even accurate. (In some cases, plurality rules.) I said, "Um. OK. That sounds very simple, but ok. Are you saying that is not the case in America?"
His answer? No. There have only been two instances of true democracies*: ancient Greece and some of the original American colonies. They don't work.
* Yeah. I noticed his insertion of that itty bitty word.
ME: You're talking pure democracies. That's just one type of democracy, though. There are many varieties.
HIM: Let's put it like this: can the majority in America take away your natural rights?
ME: No.
HIM: Then it isn't a democracy.
ME: So um, you're defining democracy as "majority rules no matter what"?
HIM: Yes.
ME: I don't think that's what the word means. But...I'll look it up. Maybe I'm wrong.
We had a delightful repast, during which time I dragged a few other people into our argument. :) Then I went back to class and my computer where I looked up "democracy." B'cause hey! Maybe I'm wrong.
I'm often wrong, but I wasn't this time. I sent him the link to Wiki's nice little write-up about democracies along with the comment: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
He wrote back that the definitions were conflated. I responded (of course), that that wasn't the point. The meanings of words are defined by usage. We have to use the generally agreed-upon meaning of words if we are to communicate. We can't artificially narrow a definition to suit our purposes. America is definitely a democracy.
And seriously? Ben is a lieutenant colonel in the Army. Has he not read our National Security Strategy? It's presumably written every four years by the sitting president, but sometimes a couple of terms will go by without it being updated if the president is re-elected. Here's a quote from the 2010 one:
"The United States supports the expansion of democracy and human rights abroad because governments that respect these values are more just, peaceful, and legitimate. We also do so because their success abroad fosters an environment that supports America’s national interests. Political systems that protect universal rights are ultimately more stable, successful, and secure. As our history shows, the United States can more effectively forge consensus to tackle shared challenges when working with governments that reflect the will and respect the rights of their people, rather than just the narrow interests of those in power."
This is, incidentally, a rewording of Bush's NSS, which also stressed our national strategy of promoting democracy abroad because historically, democratic governments do not go to war with one another.
This is not the first time I've heard people insist that America is not a democracy, and frankly, I don't get it. I mean, this is from sixth-grade social studies, isn't it? From the Wiki page (at the moment I write this):
Democracy is a form of genital pen island* in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows people to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.
* HAHAHAHAHAHAHahahaha. Beautiful. I love Wikipedia. It's like a box of chocolates. :) It said "government" (of course!) this afternoon when I sent Ben the link. (Too bad that "genital pen island" link doesn't work, though. I'm keen to find out what it is. I like to think there's some English teacher out there right now using this page to demonstrate to her class how unreliable Wikipedia is as a source of information.)
Anyway...you can look up democracy in a regular encyclopedia if you doubt that Wiki's facts are correct in this case.
Here's what I don't get: what purpose does it serve to insist that America is not a democracy? So it's a constitutional republic (yes, it is). Why do so many people argue--vehemently--that it isn't a democracy? Do they think the terms are mutually exclusive? Or what?
So I brought this up on Facebook. A friend pointed out that there are lots of pages out there where people argue the same thing, like this one. Quote:
The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
Where the hell do they get this stuff? I wonder this almost as much as I want to understand why our use of the term is so offensive to them that they feel compelled to try to change the very meaning of the word in order to "win" the argument. I mean...why?!
Here's my theory: The word "democracy" is too close to the word "Democrat," and its use seems to legitimize Democratic thinking, while the word "republic" is the root of "Republican" and makes Republican thought seem more legitimate. No, it isn't rational at all, but current right wing politics are not rational, nor do they even attempt to be. The goal, if I am correct, is pure emotional manipulation. As such, it doesn't need to make sense.
Maybe these "We aren't a democracy!" people draw their argument from the fact that our founders understood the word "democracy" to refer only to pure democracies. That's true. They did. But so what? They still created a democracy (and it's spelled out pretty good in that Constitution thingy exactly how it will work, even if they didn't use the word "democracy"). The word "democracy" now is understood to mean the very system of government we enjoy in America today.
I've also stumbled across the Argument From The Pledge, by the way. To wit, the pledge doesn't call our government a democracy; it calls it a republic. Ergo, we're not a democracy, we're a republic. :roll: (Really? How do you even argue with people who are working with such a limited tool set?)
So help me out here, please. What is it about the word "democracy" that people (usually of a conservative bent, I think) find so offensive?
d
PS. I just found this Yahoo! answers commentary. Amusing.
PSS. And this interesting page arguing that AMERICA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY! The definition for "republic" is taken from Webster's Unabridged Dictionary; the defintion for "democracy" is, strangely, taken from the U.S. Army Training Manual. (?!) This bothers me in a couple of ways. One, why didn't they just flip the pages of the dictionary while they had it open to fetch the meaning of the word "democracy." Two, why is the U.S. Army Training Manual so viciously biased against its own government?
7 comments
Diana,
I thought you said you were going to quit arguing with crazy people. (grin)
I’ve generally understood democracy to mean that the people participate directly in their own rule. I guess that would be a pure democracy, right? But I also assumed that when someone says that the U.S. is a democracy, what they’re really saying is that we have a democratically elected government. The poeple don’t participate directly in ruling, but they create the government that they expect to rule in accordance with their wishes. (That government is a constitutional republic, as you’ve noted.)
So if your definition of democracy is that everybody participates, then the U.S. fits that description. But if your definition of democracy is that everybody rules, then no, the U.S. doesn’t fit. (If it did, then California’s Prop 8 wouldn’t be facing court scrutiny.)
I’ve heard it said (on talk radio, so a bias to the right is expected) that in the nation’s early history democracy was equated to mob rule in the minds of most other nations’ governments. Thus West Point cadets were taught to answer that the U.S. government was a republic, not a democracy, when asked by foreign representatives. I’ve tried to locate references to confirm this story, but so far I haven’t found any.
Dave
Hi, Dave! :)
This is a good summation of what the word “democracy” means (to most people):
Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows people to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.
We are a democracy, of which a presidential and constitutional republic is a further specification/subset.
That definition is more than mine, though; it is the generally accepted one, which is why the word is meaningful to us at all. The problem I have with Ben is that he has his own definition (special to him and a few other crazies out there) which he is attempting to foist upon the rest of the world. (I think you meant “the definition I’m working with,” but I just had to say that anyway. ;) )
Today, he wrote to say that if I were to use a “real” dictionary–not Wikipedia ;)–I’d probably find that the definitions are far more specific. I find his response interesting in a couple of ways, not the least of which was the fact that I’d already told him I checked several dictionaries and none of them listed his definition of the word. And why didn’t he go to any of the dozens of online dictionaries to find the definition which prove him right? And when I wrote back with a link to onelook.com (a meta-dictionary) and invited him to choose the “real” dictionary of his choice to make it point, he ignored me.
Why? He knows that his definition is special to him, pretty much, and that he will not find it in a dictionary. Essentially, he’s arguing against what he wishes the word meant (which I pointed out to him), which is just weird.
d
Obviously, I pursued the discussion today, and made it a point to ask why he so passionately denied that we are a democracy, because I seriously don’t get it. He responded as follows:
“The real problem with using a word inappropriately, e.g. democracy to describe the US, is in perpetuating an attack on our actual government type. The Constitution prescribes limits on what laws can be made; in an actual democracy, the will of the majority rules. Those principles are antithetical, and using the word “democracy” is an attempt to break down that difference, to smuggle in a principle to destroy the idea of constitutional limits. This started about 100 years ago, when the intellectuals of the day wanted to inculcate majority rule. They gave us the 17th and 18th Amendments and other such legislation. They knew they could not win the argument that the Constitution should be abolished, so they attempted to do it by stealth. Using a package deal which obliterates a good concept by attaching an anti-concept to people’s understanding is how it was done. I encourage you to recognize the fallacy and the motives behind it all.”
(I pointed out to him that when he says “actual democracy,” he really means “pure democracy,” and I never claimed to be arguing for such a thing to begin with. But seriously…once you point out that a word doesn’t mean what someone thinks it means AND HE IGNORES YOU, REPEATEDLY, what is there to do? Quit arguing with the crazy person, is what. :D )
d
WOW. A friend on Facebook just dug this up. It sounds like exactly what Ben has been arguing. Take a gander: http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/NotDemocracy.html
d
Diana,
Both Ben’s response and the article at that link sound like a lot of the rhetoric I hear on the gunny boards. (Especially that dig at the “intellectuals of the day.") I don’t think you’re going to change any minds there; they’re already made up.
There’s one argument I’d make against the idea that the U.S. isn’t a democracy. It is possible to amend the Constitution, if you can get enough people to agree to it. It’s hard to do, sure, but it’s possible. So the claim that the Constitution prevents the majority from taking away the rights of the minority isn’t completely watertight. (Or am I missing something? My education in Government is pretty thin.)
Dave
First, Pen Island is a corruption. Put the words together and re-split them after the “s". (actually from the worst possible domain names), unfortunately, Wiki can be changed by any goof-ball with a sense of humor. Kinda like “drifting", in language. Second, we are a Democratic Republic,similar to the Congo, By definition and also statement: “and for the Republic for which it stands".
I just love this.
Rog
And here I thought we were “an anarcho-syndicalist commune . . ..”
| « what words mean | how do i love poetry? let me count the ways... » |
