Giving Democracy A Bad Name
I usually wait for the weekend to check out what the foreign press is saying about the US, but I went over last night to Watching America to see what our global neighbors had to say about the second presidential debate. Most felt McCain blew his best chance to reassert himself, which pretty much accords with the assessment in this country.
What surprised me, however, is that Gov. Sarah Palin is still generating a lot of attention in the world, and not in a nice way. Most of the articles used Palin as an example of what's wrong with American politics, if not what's wrong with America itself. Perhaps the most stunning critique came from a political analyst I've come to respect, Rami Khouri, this time writing for the Middle East Times rather than the Lebanon Star. Mr. Khouri comes very close to saying that the American experience has shown that democracy just doesn't work very well, at least the broad version adopted by this nation.
Watching the U.S. presidential election from the Arab region is a confusing vocation. At one level, American democracy is an impressive, vibrant, often stunning, phenomenon that permits any citizen – certified idiots and genuine geniuses alike – to seek and assume public office, and control the destiny of society.
It produces some of the most monumental errors and costly adventures in world history, in the military and economic fields, but it also contains the mechanisms for its own self-correction, reconfiguration, improvement and re-birth – as we witness these days in the economic arena.
At another level, America also provides a powerful argument against a totally open, unregulated democratic system, because it allows the volatile and sometimes infantile emotional psyche of a bare majority of citizens to determine the exercise of immense power.
Three specific examples of the exercise of power show how American politicians can have devastating impact all over the world: the economic crisis that has hit the financial and housing sectors most severely, the war in Iraq and its assorted regional consequences, and the wider "global war on terror" that the United States launched and has led since 2001.
All three reflect decisions made by democratically elected leaders in both the White House and the legislature. In their own ways, all three have made the world a more dangerous and fragile place, adding American incompetence and criminality to the destructive work of those many thugs, thieves and killers who already haunt much of the rest of the world.
But are these monumental catastrophes the inevitable result of "a totally open, unregulated democratic system"? Or, as I would prefer to think, are they actually the inevitable result of a decent system that has been corrupted by those who would appeal to the worst parts of the human psyche rather than the best? I think ultimately Mr. Khouri comes down in favor of the second option as he points to the current election campaigns:
The fact that someone like Palin, who lacks any national or international experience – perhaps even basic knowledge – can be a potential vice president is a sign of American democracy at its worst. In one swift, serendipitous moment, she was transformed from a moose hunter in Alaska to a global mullah hunter in a contest and a world about which she knows zilch – as she reconfirms every time she opens her mouth.
The fact that respected conservative analysts and commentators have already asked for her to be dropped from the ticket is about as damning a verdict as there can be of her qualifications. This is much more problematic, though, for what it tells us about McCain, and the entire American political system.
Clearly, something is wrong with a system that turns democratic electoral contestation into either a fantastic gambling orgy for impulsive and ambitious elderly men, or an exercise in mass psychotherapy for millions in the electorate who seek solace and emotional recovery by embracing the image of the bouncy cheerleader next door, regardless of what this could mean for the United States and the world.
Yes, there clearly is something wrong with such a system, but it is something that can be corrected, which the US has demonstrated in the past that it is capable of. It will take, however, those leaders who choose to summon the human capacity for hope, for decency, for fair play rather than those who play only to base fear and hatred of "the other," or "that one." We've had such leaders in the past. Leaders like FDR and JFK come to mind.
Is Barack Obama of that caliber? Perhaps, perhaps not. I do know this, however: John McCain and Sarah Palin most definitely are not.
What surprised me, however, is that Gov. Sarah Palin is still generating a lot of attention in the world, and not in a nice way. Most of the articles used Palin as an example of what's wrong with American politics, if not what's wrong with America itself. Perhaps the most stunning critique came from a political analyst I've come to respect, Rami Khouri, this time writing for the Middle East Times rather than the Lebanon Star. Mr. Khouri comes very close to saying that the American experience has shown that democracy just doesn't work very well, at least the broad version adopted by this nation.
Watching the U.S. presidential election from the Arab region is a confusing vocation. At one level, American democracy is an impressive, vibrant, often stunning, phenomenon that permits any citizen – certified idiots and genuine geniuses alike – to seek and assume public office, and control the destiny of society.
It produces some of the most monumental errors and costly adventures in world history, in the military and economic fields, but it also contains the mechanisms for its own self-correction, reconfiguration, improvement and re-birth – as we witness these days in the economic arena.
At another level, America also provides a powerful argument against a totally open, unregulated democratic system, because it allows the volatile and sometimes infantile emotional psyche of a bare majority of citizens to determine the exercise of immense power.
Three specific examples of the exercise of power show how American politicians can have devastating impact all over the world: the economic crisis that has hit the financial and housing sectors most severely, the war in Iraq and its assorted regional consequences, and the wider "global war on terror" that the United States launched and has led since 2001.
All three reflect decisions made by democratically elected leaders in both the White House and the legislature. In their own ways, all three have made the world a more dangerous and fragile place, adding American incompetence and criminality to the destructive work of those many thugs, thieves and killers who already haunt much of the rest of the world.
But are these monumental catastrophes the inevitable result of "a totally open, unregulated democratic system"? Or, as I would prefer to think, are they actually the inevitable result of a decent system that has been corrupted by those who would appeal to the worst parts of the human psyche rather than the best? I think ultimately Mr. Khouri comes down in favor of the second option as he points to the current election campaigns:
The fact that someone like Palin, who lacks any national or international experience – perhaps even basic knowledge – can be a potential vice president is a sign of American democracy at its worst. In one swift, serendipitous moment, she was transformed from a moose hunter in Alaska to a global mullah hunter in a contest and a world about which she knows zilch – as she reconfirms every time she opens her mouth.
The fact that respected conservative analysts and commentators have already asked for her to be dropped from the ticket is about as damning a verdict as there can be of her qualifications. This is much more problematic, though, for what it tells us about McCain, and the entire American political system.
Clearly, something is wrong with a system that turns democratic electoral contestation into either a fantastic gambling orgy for impulsive and ambitious elderly men, or an exercise in mass psychotherapy for millions in the electorate who seek solace and emotional recovery by embracing the image of the bouncy cheerleader next door, regardless of what this could mean for the United States and the world.
Yes, there clearly is something wrong with such a system, but it is something that can be corrected, which the US has demonstrated in the past that it is capable of. It will take, however, those leaders who choose to summon the human capacity for hope, for decency, for fair play rather than those who play only to base fear and hatred of "the other," or "that one." We've had such leaders in the past. Leaders like FDR and JFK come to mind.
Is Barack Obama of that caliber? Perhaps, perhaps not. I do know this, however: John McCain and Sarah Palin most definitely are not.
Labels: Election 2008
posted by Diane at 4:05 AM
2 Comments:
Ever the optimist, eh, Diane?
But are these monumental catastrophes the inevitable result of "a totally open, unregulated democratic system"? Or, as I would prefer to think, are they actually the inevitable result of a decent system that has been corrupted by those who would appeal to the worst parts of the human psyche rather than the best?
I can understand the source of your confusion. Yes, the monumental cataswtrophes ARE the inevitable result of such a system, because such a system is what is required for the emergence of the "worst parts of the human psyche."
Thugh, on the whole, i think you give "humanity" a bad name when you conflate it with the bipedal monstrosities of venality, mendacity and cupidity which are the hallmarks of 'western culture' in its contemporary (and only, so far) expression.
I like to say: Humanity is a cosmic experiment testing whether "life" can withstand "intelligence." Imho, the null hypothesis is in no danger...
"At another level, America also provides a powerful argument against a totally open, unregulated democratic system, because it allows the volatile and sometimes infantile emotional psyche of a bare majority of citizens to determine the exercise of immense power."
Last time I looked, wasn't public opinion as polled over 70% against the $700B/$1.8T/$2.2T bailout that was recently passed & signed into law? Isn't there a clear majority in favor of ending the Iraq war and bringing the soldiers home? Isn't GW dictating w/a sub 25% approval rating? You can describe our present government with a number of terms but 'democracy' sure isn't one of 'em anymore.
If voting could change things they'd make it illegal.
Post a Comment
<< Home