My last several blog postings have argued that peace and justice – considered by everyone to be political goods – aren’t fully compatible, and therefore can’t be perfectly achieved. Conflict and oppression must always exist in the world. I’ve chosen to focus initially on this particular dichotomy because there are lots of well-meaning folks these days campaigning for peace and justice simultaneously, which is wonderfully idealistic, but quite incoherent, and (I’m afraid) doomed to failure.
In other words, we live in a polytheistic universe.
There are many other examples of political goods that don’t easily live together, and I’ll point out an instance that should be familiar to all Americans. The government of the United States is based on a political contradiction – a devotion to two principles, neither of which can subsist without violating the other. Our Constitutional structure, and our history, testify to the tremendous difficulty of harmonizing these sacred values, though the Founders of our system did their best.
The United States is generally known as a liberal democracy, and that very term epitomizes the dilemma: we’re “liberal” and we’re a “democracy.” Yet to be both these things at once is a feat of political legerdemain that can’t be faultlessly performed. How long we can keep it up is currently a bit of a question.
When I say our country’s government is liberal, I’m not using the expression in the contemporary American political sense of support for strict business regulations and a welfare state. I’m speaking of classical liberalism – a philosophy that goes back to the seventeenth century British theorist, John Locke, and that every American more or less believes. In Locke’s opinion, all people have inherent natural rights to life, liberty, and property – rights that aren’t conferred by the authorities or by social convention but are intrinsic to the human condition.
Christian conservatives like to call these “God-given” rights. And, while my co-religionists might want to amend the phraseology, modern Pagans will consider that all human beings possess a spark of Divinity, a soul, and are therefore entitled to be treated with appropriate respect – which in the political sphere means they have rights. Secular leftists, too, believe in rights. These folks usually reject any kind of spirituality, so they can’t exactly say where rights come from – still, they believe in them.
Across the board, Americans agree: the protection of human rights might be the most important purpose of government, certainly of our government.
However, the United States is also a democracy. This form of government has been known from ancient times, but Locke provided one of the standard justifications for it. When a collection of free, equal individuals has consented to unite into a single body, Locke wrote, “it is necessary the Body should move that way whither the greater force carries it, which is the consent of the majority: or else it is impossible it should act or continue one Body, one community.” In effect, those who refuse to honor a vote of the people violate the social compact. We could call this the democratic principle – and it’s the defining characteristic of our political system.
American politics has progressively moved in the direction of greater democracy. Property qualifications for voting disappeared early on. Gender-based and race-based restrictions fell after prolonged, intense struggles. U.S. Senators are now elected by the people. The residents of our nation’s capital and 18-year-olds have gained a vote. The initiative, referendum, and recall have brought the masses directly into the law-making process. Primary elections have replaced smoke-filled rooms.
The promotion of democracy – of governments chosen by the people in free, fair elections – has for decades been the ostensible, and frequently the real, aim of American foreign policy. We’ve preached democracy to the world. It’s been our mantra, our pet solution to every ill, whether at home or abroad.
Liberal democracy, that is.
Which, of course, is the rub. Whether we Americans like it or not, liberalism and democracy aren’t always on the best of terms. Popular majorities can infringe the rights of minority groups. It’s happened a few times in our history. And, equally, entrenched special interests can use claims of right to avoid public oversight. That’s happened, too. Every assertion of a right, decreases the sphere in which the collective judgement of the community can be exercised, thereby weakening democracy. Every exertion of majority rule that seriously pinches someone, will feel like the violation of a right, and will likely be considered as such. Liberalism and democracy only exist by limiting and frustrating each other. Perfection isn’t possible.
The problem isn’t that the American system is somehow defective. Au contraire. In fact, the Founders left us a cleverly-designed structure combining popular elections with courts and other contrivances that, improved by later generations, has succeeded better than might’ve been expected, in reconciling the discordant parts of our tradition. The problem is rather that the values our system was intended to protect – individual rights and popular sovereignty – aren’t fully compatible, and can only co-exist up to a point, no matter what we do.
If majoritarian institutions are effective, rights will be infringed, at least in the opinion of the minority. Yet if rights are safeguarded, government of, by, and for the people will be thwarted – as the majority sees it, anyhow.
More on this next time.
Blessed be.
# # #