The Trouble With Democracy

                                                                                                                               

We live in an age of smart phones. That's new. But we also live in an age of dumb people. That's not so new. In fact, it's always been that way.ⁱ

People speak on their phones while driving. It's illegal in many jurisdictions, but people do it anyway. Worse than that, however, there are some who text or read texts. Not only do they turn their attention away from the road like those on the telephone, but they turn their vision away as well. And even worse, now that the smart phones are capable of going on line, the drivers do the same. Until they go off road, or get into some other kind of accident.

These are the people who choose our government. So it isn't illogical to question their judgment.

Our fellow citizens, however, have other endearing traits, many of which also worry me but I'll focus on one of them as an example of a different problem. No sooner did the Affordable Care Act become law than it became apparent that scams were being developed – systems that were claimed to be designed to help people navigate through the system and benefit from it, but were in fact aimed at helping the scam artists to enrich themselves at the expense of a gullible public. And there are numerous other frauds, commonly available to those who answer the telephone at home, answer the doorbell, or use the internet. The new reality is that you can fall victim to a scam while you're driving. People are larcenous. Almost all of them to one degree or another.

It's a common pastime to “cut corners” when doing your taxes, or to lie when you're conversing. White lies – excusable ones – of course. Legality and accuracy are often considered hindrances to our daily activities and to our best interests.ⁱⁱⁱ We can't be bound by what our representatives make into laws – laws from which they are exempt, or, if that's not the case, which they, themselves, will break. We, the voters, take it for granted that all politicians are crooks. We, the voters, forget, however, that we are the ones who have elected these untrustworthy representatives. And their intelligence and morality reflect our own.

There are a lot of “bad guys” around. When we lived in the wild, under the “law of the jungle,” there was always fear of those who would steal from us or kill us, so we established societies, and gave them the authority to defend us from those within, and those outside of our country – those who might be a threat to us. At the same time we established a variety of political systems with different forms of leadership and different rules under which they operated. And these systems could often function along with each other. There were monarchy and religion, benevolent despotism and tyranny, communism and capitalism, socialism and democracy.

In our country, since we declared our independence, we have, for the most part, followed the paths of capitalism and democracy. But for democracy to work, we rely on an intelligent choice of honest leaders by those interested in making the system fair, reliable, and wise. Our electorate should be educated, and it should be eager to participate in the choice of the members of our government. Unfortunately, as Winston Churchill said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”^iv The only part of that evaluation that is surprising to me is that it takes five minutes. The real trouble with democracy is demos, the people.^v Democracy, by definition, is the “rule of the people.” And people are no damn good.^vi All right. Perhaps I'm being too judgmental. We have to consider the other issues at play.

Indeed. Whatever happens, there really are no meaningful democracies that exist anywhere. Some governments employ democratic principles as part of their makeup, but, for the most part, we do not employ true democracy. The ideal of all of the people voting on all issues isn't even followed in Switzerland, which is famed as a “direct democracy.''^vii Although there may be a greater opportunity there than elsewhere for the public to express opinion, Switzerland is largely a representative democracy as is true of “democracies” elsewhere – a republic^viii like ours.

The most generous appraisal of the reality of the situation is that most of the citizens of these republics – indeed, most people in or out of these republics – have little knowledge of the mechanics of government. They often accept as fact anything they're told by politicians with a vested interest in being elected. People tend to attribute to elected officials both knowledge and wisdom they may not have. Consequently they are confused by the interpretations of many different “experts” who have different ideologies and give conflicting “information” and advice to the voters. Sadly, the electorate is not well informed. Churchill's average voter has a wide variety of problems working against good judgment.

But, of course, other systems are based on the participation of the same people, and the flaws of all of those systems will be just as impervious to cure as the ones that plague democracy – as long as people run them. Which means always. So however bad democracy is, and, among other things, it breeds the tyranny of the majority, the tyranny of the minority, bureaucracy, programs that mean a huge debt for our descendants, corrupt politicians, unqualified leaders, bickering, and the burdens engendered by all the human failings that we, and our representatives have, all the other systems have the same problems as well, along with their own inherent defects.

And among those “inherent defects” is the fact that the philosophy and leadership tend to be fixed or possibly inherited. So if, for example, you disagree with the philosophy and decisions of a dictator, you lose. There's no peaceful way to change things. If you live in a socialist system and have the ambition to improve your situation, you probably won't be able to move higher than someone who lacks the same drive. And if there is a state religion different from yours, you may be treated as a second class citizen if you don't convert.^ix

Churchill also declared, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."^x At least the citizens of a democracy have the right to change governments when they disagree with what is being done. They might be foolish to do so but it is their right – as long as their government remains a democracy. We can always choose the lesser of evils.

All we really need to get rid of the problem entirely, though, is to practice democracy where there are no people.

Next episode: “Amazing Greece” – How contentious it is.

i       And it's been the rule in all places as well, I'll be discussing our country primarily, but the same phenomena exist around the world. People have the same quirks, frailties, and limitations everywhere.

ii      Everybody does it.

iii     One of our prime goals is to benefit ourselves with as little effort is possible. So we're easy prey to those who want our money, just as others are seen by us as the prey who will help make us wealthy. We buy lottery tickets, go to some casino or other, take chances on accidents in order to save a few seconds, mislead those with whom we negotiate, use “sick” time when we want to get a day off and be paid for it, and other similar acts when we think we can get away with them. After all, everybody does it.

iv      In addition to being an outstanding British Prime Minister, Churchill was a well-respected warrior, painter, rhetorician, and writer. The quotation cited is one of many aphorisms that accurately described the situation in the world around him and us. Unfortunately I have not been able to locate its source.

v       A typical definition (in this case from Wikipedia) of the term is “The ordinary citizens of an ancient Greek city-state, considered as a political entity; population; the common people.” In this essay I refer to the people. It's the same root as is used in “demography.”

vi      The inspired sentiment of William Steig in The Lonely Ones, 1942.

vii     “Direct Democracy can be defined as a form or system of democracy giving citizens an extraordinary amount of participation in the legislation process and granting them a maximum of political self-determination.” So says the web site “Direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch. That definition doesn't include what many others do – a popular vote on all issues.

viii    A republic is generally considered to be a representative democracy but the term may be applied to any nation that is not a monarchy.

ix      And in some instances, even if you do.

x       From a speech in the House of Commons, November 11, 1947.

Best In Show

 

We've gone to the dogs and it's a dog-eat-dog world. That's the law of the jungle – the survival of the fittest. Our society arrogantly flaunts its supremacy over inferior species – our disdain for them – at least usually. We even recognize this in our metaphors and aphorisms.ⁱ We talk of foxes in the hen house, of wolves in sheep's clothing, and of swimming with the sharks. And we speak of dogfights.

Ah, dog-fighting. That's where we draw the line. That's where our love-hate relationship with them rears its head. Now that Michael Vick is rehabilitated and the NFL Comebackⁱⁱ Player of the Year (2010), it's clear that we're all confused by issues relating to animal rightsⁱⁱⁱ and wrongs. And about our own attitudes to animals in general. Indeed, we probably all agree that such an activity as dog-fighting is evil, and cock-fighting as well. Most would maintain that bullfighting is also cruel, although there are many who view it as sport.^iv I have no intention of defending dog-fighting, but we simultaneously claim concern as we dominate animals, making it is hard to ignore society's ambivalence on the subject of animals.^v

Personally I like a thick steak. Medium, so it's still juicy inside. But the fat^vi has to be charred. A vegetarian, and especially a vegan, would find my behavior reprehensible.^vii There are many who feel that killing animals for food is wrong,^viii or even using animal products obtained otherwise.^ix They are certainly opposed to hunting,^x as are many who are not vegetarians, but they view it as natural that other animals might hunt or eat meat. It's their natural instinct to do so. And when we deprive animals of their natural instincts and their natural habitat, as we do in zoos,^xi we take from them their “humanity.” Perhaps it's worse to take an animal out of its normal environment, or to squelch its natural instincts, than to take any other action against it.

Instinct is a real problem for us. However we may have incorporated that concern into our view of civilization though, dogs on leashes, for example, find themselves in an unnatural situation because of us. Animals in their natural habitat are free to wander at will. Nevertheless it's perfectly legal to restrain your pet – in fact in some localities people are required to keep their dogs on leashes. On the other hand, the fighting of many animals actually is natural and instinctual. Two dogs on leashes who do not know each other^xii will often bark and try to attack what they see as a competitor or enemy. The leashes stop them. But those who try to encourage this kind of normal behavior – especially if they do it with what we civilized people view as cruelty (even though this might simulate what those animals could face in nature) – are subject to prosecution. And even though it's normal for some of them, animals that bite are often destroyed. We're not always ready to concede to an animal his natural instincts.

And while animals, like humans, are programed to reproduce, we do not hesitate to spay or neuter our pets^xiii or, if we're the ASPCA, to euthenize animals in excess of our resources.^xiv Yet we'll spend tens of thousands on a beached whale or oil covered pelicans. And we're quite comfortable destroying industries^xv to save what we view as endangered species. There are many who are more concerned about pets than children. And some who view their pets as their children. We're humans with human values and human mindsets. And we see animals as having the same characteristics. At least they should, and we should foster them.

So we train pets to be polite and compliant. We condition them. We teach them to serve our needs. We want our children to do what we say and we want the same of our pets. But what child would walk smartly up and down on a leash, ignoring all distractions, as we'd observe at the Westminster Kennel Club. Perhaps we have to stifle a dog's instincts to achieve this result, but it's certainly worth it since we have turned the pet into a sophisticated human, and gotten bragging rights for ourself. And we make warriors of guard and attack dogs, helpers of seeing-eye dogs, and potential sacrifices of bomb-sniffing dogs. It's hard to know why these are acceptable outcomes, while using animals as medical laboratory subjects or for other testing purposes is not.^xvi In all those cases we are using animals to serve human purposes – not a major priority of most species. We turn them into something they're not for our benefit. Some might argue that a seeing-eye dog is fulfilling a great humanitarian service and the actions we take are justified, like a Saint Bernard with some brandy. But it's hard to understand the importance of the service performed by the Best In Show. And horse racing, the activity of the rich at Epsom Downs, is admirable, as is riding to hounds. If, however, a horse pulls a carriage in Central Park or a pet attacks a squirrel, we're quick to find fault. As is the case with so many things, it seems that if we like it, it's good. If we don't like it, it's bad. We aren't troubled by consistency.

As for other issues concerning animals, in some matters we glorify multiculturalism and promote its expression. But that's not a universal point of view. A culture that views a cow as holy isn't understood by many. Nor is the use of sacrifice as part of religious ritual. And even those who accept the idea of eating meat question the practice of using dogs and cats as food. Kosher slaughter (Shechitah) is under attack as cruel even though it is not intended that way and has been employed for millenia. We have very mixed views. But if meat is permissible at all, it must accord with our prejudices.^xvii Chickens, if used as food, must be “free-range.” Chicken coops are unnatural. Veal and foie gras should be avoided at all costs^xviii because they are the results of cruelty.

There are other prohibitions as well. No puppy farms. We shouldn't be breeding animals just to sell them. That philosophy will also impact heavily on the food trade, but animal lovers will surely applaud such a situation. As a matter of fact, pet stores should be closed. It's a good first step in eliminating all animal trade. We should also remove the dissection of frogs and fetal pigs from the biology curriculum. In fact we should remove the dissection of human corpses from the medical curriculum. There's no reason why doctors can't learn all that is necessary from a picture book. If you can paint by numbers, you can perform surgery the same way.

But we do more than protecting non-humans. We see them as greater and more deserving than we ourselves. At the same time that we use animals to suit our purposes – as pets for example – and we elevate their “rights” above our own. I can recall the impassioned plea of an environmentalist for the end of “noise pollution.” What did he mean by that? He felt that the sounds of birds and other animals were natural and beautiful, but those of humans were ugly and deserving of elimination. It seems that beneficial evolution stopped just before homo sapiens. Survival of the fittest be damned. Humans shouldn't use their superiority to dominate other species. We're better than that^xix. When our remains are discovered thousands of years from now and the scientists of the time discover the features of meat eaters, they may be unaware that eating of meat was out of fashion and that all we ate were Brussels sprouts. But we'll die with the knowledge of our own virtue. And, of course, we fed our pets the best available food, even if they often contained meat and dairy products.

I don't wish to condemn our behavior toward other species. We're only human. In fact I support many of the things we do. But our inconsistencies need to be recognized, and we should understand that while we criticize others, we often act more cruelly than they. Or at least with less understanding of what we're doing.

After all, we lionize our pets. The world is theirs. All we're needed for is to scoop the poop.

Next episode: “The Value Of Women” – More than just intellect.

i     Our use of words relating to animals illustrates this. Call a man a “dog” or a “jackass” and you've insulted him. Ditto “wolf” or “predator.” Call a woman a “bitch” and she will certainly take offense. Even the term “kitten” is seen as belittling. Call either a man or a woman a “bloodhound” or a “horse's ass” and you can anticipate ruffled feathers or raised hackles. People we don't like are often referred to as “animals” or “beasts.”
ii    Comeback from jail in this case.

iii    Whatever that means.

iv   They may also view boxing and other “man-to-man” combat as heroic.

v    Including my own. I have a stuffed moose head hanging in the living room, but it's really a cloth toy. Yet there are many who have the real thing as a decoration and source of pride.

vi    Yes. I said fat. (And Julia Child said: “Fat gives things flavor.”) It should be more than ample, but nowadays meat is trimmed of almost all of its fat. Allegedly thats better for my health. After all, it certainly didn't help its previous owner.

vii    He'd also view my fur hat with contempt.

viii   I'm not sure if they'd eat roadkill, animals killed by other animals, or those that died of natural causes, but I doubt it.

ix    Like milking cows. Presumably they also eschew the use of leather, vehicles that use fossil fuels, and electricity derived from that fuel. Ah for the good old days.

x     Should distinctions be drawn between killing as a “sport,” for food, or in order to thin out a large group “for its own benefit?”
xi    We do the same when we keep fish in tanks, bunnies or hamsters in cages, or other pets (especially strange ones like reptiles or large numbers of common ones, like cats) in apartments. And we make things worse when we declaw the cats and perform surgery on dogs to keep them from barking and disturbing the neighbors. We remove the scent glands from our pet skunks to protect ourselves and our neighbors.
xii    And possibly if they do.

xiii    Indeed. We're encouraged to do so.

xiv   Some are authorized to kill animals, some are not.

xv    And sacrificing the jobs and income of the humans who are a part of them.

xvi    Sometimes (actually almost always) I think that PETA has a greater concern for animals than humans.

xvii   In the case of the condemnation of Shechitah, a strong argument can be made that there is a strong component of anti-semitism among its proponents.

xviii   Actually both are relatively expensive, especially the foie gras.

xix   And we're worse than they.