Who among us Americans doesn't love democracy? Who doesn't venerate the concept and find the very word itself warm and fuzzy? Who doesn't say a patriotic "Amen" whenever
a politician or pundit or reporter reminds us that all adult citizens should register and vote? Who doesn't believe in freedom of speech? Who doesn't think that, on any issue, it's vital that people be able to express whatever opinions they might
have? Who isn't, in principle, in favor of gaining a broader perspective on an issue by examining opinions different from one's own? Who doesn't believe in the value of having an open mind?
Yet who, in actuality, actively seeks to learn about opposing political points of view in a genuine attempt to see things from someone else's perspective, to empathize, to analyze, and to evaluate objectively (in so far as that is
possible with humans), with a sincere willingness to change one's own opinion? Who seeks to learn about opposing religious points of view (the atheist, Catholic, or Christian vis a vis the believer, the Protestant, the Muslim--and vice versa)
with a genuine willingness to acquire new beliefs or at the very least to modify existing ones? And who seeks the company of those whose political, religious, educational, cultural, racial, or ethnic backgrounds are widely different from one's own?
Isn't it rather that only grudgingly do we face different views--and then only with our metaphorical fists up, ready to dodge and weave and fend off our adversary's punches while countering with telling blows ourselves? Do we not shun the exploratory
thinking that might cause us to change, and wallow instead in the confirmatory thinking that makes us feel secure in our beliefs?
Who really wants those with views different from
one's own to vote in the next election? Who truly thinks it would be wonderful if 100% of adult citizens voted? Don't we actually consider many of those who vote differently from us to be scary people, uninformed or unthoughtful or uncaring or
even immoral? Do we not fulminate against such voters (while giving a pass to the uninformed, unthoughtful, uncaring, or immoral voters who happen to vote our way)? If we favor Candidate X or Proposition Y, don't we actually hope that those who
think differently will not go to the polls? Doesn't the Republican zeal to establish voter-I.D. laws that would make election participation more difficult for those more likely to vote for Democrats indicate that winning, and not representation, is what
matters? And isn't the Democratic zeal to round up inner city voters who would most likely vote for Democrats and drive them to the polls on election day, when they have shown no initiative to get there on their own, just another reflection of
the wish that only one's own side would vote?
Who really wants to end legislative gridlock if it means passing bills one does not approve of just so that something--anything--can
be accomplished and a direction taken? What Republican would ever say "I don't like the new tax increases on the rich but I am very happy that Congress finally took action, even if that action is detrimental to America"? What Democrat would ever
say "I don't like the budget cuts for social programs but I am very happy that Congress finally took action, even if that action is detrimental to America"? Who wants to "go along to get along"? Isn't it rather the case that the true battle
cry for both Republicans and Democrats is "Give me my way--or give me gridlock"? If legislators can't reach agreement on a course of action, isn't that probably because the people they represent cannot reach agreement either? Faced with a polarized
electorate, doesn't fairness imply that we should do nothing until a crisis coerces enough of a consensus to act? When big banks begin to fail, aren't Congress and Administration finally able to act only because enough members begin to cave in, at last
ready to sacrifice some principle for some practicality? When government is on the brink of a "fiscal cliff," about to be shut down because factions haven't agreed on budget authorization, isn't Congress finally able to act only because enough members
begin to cave in, at least ready to sacrifice some principle for some practicality? If the President followed the Constitution and asked Congress for approval before going to war, would not gridlock in most instances make it unlikely that Congress
would grant approval? But when our country is attacked (Pearl Harbor, 9/11) do we not, doves and hawks alike, willingly unite and go into action against a mutually perceived enemy?
Who is truly concerned about having one's own views changed by political ads for candidates or propositions that are paid for by unlimited campaign funds built from the contributions of unidentified donors, many of whom are corporations acting as persons
and exercising their right to freedom of speech, as is Constitutional according to a relatively recent Supreme Court decision? Does anyone of any political persuasion ever think "Uh-oh. I'm really worried that because I don't know who produced
that political ad I will probably swing over to the dark side and vote for the wrong candidate in the next election. If only I knew who produced the ad, I would know whether to believe it or not"? Aren't those who reject the substance of an
ad because it was paid for by leftist George Soros or rightists Charles and David Koch guilty of committing the logical fallacy of ad hominem, attacking the person responsible for the making of the ad rather than the material of the
ad itself? Aren't those who give credence to an ad because it was paid for by Soros or the brothers Koch guilty of committing the logical fallacy of ad vericundiam, accepting a point of view because an "authority" advocates it? Isn't it
the case that we all think ourselves capable of seeing the flaws in any ad--or at the very least capable of lashing ourselves to the mast so that we do not succumb to the songs of the Sirens as the ad sails by us--but believe that many other
people lack that capability, because they are weaker of mind? If an ad quotes a study that says the environment will be ineradicably harmed if companies are allowed to build an oil pipeline, should we care that the study was commissioned by the
Sierra Club? Shouldn't we evaluate the study itself, rather than the sponsor of the study? If an ad quotes a study that says there will be no significant damage to the environment if a pipeline is built, should we care that the study was commissioned
by Exxon? Shouldn't we evaluate the study itself, rather than the sponsor of the study?
And why do we so often rail against the legislators and administrators of both parties
that a majority of us have duly elected in a democratic system that we believe in? Why do we so often consider them idiotic, feckless, spineless, self-promoting, self-aggrandizing? Are they not, especially at local levels, people much like ourselves?
Are they not doing a job that most of us do not want to do ourselves? Is there any reason to think tht we would be any better at the job then they are? Is there any reason to think that we could find better candidates if we looked harder or provided
better incentives? Is there any reason to think that democracy should produce, if not utopia, then at least an eternal Age of Pericles? Is there any reason to think that we are not getting exactly the kind of representation and leadership that
we deserve?