• Monthly
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $other
  • use PayPal

ONE WEEK TO DOUBLE YOUR DONATION!

A generous CounterPuncher has offered a $25,000 matching grant. So for this week only, whatever you can donate will be doubled up to $25,000! If you have the means, please donate! If you already have done so, thank you for your support. All contributions are tax-deductible.
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Democracy in America, Revisited

Since American democracy is in the process of disintegrating, it might be worthwhile to reflect on the nature of the phenomenon, and the sources of its dialectical death.  In 1982 the eminent French scholar, Pierre Manent, published a study of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, the two volumes of which came out in 1835/40.  Manent’s work was subsequently translated into English under the title Tocqueville and the Nature of Democracy; Harvey Mansfield of Harvard University contributed a Foreword to it.  Mansfield writes:

Democracy produces a sense of independence in its citizens, a sentiment  that each is a whole because he depends on no one else; and the democratic   dogma [sic] states that every citizen is competent to govern his own life.  Hence democracy is not merely, perhaps not primarily, a form of  government; or it is [a] form of government that almost denies the need for  government.  And as a society, democracy is antisocial; it severs individuals  from one another by pronouncing each of them equally free.  All the traditional relationships are broken or weakened….Above all, democracy does not know where it tends and where it should go.

The blurb on the back cover of the book states that “Pierre Manent’s analysis concludes that the growth of state power and the homogenization of society are two primary consequences of equalizing conditions.”  We are, of course, living with these consequences nearly 180 years after Tocqueville’s first volume.

Professor Mansfield is, as one would expect, a proponent of democracy; most Americans are.  Yet one wonders what he thinks of his own critique; the characteristics he identifies are hardly minor drawbacks in the system.  I couldn’t help trying to look at it through the lens of Islamic societies (to the extent that I am able to do such a thing).  Truth be told, I’m not a big fan of Allah’s, nor of stoning adulterers to death, nor of intellectual stultification, and etc., and I suspect it will be a while before I put down a deposit on a condo in Tehran.  But their problems don’t do anything to improve our own, and it seems to me that their revulsion toward the United States is not all that puzzling, if one considers the following points:

* “each is a whole because he depends on no one else”

* “a form of government that almost denies the need for government”

* “democracy is antisocial; it severs individuals from one another”

* “all the traditional relationships are broken or weakened”

* “democracy does not know…where it should go”

Clearly, with friends like these (Mansfield), democracy needs no enemies; this is a fairly good description of a “psychological slum,” as the sociologist Philip Slater once called the United States.  And speaking of enemies, I couldn’t help thinking of the message to the American people delivered by Osama bin Laden on the eve of the 2004 presidential election.  I don’t have the text in front of me, but I remember his saying, “You have no Guide, no Helper.”  He understood that America was a ship without a rudder—something that the two candidates, G.W. Bush and John Kerry, were unable to grasp.  They both condemned the address without any substantive comment, to show they were “tough on terrorism”—thereby losing the opportunity to reflect, publicly, on what had gone wrong with American democracy (which of course wouldn’t have gone over well with a basically stupefied electorate—and indeed, one of Tocqueville’s major points is that democracy ultimately wouldn’t work if the population wasn’t too bright.)

Mansfield’s critique also meshes well with the recent book by his Harvard colleagues Jacqueline Olds and Richard Schwartz, The Lonely American, which documents the lives of quiet desperation that Americans lead.  Nationwide, 25% of all habitations are single-person dwellings, and the figure for New York City is nearly 50%.  In recent years the number of people who say they don’t have a single person they can confide in has jumped to 33%.  It’s a sad, if honest, book—an obituary, really, for a bold and brilliant experiment that finally didn’t work out.  For suicide takes place on two levels: the macrolevel, of public institutions and domestic and foreign policy; and the microlevel, i.e. in the hearts and minds of individual citizens. Both of these processes are well underway, and have been for some time now.

Finally: I have always been a great admirer of Isaiah Berlin, the Russian-Jewish-British political scientist who spent his life cautioning the West about the dangers of coercive systems such as that of the former Soviet Union.  In his famous Oxford University inaugural lecture of 1958, “Two Concepts of Liberty,” Berlin defined “negative freedom” as freedom from; it is the freedom to do whatever the heck you please as long as you don’t infringe on anyone else.  “Positive freedom,” on the other hand, is freedom to;it is the freedom of a directive ideal, one that holds up a vision of the good life (whatever that might be) and encourages—or forces—people to conform to that image.  Going back to at least the seventeenth century, negative freedom is the Anglo-Saxon conception of what it means to be free; and as far as Berlin was concerned (as a good British subject—he became Sir Isaiah the year before his inaugural lecture), that was the only real freedom around. The other variety, he argued, was inevitably dangerous.  The only problem is, without a positive vision of the good life, the good society, what are we?  How could we be anything else except a ship without a rudder?  This, to me, is the Achilles heel in the Berlinian edifice, for negative freedom finally affirms nothing—as the example of contemporary America clearly demonstrates.  George H.W. Bush, that great intellectual, was fond of using the word “vision” sarcastically; he was proud of the fact that he had none.  (What a shock, that his son became an alcoholic, a Christian fundamentalist, and a war criminal.)  He was a synecdoche for the nation, and ironically, he confirmed what Osama bin Laden said about the United States a dozen or so years later.

There is no doubt, of course, that “vision” can get out of hand; this was Berlin’s whole point.  But what he failed to understand was that lack of vision can also get out of hand, as Harvey Mansfield makes abundantly clear.  And that has happened to the United States, which accounts for the odd combination of hysteria plus inertia in our contemporary political life. It also means that there is no way of reversing the trajectory; I mean, where do you start?  You can’t just assign the country “vision,” and think that’s going to work (this was in fact the idea of the communitarian movement of the nineties, led by Amitai Etzioni, and it was an embarrassing failure).  The dialectical part of this is that the strengths of American democracy are precisely its weaknesses; the whole thing is a package deal.  Or to put it another way, the ideology of negative freedom, of no-vision, cannot evolve into anything else but the negative, visionless society that we now have, and the seeds of this were planted a long time ago.

So here we are, wrote T.S. Eliot in the Four Quartets, “in the middle way…years largely wasted, the years of l’entre deux guerres” (obviously more than deux, in the case of the United States),

And so each venture                                                                                                                                                                              Is…a raid on the inarticulate                                                                                                                                              With shabby equipment always deteriorating….”

The Four Quartets is about many things, but I believe Eliot’s major theme here is the acceptance of death.  Wouldn’t it make sense, at this point, for America to “resign” with dignity, instead of pursuing endless, meaningless, genocidal wars, and a hollow American Dream?  To come to terms with the dynamics of its collapse, and just accept it?  To finally (to paraphrase another famous poet) “go gentle into that good night”?  I expect that kind of maturity is completely beyond our grasp, but it would be, at long last, a vision of sorts.

Morris Berman’s latest book is Why America Failed.

 

More articles by:
bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
Weekend Edition
October 18, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Anthony DiMaggio
Trump as the “Anti-War” President: on Misinformation in American Political Discourse
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Where’s the Beef With Billionaires?
Rob Urie
Capitalism and the Violence of Environmental Decline
Paul Street
Bernie in the Deep Shit: Dismal Dem Debate Reflections
Andrew Levine
What’s So Awful About Foreign Interference?
T.J. Coles
Boris Johnson’s Brexit “Betrayal”: Elect a Clown, Expect a Pie in Your Face
Joseph Natoli
Trump on the March
Ashley Smith
Stop the Normalization of Concentration Camps
Pete Dolack
The Fight to Overturn the Latest Corporate Coup at Pacifica Has Only Begun
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Russophobia at Democratic Party Debate
Chris Gilbert
Forward! A Week of Protest in Catalonia
Daniel Beaumont
Pressing Done Here: Syria, Iraq and “Informed Discussion”
Daniel Warner
Greta the Disturber
M. G. Piety
“Grim Positivism” vs. Truthiness in Biography
John Kendall Hawkins
Journey to the Unknown Interior of (You)
Christopher Fons – Conor McMullen
The Centrism of Elizabeth Warren
Nino Pagliccia
Peace Restored in Ecuador, But is trust?
Rebecca Gordon
Extorting Ukraine is Bad Enough But Trump Has Done Much Worse
Kathleen Wallace
Trump Can’t Survive Where the Bats and Moonlight Laugh
Clark T. Scott
Cross-eyed, Fanged and Horned
Eileen Appelbaum
The PR Campaign to Hide the Real Cause of those Sky-High Surprise Medical Bills
Olivia Alperstein
Nuclear Weapons are an Existential Threat
Colin Todhunter
Asia-Pacific Trade Deal: Trading Away Indian Agriculture?
Sarah Anderson
Where is “Line Worker Barbie”?
Brian Cloughley
Yearning to Breathe Free
Jill Richardson
Why are LGBTQ Rights Even a Debate?
Jesse Jackson
What I Learn While Having Lunch at Cook County Jail
Kathy Kelly
Death, Misery and Bloodshed in Yemen
Maximilian Werner
Leadership Lacking for Wolf Protection
Arshad Khan
The Turkish Gambit
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Rare Wildflower vs. Mining Company
Dianne Woodward
Race Against Time (and For Palestinians)
Norman Ball
Wall Street Sees the Light of Domestic Reindustrialization
Ramzy Baroud
The Last Lifeline: The Real Reason Behind Abbas’ Call for Elections
Binoy Kampmark
African Swine Fever Does Its Worst
Nicky Reid
Screwing Over the Kurds: An All-American Pastime
Louis Proyect
“Our Boys”: a Brutally Honest Film About the Consequences of the Occupation
Coco Das
#OUTNOW
Cesar Chelala
Donald Trump vs. William Shakespeare
Ron Jacobs
Calling the Kettle White: Ishmael Reed Unbound
Stephen Cooper
Scientist vs. Cooper: The Interview, Round 3 
Susan Block
How “Hustlers” Hustles Us
Charles R. Larson
Review: Elif Shafak’s “10 Minutes 38 Seconds in This Strange World”
David Yearsley
Sunset Songs
October 17, 2019
Steve Early
The Irishman Cometh: Teamster History Hits the Big Screen (Again)
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail