Is Democracy a Failure?

[Independent voter]

New York Times editor asks if democracy is a failure back in 1861.






http://www.nytimes.com/1861/03/14/ne...a-failure.html

Among the many voices raised in Europe over the disaster of secession, amid the groans of sorrow, cries of indignation and tones of sympathy which reach us from many lands beyond the sea, there is one neither loud nor mocking, but which, like the endless monotone in the poet's description of the uproar in hell, is more tormenting than all the other sounds combined. We mean that complacent "We told you so" of the friends of the old order of things -- of the men who have always predicted the downfall of the Republic -- not from any knowledge of us, but from the arbitrary assumption that Democracy is a false principle, and that, therefore, every Republic must be a failure.

It may strike the reader as a quibble, as an absurdity, or as a falsehood, should we, in refutation of this principle of absolutiism and oligarchy, ask at this time of day if the United States of North America have really at any time actually constituted a Republican Government. We have been so accustomed to hear from infancy eulogies of the wisdom which shaped our Constitution, praises of its perfection, hymns to its symmetry and strength, that to doubt its fullness of all excellence has come to sound like sacrilege. A hundred refutations have been in bygone days hurled back at the skeptics; our noblest efforts of oratory and song are dedicated to the immortality of the Union, and we have never ceased to exult over those short-sighted seers of the last generation, who, having calculated the nativity of our Union, fixed its duration at fifty years.

Yet, after all, we may now, in these days of disunion and terror, venture to ask if our Government has, after all, ever been a Republic? Has it been anything, in fact, but an aggregate of confederated States -- a mass of republics, if you will, but still not one Government, nor at any time one Republic? What is more expressive of political and social unity than one law for a people; the same for every one bearing the same national name? Yet, we have laws as different in our States as in the various countries of Europe. Louisiana and Massachusetts are an example of this, and the chaotic and conflicting character of jurisprudence in the lower Courts of every State as compared to others, fully confirms what we have said. The mere subject of divorce, with its contradictions, has more than once been pointed out by writers as entirely inconsistent with the idea of a stable and harmonious Government. Instead of striving vigorously to identify all portions of our country into one vast edifice of colossal strength, the tendency of our legislation has constantly been to separate the States still more widely. Local rivalry has developed a pride of mere peculiarity, which has been most disastrous to the sentiment of unity, and still more to that of that all-embracing greatness. Western legislatures have, in the mere luxury of eccentricity and in vanity of power, passed laws apparently with no other object than to be as different from others, and as odd and as provincial as possible. Had there been really but one Government, one country, in fact, this could never have been.

But, again, the widely differing local sentiments of different portions of America have been at melancholy or disgraceful variance for years from the feelings which should have existed under one Government. In the South this provincialism has run riot. Men have not been Americans, but Carolinians, Virginians, or what not, madly enthusiastic over their cantons, and continually exalting their little corner of the country over the country itself. We have not been like Rome of old -- we are almost like Germany, with her thirty tyrants and her thirty thousand local hatreds. Had we been from the beginning actually one homogeneous people under one Government, these contemptible provincialisms would not have been developed -- they could not.

The question now is, whether we can ever become a popular unit in reality, or should seek our political salvation in separate development. The hope of such a unity in many States is, frankly, desperate. And it must be borne in mind, from this time forth, that a single Government and a real Republic for those still in the Union can only be purchased, at the price of a reform of the most searching and radical nature. Are we great enough for it -- are we capable of it? One thing is, at least, certain, face it we must.

[PACOX]

People aren't interested in actually seeing democracy work, people are too selfish.

People are only concerned with their views rising to the top, with getting their way. In the US we fought a Civil War because some couldn't accept the democratic process. We've tolerated intolerance to sate the intolerant because the latter would refuse to wouldn't or threatened not to comply with the majority. You see simply majority doesn't mean that everyone is suddenly onboard and won't obstruct whatever the majority just passed. Same sex marriage was just made legal via a Constitutional amendment that was passed almost 150 years. At some point the democratic process broke down because it either took 150 years for the government to actually follow democratically passed amendment or SCOTUS's decision was not democratic. Either shows how we only accept democracy when its convenient.

You can even point to the current presidential election. Both candidates won the popular vote (all political controversies aside) within their party but received a heavy amount of backlash from those within their own parties who didn't want accept the end results. Even more so, one candidate said that he would be reluctant to accept the results of the election if they are not in his favor, a shining example of people only accepting democracy when it appeals to them.

We say that we'll accept majority rule but only the majority agrees with our own views. When we vote it tends to be for what WE (the self) can get out of it, not necessarily for whats for everyone or what will help out those who need it the most. Maybe democracy is flawed because the voters are flawed.

[Deleted]

Because so many people that claim to support the democratic process only do so when they like the outcome.

Also, since the majority vote counts and it's easy to influence the crowds you can sometimes steer the results almost too easily.
Even Hitler said: the masses are feminine and stupid

And what I find really interesting about democracy myself is what we are seeing right now, in the current time.
What happens when there are two groups of near equal size on the opposite end of an arguement that feel so strongly about their "cause".
Think Brexit and US elections here. What will the effects eventually be?

[Rojaha]

What defines success and failure though, and what form of government is successful? I'd like to live in whatever magical time and place has the "right" form of government where everyone is satisfied and all is right.

Less of a dick answer though: I don't think democracy is as superior a form of government as many believe, but I don't think its any more flawed than other forms of government.

In response to ye olde article: The short response is... "That's just, like, his opinion, man."

The writer views the level independence of states as a flaw and a problem, how local governments have different laws, etc. But contrast that with many people nowadays, who complain about globalism, or the federal government encroaching on states rights, or bureaucrats in Brussels having too much power over what happens in the UK. Even way back, there were anti-Federalists among America's founders, so dislike of a centralized authority/government for a single nation is nothing new. Many people, then and now, see too much consolidation of government, or federalism, as a problem. Ye olde article's author is clearly someone who doesn't like multiple smaller diverse governments and wants a bigger uniform government that encompasses as much as possible, but I don't really see that as being an argument of whether democracy works or not, but more an argument of globalism/federalism/government-size. Democracy can exist in more federal or confederate forms.

In modern America, most people don't think of themselves as citizens of their state first, like in his era. A major part of his argument is that under democracy, people of a democratic nation don't view themselves as a single people. No matter what though, regardless of government type, people will form factions/tribes/parties and never achieve the type of unity the author wants. No matter how homogenous you make a community, it will form sub-factions of some kind that will inevitably come into conflict of some kind. Its human nature.

"What is more expressive of political and social unity than one law for a people; the same for every one bearing the same national name?"

The reason for local laws and decentralization of governments is that everyplace and everyone are not the same, and what works for some in some places don't work for others in other places. Hell, the foundation of America was "F your rules, we don't like them, we'll make our own country with its own rules somewhere else." If we were to have some unified government of universal law, what would those laws be? The laws of European countries? The laws of Russia? The laws of the Middle East? As an American, personally I think its great that if, say, one state has something outlawed, and I think it being outlawed is BS, that I can always just go to a state where its legal. As an Earthling, I think its great that I can do that with countries, too.

[Azadina]

Short answer: It can't be a success or failure, if that's not the system you even have in use.

[Kalis]

We say that we'll accept majority rule but only the majority agrees with our own views.

I am not sure that is true for the majority, most people just get on with it if they lose, if they didn't we would see a lot more civil wars in democracies.

When we vote it tends to be for what WE (the self) can get out of it, not necessarily for whats for everyone or what will help out those who need it the most. Maybe democracy is flawed because the voters are flawed.

Democracy doesn't require you to vote for what is best for everyone or those who need it the most, I can't think of many things where everyone benefits and in some cases if you vote for what the most needy require, you could be causing hardship for others - I am not entirely sure those concepts are related to democracy as a whole, but rather to policy within democracy, so therefore not an issue with democracy itself.

[Aeula]

It barely exists. Even voting is little more than a glorified poll. And if the result isn't what the guys in charge want they'll do everything possible to find a way to render the will of the people null.

[mickybrighteyes]

Democracy is simply majority rules. Ask Socrates how that turned out for him...

Good thing America isn't actually a democracy

[Zarc]

Not a failure. Given the last 70 years it is arguably a great success.

But it is interesting to consider that when undemocratic forces was democratically elected to power in the 1930's, democracy was pretty young. Universal suffrage for men had only been introduced in the last half of the 19th century in the Western world and female universal suffrage around the turn of the century or early 20th century. Then people voted extreme authoritarian anti-democratic people into power, effectively misusing a democratic election to vote away democracy. Which is why democracy is about much more than elections. Like the rule of law, civil liberties, constitutional rights, human rights, etc. Then the world was plunged into a massive war where the Free World had to align with parts of the authoritarian world to defeat the most aggressive and threatening totalitarian ideology marching forward at the time in order to defend liberty. Then in the 1940's and onward it was as if the overwhelmingly crushing majority of the Greatest Generation had gotten immune to the authoritarian poison of the mind, which paved the way for what has been arguably the most successful 70 years of human history.

But now, with the Greatest Generation mostly gone, it is as if the world has forgotten. Again we're seeing authoritarian ideologies gaining ground in various forms, variously labeled right-wing populists, the alt-right, nationalists. People are beginning to once again vote undemocratic people into power through democratic elections. Where this has already happened, democracy is on retreat, with freedom of the press and an independent judiciary being dismantled in places like Hungary and Poland, and authoritarian undemocratic regimes like Russia being seen as a role model.

So, in short. Democracy is not a failure. Democracy is not responsible for people using the democratic process to turn against democracy itself. That is on the people. So, if democracy falls, it is the failure of the people. Not democracy. The last 70 years shows that democracy works better than any other system ever conceived.

Democracy is simply majority rules. Ask Socrates how that turned out for him...

No it isn't. Democracy is more than elections. Civil liberties, constitutional rights, human rights, rule of law, an independent judiciary.

[Deleted]

BUT, if you believe, like me, in the republic, at one moment, you must pass through the masonry.

[judgementofantonidas]

New York Times editor asks if democracy is a failure back in 1861.






http://www.nytimes.com/1861/03/14/ne...a-failure.html

Among the many voices raised in Europe over the disaster of secession, amid the groans of sorrow, cries of indignation and tones of sympathy which reach us from many lands beyond the sea, there is one neither loud nor mocking, but which, like the endless monotone in the poet's description of the uproar in hell, is more tormenting than all the other sounds combined. We mean that complacent "We told you so" of the friends of the old order of things -- of the men who have always predicted the downfall of the Republic -- not from any knowledge of us, but from the arbitrary assumption that Democracy is a false principle, and that, therefore, every Republic must be a failure.

It may strike the reader as a quibble, as an absurdity, or as a falsehood, should we, in refutation of this principle of absolutiism and oligarchy, ask at this time of day if the United States of North America have really at any time actually constituted a Republican Government. We have been so accustomed to hear from infancy eulogies of the wisdom which shaped our Constitution, praises of its perfection, hymns to its symmetry and strength, that to doubt its fullness of all excellence has come to sound like sacrilege. A hundred refutations have been in bygone days hurled back at the skeptics; our noblest efforts of oratory and song are dedicated to the immortality of the Union, and we have never ceased to exult over those short-sighted seers of the last generation, who, having calculated the nativity of our Union, fixed its duration at fifty years.

Yet, after all, we may now, in these days of disunion and terror, venture to ask if our Government has, after all, ever been a Republic? Has it been anything, in fact, but an aggregate of confederated States -- a mass of republics, if you will, but still not one Government, nor at any time one Republic? What is more expressive of political and social unity than one law for a people; the same for every one bearing the same national name? Yet, we have laws as different in our States as in the various countries of Europe. Louisiana and Massachusetts are an example of this, and the chaotic and conflicting character of jurisprudence in the lower Courts of every State as compared to others, fully confirms what we have said. The mere subject of divorce, with its contradictions, has more than once been pointed out by writers as entirely inconsistent with the idea of a stable and harmonious Government. Instead of striving vigorously to identify all portions of our country into one vast edifice of colossal strength, the tendency of our legislation has constantly been to separate the States still more widely. Local rivalry has developed a pride of mere peculiarity, which has been most disastrous to the sentiment of unity, and still more to that of that all-embracing greatness. Western legislatures have, in the mere luxury of eccentricity and in vanity of power, passed laws apparently with no other object than to be as different from others, and as odd and as provincial as possible. Had there been really but one Government, one country, in fact, this could never have been.

But, again, the widely differing local sentiments of different portions of America have been at melancholy or disgraceful variance for years from the feelings which should have existed under one Government. In the South this provincialism has run riot. Men have not been Americans, but Carolinians, Virginians, or what not, madly enthusiastic over their cantons, and continually exalting their little corner of the country over the country itself. We have not been like Rome of old -- we are almost like Germany, with her thirty tyrants and her thirty thousand local hatreds. Had we been from the beginning actually one homogeneous people under one Government, these contemptible provincialisms would not have been developed -- they could not.

The question now is, whether we can ever become a popular unit in reality, or should seek our political salvation in separate development. The hope of such a unity in many States is, frankly, desperate. And it must be borne in mind, from this time forth, that a single Government and a real Republic for those still in the Union can only be purchased, at the price of a reform of the most searching and radical nature. Are we great enough for it -- are we capable of it? One thing is, at least, certain, face it we must.

Well, after wall of text, show us a country that is a true democracy.

[mickybrighteyes]

No it isn't. Democracy is more than elections. Civil liberties, constitutional rights, human rights, rule of law, an independent judiciary.

sounds like you're referring to a democratic republic.

[Noomz]

New York Times editor asks if democracy is a failure back in 1861.






http://www.nytimes.com/1861/03/14/ne...a-failure.html

Among the many voices raised in Europe over the disaster of secession, amid the groans of sorrow, cries of indignation and tones of sympathy which reach us from many lands beyond the sea, there is one neither loud nor mocking, but which, like the endless monotone in the poet's description of the uproar in hell, is more tormenting than all the other sounds combined. We mean that complacent "We told you so" of the friends of the old order of things -- of the men who have always predicted the downfall of the Republic -- not from any knowledge of us, but from the arbitrary assumption that Democracy is a false principle, and that, therefore, every Republic must be a failure.

It may strike the reader as a quibble, as an absurdity, or as a falsehood, should we, in refutation of this principle of absolutiism and oligarchy, ask at this time of day if the United States of North America have really at any time actually constituted a Republican Government. We have been so accustomed to hear from infancy eulogies of the wisdom which shaped our Constitution, praises of its perfection, hymns to its symmetry and strength, that to doubt its fullness of all excellence has come to sound like sacrilege. A hundred refutations have been in bygone days hurled back at the skeptics; our noblest efforts of oratory and song are dedicated to the immortality of the Union, and we have never ceased to exult over those short-sighted seers of the last generation, who, having calculated the nativity of our Union, fixed its duration at fifty years.

Yet, after all, we may now, in these days of disunion and terror, venture to ask if our Government has, after all, ever been a Republic? Has it been anything, in fact, but an aggregate of confederated States -- a mass of republics, if you will, but still not one Government, nor at any time one Republic? What is more expressive of political and social unity than one law for a people; the same for every one bearing the same national name? Yet, we have laws as different in our States as in the various countries of Europe. Louisiana and Massachusetts are an example of this, and the chaotic and conflicting character of jurisprudence in the lower Courts of every State as compared to others, fully confirms what we have said. The mere subject of divorce, with its contradictions, has more than once been pointed out by writers as entirely inconsistent with the idea of a stable and harmonious Government. Instead of striving vigorously to identify all portions of our country into one vast edifice of colossal strength, the tendency of our legislation has constantly been to separate the States still more widely. Local rivalry has developed a pride of mere peculiarity, which has been most disastrous to the sentiment of unity, and still more to that of that all-embracing greatness. Western legislatures have, in the mere luxury of eccentricity and in vanity of power, passed laws apparently with no other object than to be as different from others, and as odd and as provincial as possible. Had there been really but one Government, one country, in fact, this could never have been.

But, again, the widely differing local sentiments of different portions of America have been at melancholy or disgraceful variance for years from the feelings which should have existed under one Government. In the South this provincialism has run riot. Men have not been Americans, but Carolinians, Virginians, or what not, madly enthusiastic over their cantons, and continually exalting their little corner of the country over the country itself. We have not been like Rome of old -- we are almost like Germany, with her thirty tyrants and her thirty thousand local hatreds. Had we been from the beginning actually one homogeneous people under one Government, these contemptible provincialisms would not have been developed -- they could not.

The question now is, whether we can ever become a popular unit in reality, or should seek our political salvation in separate development. The hope of such a unity in many States is, frankly, desperate. And it must be borne in mind, from this time forth, that a single Government and a real Republic for those still in the Union can only be purchased, at the price of a reform of the most searching and radical nature. Are we great enough for it -- are we capable of it? One thing is, at least, certain, face it we must.

Democracy fails no-one. We, fail democracy.

[Lynarii]

What defines success and failure though, and what form of government is successful? I'd like to live in whatever magical time and place has the "right" form of government where everyone is satisfied and all is right.

Less of a dick answer though: I don't think democracy is as superior a form of government as many believe, but I don't think its any more flawed than other forms of government.

In response to ye olde article: The short response is... "That's just, like, his opinion, man."

The writer views the level independence of states as a flaw and a problem, how local governments have different laws, etc. But contrast that with many people nowadays, who complain about globalism, or the federal government encroaching on states rights, or bureaucrats in Brussels having too much power over what happens in the UK. Even way back, there were anti-Federalists among America's founders, so dislike of a centralized authority/government for a single nation is nothing new. Many people, then and now, see too much consolidation of government, or federalism, as a problem. Ye olde article's author is clearly someone who doesn't like multiple smaller diverse governments and wants a bigger uniform government that encompasses as much as possible, but I don't really see that as being an argument of whether democracy works or not, but more an argument of globalism/federalism/government-size. Democracy can exist in more federal or confederate forms.

In modern America, most people don't think of themselves as citizens of their state first, like in his era. A major part of his argument is that under democracy, people of a democratic nation don't view themselves as a single people. No matter what though, regardless of government type, people will form factions/tribes/parties and never achieve the type of unity the author wants. No matter how homogenous you make a community, it will form sub-factions of some kind that will inevitably come into conflict of some kind. Its human nature.

"What is more expressive of political and social unity than one law for a people; the same for every one bearing the same national name?"

The reason for local laws and decentralization of governments is that everyplace and everyone are not the same, and what works for some in some places don't work for others in other places. Hell, the foundation of America was "F your rules, we don't like them, we'll make our own country with its own rules somewhere else." If we were to have some unified government of universal law, what would those laws be? The laws of European countries? The laws of Russia? The laws of the Middle East? As an American, personally I think its great that if, say, one state has something outlawed, and I think it being outlawed is BS, that I can always just go to a state where its legal. As an Earthling, I think its great that I can do that with countries, too.

This is a pretty good representation of my views on the topic too. And really, one has to keep in mind what the goal of the US form of democracy was in the first place. The US Constitution was born out of a strong fear of government tyranny. They were not even trying to design the 'best' government possible (I'd consider that to be a benevolent dictatorship). What they were focused on is limiting the ability of a bad government to hurt it's own citizens. If you look at the way the US systems were designed, at every turn you can see how they were doing their best to keep a single bad leader from doing irreparable harm to the country. And by that measure, they did as well as anyone in history has. There have been some pretty bad presidents, and there's been some really bad decisions made, but the country has been one of the most stable major countries in the world for quite a while now.

The world has changed in ways that the writers of the constitution could never have possibly imagined, and there's been hundreds of years of compromises made between the formation of the country and now. It's hardly surprising that there are serious cracks in the system as it stands today. But that's not a failure in the general idea, that's simply a measure of how difficult it is to find /any/ way to run a country that has the size, scale, and differences in demographics of the modern US.

There are larger differences between some US states than there are between France and Germany, and just look at how well those two countries have historically gotten along. It's a miracle that the US government can ever do anything at all, and I say that without sarcasm.

[yetgdhfgh]

We aint found anything that is any better so we make do with it

[Macaquerie]

Whenever people say that democracy has "failed" the implication is always that some form of authoritarian government could have done better. And yeah, that's true in some cases when an obvious solution to a problem exists and all that's needed is a leader with enough strength to implement it against all opposition, but we really do have to just look at the track record here. For thousands of years people lived under various forms of tyrannical and murderous regimes where might was right and winners wrote the histories, and while those societies did have some accomplishments, life more or less remained unchanged throughout. On the other hand, liberal democracies have only been around for a few centuries and have pretty much managed to remake the entire world every generation or so.

[Dezerte]

Democracy is an imperfect system by design. It allows "might makes right", or "tyranny of the majority" as it's perhaps more commonly referred to as. There is is always going to be an inefficiency problem when the most popular action is more likely to happen than the most correct (as in the most favorable, logically and scientifically speaking - e.g. climate change) action.

It's like reddit, the most popular posts gets the most votes - and what typically makes a post popular on reddit? Humor, and finding a common denominator that will appeal to as many as possible (e.g. meme's).

Still, it's probably the most stable form of governance as of yet.

[Therec]

Sometimes it seems ridiculous that the village idiot has the same amount of say on our future as experts in their field. However there doesn't seem to be a better solution to democracy.

Maybe some sort of idiot test before being able to vote on issues?

[McFuu]

We aren't a democracy, we are a republic. There are huge differences past representatives as well.

In the respect of the word, yes democracy did fail, because the system is based on the people and people are stupid, especially in groups. At least with a republic, limits placed on the equally stupid representatives voted in by the ignorant public helps limit the damage they can inflict.

[Rudkobing]

Ummm, no.

/10 no