Customer Reviews

Does American Democracy Still Work? (The Future of American Democracy Series)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Wolfe explains in simple terms the many aspects of modern American politics that weaken, deflect, and encumber our ability to affect or even understand the laws that are being slung at us. Our incredible cynicism about the candor of the media, the ethics of our representation, and the effectiveness of our institutions allows pressure from certain groups to ensure that all of these actually live down to our expectations. Wolfe claims that government is the only thing that is capable of being impartial, and we need to refocus our priority on it.

I admit that I was looking forward to a critique of the structure of the federal government (more along the lines of Dahl's "How Democratic is the American Constitution?"). I was satisfied to find, rather, a very empirical look at the political messages he classifies as populism. Corruption and deceit being nothing new, he identifies the new tactic as abandoning the middle to whip up support in the base and discourage the opposition. In this way, Bush has been able to claim support for his radical and illogical ideas. Wolfe also includes a great deal of discussion of the events of the past year, when some would have argued that Bush was backing off.

Alan hints that the Democratic Party should be given a chance to straighten things out but never explicitly endorses anyone or rests his argumentation on contingent outcomes of any kind. He insists upon the participation and self-empowerment of individuals as the only way to ensure that the Dems won't be just as bad.

Between this title and Stefan Klein's "The Science of Happiness" I have to conclude that pessimism is no longer an option for those who consider themselves mature. It is not a path to pleasant surprises. Rather, it is a dismissive force that has made our habitats less and less livable for several decades despite the fantastic machinery we've surrounded ourselves with. This book is an excellent tool for mastering critiques of the Republicans that have almost nothing to do with Dems, which makes them really hard to rebut. Enjoy.

Alan Wolfe is a sharp thinker who argues persuasively that American democracy is in dire trouble. While I got new insights from this important critique, this book like many others is more accurately a chronicle of the failings of American democracy rather than an intelligent strategy for reform. It is an important book.

Dr. Wolfe's political orientation is that of a liberal democrat. What does this mean? He describes the liberal democratic outlook as tolerant, suspicious of divine truth, favoring laissez-faire economics and civil liberties, questioning unchecked central power, distrustful of war, committed to reason. It favors majority rule but limited government, individualism, the rule of law, respect for empirical facts, and pluralism. It is rooted, philosophically, with Adam Smith and John Locke and the Enlightenment. It's distrustful of war and likes commitments to international law. This is, in my ways, my value system although I'm more nationalistic perhaps, and I am decidedly non-partisan (whereas I bet Dr. Wolfe votes Democratic).

While Dr. Wolfe sometimes leans to the left politically, I do not think this undermines the integrity of his argument. For example, sometimes he thinks of justice as social justice (redistributing wealth to cause fair outcomes) instead of a conservative sense of justice as fair process. He sees conservatives as "people who have never given any indication of being constrained by conscience." I do not think this is fair. From my perspective as a non-partisan, I think both liberal and conservative ideologies have valid claims regarding morality, and I think it's a mistake intellectually to choose either side, and there are thinkers such as Aristotle and Thomas Sowell (author of "A Conflict of Visions") who have persuaded me that the left-right battle will never be won.

He is highly critical of the Bush-Cheney administration (2000-2008) but his criticisms are valid in my view. He blames Republicans for much of our political mess while admiring their political skill: they're "more united, more focused, more determined, more successful." Republicans caused a "virtual exclusion of the opposition party in the House from any legislative or investigatory role", he writes. They allowed private interests to write bills that concerned them. They imposed loyalty tests on supposedly non-partisan experts. They hired friendly journalists to promote their policies. They pushed for excessive executive power. Their foreign policy ignored non-partisan experts. They foisted ideologically-charged judges on the judiciary. Dr. Wolfe sees religion as replacing economic self-interest as a basic determinant of voting; I'm less sure this trend will last. Overall, I'm less inclined to blame Republicans but see the breakdown of American democracy as a long chain of causes-and-effects going back centuries (I explain my theory in my book).

What I found interesting was his notion that America needs what he calls disinterested institutions -- referees, gatekeepers, impartial scorekeepers, elites who stand above competing economic and political forces. And these disinterested institutions are disappearing. He's right. The media used to be one such disinterested institution with a preponderance of concern for factual reporting. While there has always been bias in journalism, he writes that the most media outlets used to think of themselves as disinterested observers who were dedicated to the public welfare. Quality news broadcasting used to be the price paid for a license to broadcast to the public. But this has degenerated. Corporate acquisitions of media outlets by non-media companies, deregulation by the FCC, and competition from cable networks undermined the integrity of television journalism. Today, news and entertainment are muddied together. News has lost its objectivity; instead, it's a commodity to be hawked and sold like peanut butter or Cheetos. Philosophers such as Jurgen Habermas have sociological explanations for this decline (see his excellent "The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere".)

Much of Dr. Wolfe's analysis is consistent with tough no-nonsense non-partisan political critics such as Dana D. Nelson (see her excellent "Bad for Democracy") and Benjamin Ginsberg (author of the brilliant "The American Lie"). The picture is disturbing: apathetic citizens; disinterested voters; lack of competition for House seats in Congress; partisanship; gridlocked government; corruption. Wolfe introduces a new measure of democratic death: how little time opposition lawmakers are given to study bills before voting on them. For example, the 9/11 Commission issued a 244-page report; how long did members get to read this report before voting? Four hours. Dr. Wolfe sees political parties as losing influence and the ability to motivate people and rein in candidates, and he sees this as a bad thing, which is surprising to me. Other writers have come to similar conclusions about the decline of political parties. From my perspective, I had come to see political parties as being one of the major problems with America because they cause needless friction and partisanship. What's difficult for me to accept is that their breakdown is bad for the country; or, rather, that political parties in previous generations had some positive benefits that perhaps I might have overlooked? Regardless, I agree with Dr. Wolfe that American democracy has become dysfunctional, broken, gridlocked.

Where I disagree more strongly with Dr. Wolfe is what's to come. He thinks "democracy is here to stay" but it might not be a liberal democracy (in the larger sense I wrote about earlier). He thinks entrenched political parties will become the norm. He calls for a democracy protection movement (like a green movement) that, from my viewpoint, looks rather naive.

But overall, an excellent work. Highly recommended.

Thomas W. Sulcer
Author of "The Second Constitution of the United States"
(free on web; google title + Sulcer)

A good topical discussions on many aspects of democracy degenerates into a liberal ideological diatribe. Wolfe says new democracy divisions are cultural rather than economic.
If that was ever valid it has certainly changed back. Whatever Wolfe says is new is by now well out of date (2011). He attributes populism to conservative ideology and Republican party politics. The popular concept of majority rule is itself populism. The move to popular expansion government was facilitated by the 17th Amendment initiating popular election of senators. Current there are populist attacks on the Electoral College and remaining super majority voting on tax legislation. That's all liberalism not conservative; Democratic politics, not Republican. If Bush manipulated opinions of Congress and finessed the press, he learned it from LBJ.

Wolfe attributes much power to the Republican party. In fact, it was not so long ago that the R party was considered to be nearly defunct. He attributes libertarianism to Republicans, recognizing that the Libertarian party has minimal popular following. Far from Wolfe's denial, big government is here to stay. Since the book was written Dems have gained control, largely from the popular anti Bush vote. Wolfe contradicts James Caraville's "40 More Years", a much more prescient view of politics. We have Nancy Pelosi saying "We won the election, we write the legislation." What's not outright wrong in the book is much out of date. Things have changed since 2006, but not as much as one would think from this reading.

Wolfe calls Bush our most ideological president. He's forgotten LBJ and Jimmy Carter and the book was too early for Obama. He attributes political opponents with fantasy in thinking that taxes can go down and spending up. Current politics is showing that borrowing and printing accomplishes exactly that while increased taxes does not reduce spending but motivates further increase. There's an interesting description of Fanno's paradox, explaining that people deplore representatives in general but like their own. There's also double talk of semi-populism and hyper-populism.

Wolfe makes banal populist statements like "democracies ought to promote justice", reserving to himself the definition of justice. For international politics, Wolfe refers to Fareed Zacharia on Russia and India.

As a frequent contributor to publications such as "The New Republic" and "The American Prospect," it is no secret to which political party Alan Wolfe belongs. That he questions whether American democracy is still working may have to do with the fact that his party has been out of power for many years. (This book was written before the 2006 midterms.) In any case, he leaves himself open to that criticism.

In the current work, Wolfe is lamenting the current moralism and populism that has infiltrated political campaigns of recent years. The moral values and populist candidate appeals to the voters emotions rather than their economic self-interest. (Shades of "What's the Matter With Kansas?".) He calls this phenomenon "the new politics of democracy."

Wolfe claims, astonishingly, that we operate in a "democracy without information." There is now more information available to the voter than ever before, the problem is that voters have chosen not to use this information. Presumably if they had, they would have voted Democratic in Wolfe's narrative.

Wolfe decries the demise of political parties, and the increasing influence of interest groups. This has been especially true in the Republican-controlled Congress, and it is something Democrats must guard against. Fiercely partisan politics has also displaced the traditional influence of elites who were always believed to have the public good in mind. (This lost influence of elites was also lamented by Fareed Zakaria in "The Future of Freedom".) Also the rise of the New Media (internet, cable tv, etc.) tends to raise the emotional level of politics and at the same time undermine traditonal centers of authority and common ground.

All that being understood, it can be said in hindsight that the voters in the 2006 midterms have rejected the new politics of democracy. The moralism and populism was muted in the wake of recent scandals. The emotional appeal has not translated into competence and sound policy. The elections were not so much about values as about the results of six years of Republican mismanagement.

The answer to Wolfe's question, "Does Democracy Still Work?," is a resounding yes. The hope, however, is that the newly elected Democratic Congress refrain from similar corrupt practices that proverbially accompanies power and stick to the issues. One hopes also that Wolfe remain intellectually honest and hold them to the same standards.