1

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY’S UNCERTAIN FUTURE:

A FORMER CONGRESSMAN CHALLENGES

CONVENTIONAL DEMOCRATIC ORTHODOXY

By Glen Browder

America is changing in ways that are important and unsettling for the future of American democracy; and we—America’s democracy experts—seemingly are too theoretically limited, too politically timid, or too ideologically arrogant to sound the alarm. In this unconventional analysis, I will offer a provocative assessment of distempered American democracy and recommend how we can enhance prospects for our Great Experiment in the Twenty-First Century.*

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOCRATIC ORTHODOXY

Clearly, the United States remains the standard, by most accounts, of progressive democracy and the good life at this point in world history; and America’s economic strength and military power in a uni-polar world have fostered bold ventures in democratic exportation. Ironically, however, our democratic eminence and bold international initiatives have focused attention away from increasingly untoward developments in our domestic democratic endeavor.

Despite our obvious standing as world democratic hegemon, candid scrutiny reveals that these are indeed anxious times for America’s “Great Experiment” (so labeled by Alexis de Tocqueville) of national democratic governance. As I’ve argued elsewhere, telltale signs of democratic distemper belie our contemporary well-being. The traditional course of American history has gone awry—overly stressed by a constrained systemic environment and philosophical civil war—and our civic mix of people, politics, and government no longer works the way it has in the past. Most importantly, despite economic strength and international power, we may be tiring of the Great Experiment itself.

* DRAFT: 8-21-03. This manuscript—which provides the author’s recommendations for enhancing American democracy—draws substantially from his book (The Future of American Democracy: A Former Congressman’s Unconventional Analysis; University Press of America, Inc., 2002). It was prepared for “Capitol Hill Briefing and Discussion” sponsored by the California Institute for Federal Policy Research at Washington, DC, August 21, 2003.

______

Candidly examining the realities and vulnerabilities of American democracy is an uncomfortable but necessary enterprise. As Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria explains in The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad (2003):

To discuss these problems is not to say that democracy is a bad thing. Overwhelmingly it has had wonderful consequences. Who among us would want to go back to an age with fewer choices and less individual power and autonomy? But like any broad transformation, democracy has its dark sides. Yet we rarely speak about them. To do so would be to provoke instant criticism that you are “out of sync” with the times. But this means that we never really stop to understand these times. Silenced by fears of being branded “antidemocratic” we have no way to understand what might be troubling about the ever-increasing democratization of our lives. We assume that no problem could ever be caused by democracy, so when we see social, political, and economic maladies we shift blame here and there, deflecting problems, avoiding answers, but never talking about the great transformation that is at the center of our political, economic, and social lives. (16-17)

If America’s political, academic, and media leaders engage in vigorous debate about our trending democratic condition, our nation can learn much about dealing successfully with the challenges of the Twenty-First Century—and we can proceed cautiously and effectively with our international inclinations. However, we (counting myself among that elite) fail the requirements of responsible leadership if we accept today’s version of public dialogue as effective preparation for our democratic future. Unfortunately, current public discussion about American democracy is a stale orthodoxy of simplistically and contradictorily progressive ideas buttressed by theoretically-limited, politically-cautious, and ideologically-arrogant analysis.

Essence and Deficiency

of Conventional Democratic Orthodoxy

The essence of conventional democratic orthodoxy is an almost religious belief in the indomitable, permanent, progressive destiny of American democracy. Blind faith incorrectly views democracy as a uni-dimensional phenomenon of ever more, ever better, ever purer ideals, if only “we the people” can control selfish, unfair forces of society such as the special interests and professional politicians.

Anticipation of Ultimate, Absolute Democracy. Unfortunately, conventional orthodoxy—with its anticipation of ultimate, absolute democracy—ignores not only the logic but also the history of our American experience. In actuality, our Great Experiment originated and has operated historically as an uncertain, mixed exercise of (a) elite rule and popular sovereignty, (b) pursuing fuzzy, conflicted ideals, (c) through a constitutionally limited system of representative government. Nevertheless, over time, the American people increasingly have subscribed to the sacred, schizophrenic truism of a resolute nation forever committed to resoluble democratic ideals of liberty, equality, and justice. More pointedly, this orthodoxy articulates endless, numbing variation of the mantra that “The cure for the ills of American democracy is always more democracy”. Despite inherent contradictions, these democratic canons have been enshrined in American popular culture and history; and they severely limit our capacity for critically examining the Great Experiment.

Reluctance To Acknowledge Democratic Distemper. The centrally-pertinent deficiency of contemporary democratic orthodoxy, in my opinion, is our collective reluctance to acknowledge the existence and extent of national democratic distemper. Most analysts seem rather lazy and cowardly and arrogant regarding the cumulating problems of American democracy; and, even in the throes of extended distemper, we consider the rhetorical idea of civic mortality an improper topic for constructive conversation about the Great Experiment.

Theoretical Limitation. Very seldom, for example, do we conduct rigorous, comprehensive discourse about how modern life and societal developments challenge traditional democratic ideals, practices, and institutions; nor are we willing to consider, theoretically, whether the American systemic environment may have changed fundamentally and perhaps unfavorably for the continued performance of our historical Great Experiment. We too often focus on more immediate, static, single-factor villains (such as objectionable politicians, the special interests, and apathetic voters) rather than subjecting ourselves and the American polity to strenuous mental exercise and the heavy-lifting of democratic citizenship. Intellectual indolence suits the demands of the current marketplace; but our long-term national health requires more difficult, dynamic, comprehensive explanations for inter-related dysfunctions of our evolving democratic system.

Political Timidity. Along with this theoretical indolence, we’re inclined toward political timidity. Very few analysts with mainstream leadership stature are willing to confront the contradictions or to suggest bold initiatives in democracy. We routinely promote acceptably progressive fixes (such as campaign finance reform, universal voter access, and public policy referenda); but we shy away from talking publicly about the unsteady foundation of our democratic experiment.

Ideological Arrogance. Even when we’re not lazy and timid, American analysts exhibit equally egregious ideological arrogance, evading the systemic faults of American democracy by focusing on more personally entertaining and satisfying points of partisan argument. For example, when confronted with America’s fundamental systemic distemper, ideological democrats viscerally blame ideological republicans for some extraneous transgression; and those same republicans blame those same democrats in similar manner. Ditto Democrats and Republicans of officially partisan status, liberals and conservatives, secularists and moralists, and other adversaries of varying creeds and causes. It is difficult for otherwise intelligent and rational friends to conduct serious discussion about the condition of American democracy without degenerating into issue agendas and doctrinal passions totally unrelated to the experimental foundation of the Great Experiment. Maybe we’re just cocksure of our own ideological ideas; or perhaps we’re addicted to noisy, exaggerated, partisan carping against those who disagree with us (and I confess my own civic sins on this count). Whatever the reasons, we’re reluctant to cross the psychological bridge to more responsible democratic debate.

In sum, I maintain that America is changing in important and unsettling ways; and I am convinced that the current mindset of conventional democratic orthodoxy—elitist homage to democratic platitudes within persistent parameters of theoretical lethargy, political timidity, and ideological arrogance—surely hinders our comprehension of transformational America. Civic courage—challenging the American people to consider the tricky complexities of democracy within a changing society—is the critical, missing element of democratic debate as we enter the Twenty-First Century. If continued, our laziness and cowardice and partisanship may impact the Great Experiment itself.

Time To Change

It is time to change our ways. As Ted Halstead (President and CEO of the New America Foundation) said about the troubled state of our union in a recent interview with The Atlantic Monthly, we now must dare to think big and form a new framework for the Twenty-First Century:

America has entered a very new world—the information age—characterized by significant job mobility, profound changes in the nature of work and family, and high levels of uncertainty. Yet our nation remains very much mired in industrial-era institutions, ideologies, and political parties. The question is how to catch our political system, our public policies, our institutions, and our ideologies up with the sweep of history . . . I think what we need now is a set of leaders who are willing to lose on principle instead of doing whatever it takes to stay in power . . . We need leaders who are willing to take risks, roll up their sleeves, be honest with the American people, and not pretend that everything can be win, win, win with no pain involved. (“What Is the Real State of the Union”; January 14, 2003)

Most certainly, we will not address the long-term security of American democracy with conventional instruments of change such as campaign reform, journalistic outrage, and more civics textbooks. Instead, we must initiate broad, public, systemic discussion based on sound theoretical understanding, bold political insight, and nonpartisan analysis of our evolutionary democratic experiment.

We also desperately need, as part of that unconventional debate, the perspective of reform analysts who have both expertise and experience in the real world of American democracy. To put it self-servingly, we could use the services of someone with academic background who also has struggled—as a responsible, accountable, conscientious public official—with the conflict between democratic ideals and democratic reality. Someone who has juggled the national interest with local needs, representational judgment with popular will, partisan allegiance with individual preference, and personal conscience with the demands of electoral politics. Someone who has stood among powerful Presidents, Governors, Speakers, Majority Leaders (all wanting support for their agendas) and among constituents (who hold the electoral strings). Someone who has endured the consuming, contentious life of governmental responsibility, party warfare, media scrutiny, and campaign hell. Someone who has championed campaign finance reform while necessarily “dialing for dollars” from the special interests. Someone who has regularly put his name on the ballot for collective judgment, affirmation, or rejection “by, of, and for” the American people. Someone who is prepared theoretically, politically, ideologically to attack, head-on, the uncertain future of American democracy.

Obviously, I figure I’m “someone” as described in the preceding paragraphs.

Unconventional Essay And Challenge

Thus I present here an unconventional essay on the uncertain destiny of American democracy. I declare a systemic state of national democratic distemper; I offer an unsettling theory of systemic transformation; I project untoward developments in American democracy; and I recommend a provocative course of action to enhance the future of our Great Experiment.

Additionally, I challenge the ruling masters of political, academic, and media discourse to debate my ideas and to suggest alternative analyses. Not with conventional simplisms but with serious discussion acknowledging fundamental challenge and change in the American democratic system.

AN UNCONVENTIONAL ANALYSIS

OF TRANSFORMING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

My somber assessment of American democracy is an admittedly dramatic, unpleasant analysis; but this appraisal is my compelling analytic focus after three decades in public life—as political scientist, campaign consultant, and public official—including most of the past decade as a Member of the United States Congress. I believe that analyzing America’s evolving democratic destiny—thoroughly and critically as a fundamental transformation—is the central public debate of our time.

I have come to the disturbing suspicion that we may be drifting perilously away from the Great Experiment of American history. Anger, cynicism, extremism—and a pernicious irrelevancy—are taking their toll on our national democratic experiment. America seems to be experiencing unhealthy disarray—sometimes noisily, sometimes unconsciously, and often by popular decree—as we enter the Twenty-First Century. Clearly, it is time for unconventional public debate about the worrisome state of American democracy; without serious discussion now, our condition will only worsen in the coming years.

Of course, there is no real doubt about the survival of America—the mystery is “What kind of America will emerge from our contemporary distemper?” Will it be an America of purposeless, incremental drift? Or will we craft a consensual commitment to progressive expansion of our Great Experiment? It is time to ask questions, despite the pain of their articulation, about the democratic health of the American system.

The American National Dream

Is Turning Into National Democratic Distemper

Americans historically have subscribed to an American dream, the notion that life will always get better . . . that somewhere, over the rainbow . . . tomorrow, tomorrow, just a day away . . . anybody can get a better job, live in a better home, enjoy a better life, and maybe become President of the United States. Waves of immigrants and settlers began new lives here, despite hardship and possible death, with dreams of personal opportunity.

The American National Dream. Along with their unbridled individual aspirations, furthermore, the American people nurtured and cherished a collective national dream of freedom, equality, and justice. Thus, for over two centuries, they have pursued, not only their individual aspirations, but, more importantly, an American national dream of unlimited democratic destiny.

In this essay, I define America analytically as an inspired but uncertain civic exercise—that is, “a national experiment in democratic ideals”—and I hitch our national dream inextricably to the political process of American democracy. Despite its fuzzy and varying articulation, America has enjoyed unprecedented greatness by most standards; and the American national dream, ably assisted by the seemingly endless capacities of American democracy, has sustained generation after generation over the years.

National Democratic Distemper. During the past few years, however, there has been much commentary about America’s condition at the beginning of the Twenty-First Century. Academicians and journalists have been articulating bluntly what many politicians suspect but can not say publicly—that America is developing national democratic distemper, a fundamentally deranged and disorderly deterioration of our national experiment in democratic ideals. We seem afflicted with an illness of body and spirit, coughing and wheezing and limping through the motions of disoriented democracy. Our historic national experiment—which has made America great for two centuries—no longer works the way it used to work, procedurally or substantively; and we seem to be losing our commitment to that experiment.