American democracy is imperiled because of party polarization. No longer are people voting for a “popular passion” because the two political parties have become so polarized—the system is red or blue. Zakaria elaborates on the historical significance of political parties being able to channel interests into policy. Currently, the middle is so eroded that a stalemate has taken form. The democratic process loses efficacy in this state of polarization. Another peril is the rigidity of one’s association with a political party. Zakaria notes Tocqueville’s observation of America being held together by civic bonds or “intermediary associations”—concepts that are lost in today’s hyper-individualized atmosphere. Tocqueville notes the significance of groups and clubs in America that are catalysts of political change, formation, and even reflection. Zakaria contrasts this beneficial system with that of today, calling us all “entrepreneurs.” The middleman is out, and we pull all our identity from our respective political party, a party which is now unreachable and unchangeable to the average citizen. As we have alluded to in class, we do our work in the coffee shop to be alone together. We are seeing less association at the grassroots level to any popular passion. The system is ineffective to the ordinary citizen. As Foa and Mounk’s article points out, there is in fact a disillusionment with democracy. It is becoming less popular, less trusted. The system isn’t working for the ordinary citizen; it’s only working at the top level for the rich and powerful. The article cites a study that found that the most influential people in determining policy of the past 30 years have been economic elites and narrow interest groups. These promoters of illiberal democracy destroy the means to getting to liberal democracy. The middle is falling out both literally and symbolically. How can the ordinary citizen affect change? I think it is both a structural and cultural problem. Democracy’s survival must stem from an ideological change in the people; the system needs to find power from the bottom up rather than trust the power from the top down.
Introduction to Comparative Politics: Nationalism, Ideology, and State Power
Professor Shervin Malekzadeh
I completely agree with the concept you reference that the civic bonds, the “intermediary associations”–which Tocqueville explains are so important to democracy–that once helped to unify this country are being eroded, if not eliminated altogether. I agree that this is mainly due to hyper-individualism, as you mention, and I generally think that this hyper-individualistic culture that has developed in the United States–and the world, in general–is primarily the result of the rising significance of technology in our daily lives. While technology could theoretically foster more wide-spread, farther-reaching Tocquevillian associations in that can facilitate easier and more frequent communication between people across greater distances, I think that rising technology has eroded civic bonds because, as we mentioned in class, it has largely eliminated the face-to-face interactions that are so necessary in forming feelings of trust, mutual respect, and loyalty to your fellow citizen, feelings which are essential to a stable, functioning democracy; as you mentioned, it has fostered a national and worldwide culture of “being alone together.” Not only has technology given way to individualism, but I think that it has greatly contributed to the problem of polarization in this country; Zakaria notes in one of his responses that the media today is “competing so ruthlessly for eyeballs,” and I think that this chaotic competition is facilitated by the the ease with which information–truthful or not–can be communicated to the public, given the presence of online news outlets, political social media streams, etc. In addition, the existence of these online political outlets/streams has made it easier for people to filter out that with which they disagree, further contributing to polarization.
I agree with the fact that the American democratic system does have fundamental flaws that affect the efficiency of the system, but I do not think democracy in America is at risk in terms of not surviving. The roots of the democratic system are too stable and complete in the United States to collapse. The governments at risk are those that do not have a deep root in democracy. Yes, when Peru collapsed they had many decades of democratic rule, but Peru’s stability as a country cannot be compared to that of the United States.