I will start off this blog by reminding everyone that the people of the United States of America willingly elected Donald J. Trump to the highest office in the land. In the eyes of most, this would indicate that democracy has failed us here in the United States. Either democracy has failed the people, or the people have failed the idealistic system of government that is democracy. The outcome of each, however, is equally terrifying, and is embodied by the man serving as president.
Roberto Foa and Yascha Mounk believe that “the future of democracy is uncertain”. In the United States, people are becoming more and more disenchanted with the idea of democracy, with almost one out of every six individuals believing that an alternative form of government would better serve the nation. While this belief is absolutely absurd, Foa and Mounk raise an entirely valid point. Democracies are not as consolidated as they were in a different era. Furthermore, there is absolutely no historical precedent to indicate what occurs to established democracies when most of a nation’s constituents experience no improvement in the quality of living for an extended period of time. Fareed Zakaria mentions Aristotle’s opinion that “direct democracy (rule by the many) is every bit as unstable as rule by one or a few”. I completely agree with Aristotle, and believe that this is the primary reason that democracy is imperiled in the 21st century. In theory, it would be wonderful if we could entrust the future of a nation to the entirety of its citizens, but this is simply unreasonable (illustrated once again by the individual currently representing the United States). Once this is established, however, there emerges another problem. How can we allow only a portion of the population to shape the government without discriminating or electing members who represent the views of only an elite few? Therein lies the peril of democracy.
The other paradoxical factor of this moment in American democracy is that, regardless of whether one might favor a majority system or a plurality system for determining elections winners, Trump was elected with neither a majority nor a plurality of the vote. The Electoral College mechanism that is enshrined in the Constitution and thus theoretically necessary for democratic stability was initially conceived when only wealthy white men could vote (and when party politics was unimaginable, hence the original system that gave the second place finisher the Vice Presidency; modern electoral rules, meanwhile, have been made up ad hoc as the franchise expanded and our modern election system took shape), and would ultimately become one of a series of structures designed to maximize the power of white votes and interests beyond what a principle of “one person, one vote” would imply. Just as the South was able to maximize its electoral votes by translating disenfranchised slaves into representation for white elites, millions of Californian voters were dismissed as a rounding error with a maximum return of 55 electoral votes, while razor-thin margins driven by white turnout give Trump all the electoral votes in the tipping point state of Pennsylvania. This “bug” of democracy has been a Constitutional feature all along, and when the white supremacy embedded in our society is openly challenged in the political arena, the white supremacy embedded in our political structures tries to get democracy to destroy itself.
I agree with Madeline’s comment, but I also think that the Trump election points to another dilemma we discussed in class: What happens when political party ideology replaces individual and diverse beliefs? Both readings briefly touch on the hollowness of these parties.
The peril of democracy that you describe is correct. As you explained, many in our nation are disenchanted by the democracy that we exist in, feeling that it does not represent them. The paradox that you represented in your response is that while the people of America “willingly elected Donald J. Trump to the highest office,” most people in America also feel as though this man does not represent their interests or the wills of the people of America as a whole. This points out an inherent flaw in our democracy: someone can be elected to our highest office by the supposed majority, yet that majority can still feel disenfranchised and unrepresented.