Debating Democracy and Economics

John Mueller, in Democracy’s Romantic Myths, argues that democracy is messy. No one idea wins out, but rather it is a series of compromises. He argues that the “saving grace” of democracy is that other methods of reaching decisions are worse.

Democracy, at least in theory, rests on the consent of the governed, which is justified through voting. While democratic theorists argue that the decline in voter participation is eroding the consent of the governed, this author argues otherwise.

The fact that democracy exists, no matter how messy it is, means that full voter participation isn’t necessary for a functioning democracy.  The author says, “It may be more useful to reshape democratic theories to take notice of the elemental fact that democracy works, even though it often fails to inspire very much in the way of participation from its citizenry” (p. 38 Debating Democracy).

The author also argues that special interests and lobbying groups are a critical component of democracy. He argues that a free, competitive play of special interests is the best representation of the will of the people. While the government is not responsive to the individual citizen, it is responsive to the citizenry.

The author of this document clearly represents the Pluralist viewpoint of democracy. The ideal definition of democracy, where all citizens contribute, is thrown out, and instead the reality is taken into account.

The author’s main argument is that we have a democracy because it is working today. However, I don’t think the fact that something works makes it a democracy. Plenty of governments work with a totalitarian leader. The reality is that we have moved from the ideal democracy, into a different form of democracy. To change the ideal definition of democracy to fit the reality would accomplish little. Changing the definition would instead say that ideal democracy isn’t a possibility.

Paul Rogat Loeb, in The Active Citizen, attributes this lack of participation in government to something that he calls “Learned helplessness.”

Americans today have begun to doubt their ability to effect change in society. “The magnitude of the issues at hand, coupled with this sense of powerlessness, has led far too many of us to conclude that social involvement isn’t worth the cost” (Debating Democracy, p. 44. )

The author takes on the role of a motivator, telling us that it is possible to effect change in society, as well as showing the personal rewards of getting involved. The author showed us the story of one fisherman, Pete. He tells us that we can be like Pete.

On top of motivating us to participate in society, he gives one possible reason that human beings are breaking off connections with each other, and encapsulating themselves in their own personal spheres.

 “It worries me that so many of us now sit alone for hours on end, passive spectators, paying more attention to the strangers on the screen than to the real people next door. What are the consequences for ourselves and our society? The greatest misfortune, in my view, is that by focusing so much on stories scripted by others, we forfeit the opportunity to create our own” (Debating Democracy, p. 46)

 While the growing apathy is worrisome, the author holds hope that Americans will rediscover what it means to be involved and lose the sense of learned helplessness.

 Just as there are a small number of people participating actively in society, there are fewer and fewer people in the upper economic echelons holding more and more overall wealth. Two contrasting opinions on this were present in the Debating Democracy packet.

 Michael Cox and Richard Alm, in Myths of Rich and Poor, says that the increasing social stratification is not concerning. Rather, the increasing stratification provides greater opportunity. “Opportunity, not equality of income, is what made the U.S. economy grow and prosper. It’s more important to provide equality of opportunity that equality of results.”

 However, I know that equality of opportunity does not exist. A student living in the Catalina Foothills school district, for example, where higher incomes and greater tax revenue recieves a better-financed education, versus schools in South Tucson. Equality of results will always affect equality of opportunity, in my view.

 In For Richer, Paul Krugman argues that today’s society is a new “Gilded Age” of stratified wealth and subsidized business. This author is completely opposed to the “Trickle down” theory of economics. “Here’s a radical thought: if the rich get more, that leaves less for everybody else.” (Debating Democracy, p. 347)

 Krugman compares the U.S. with other advanced foreign nations. While we have the highest G.D.P, we have sub-par healthcare and education systems. He argues we have the highest G.D.P because our rich are so rich, but an enormous number of Americans can’t afford to pay healthcare.

 Krugman translates this financial inequality into political inequality. He argues that politicians are showing a greater inclination to cater to the interests of the wealthy.

 “In other words, the growing inequality of our incomes probably lies behind the growing divisiveness of our politics” (Debating Democracy, p. 351).

 Debating this stratification of wealth and political equality is important  as our financial institutions fall into disarray. These two documents do a nice job of providing opposing viewpoints. The irony is that the second document argued that because of the economy, political parties have unified and stratified against eachother.  The same stratification of viewpoints is visible when comparing these two documents. 

 --Juan