The Myth and Alienation of Democracy in the US

Published in Guangming Daily News
(China) on 29 May 2022
by Yang Bochao (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Matthew McKay. Edited by Michelle Bisson.
The concept of the “end of history” once demonstrated the United States’ conceit and obsession with American-style democracy, as if the only way for the world to achieve democracy was by following the United States’ example. But the COVID-19 pandemic and the chaos of the 2020 U.S. presidential election have increasingly brought the United States’ deviation from the original tenets of democracy to the world’s attention, revealing the institutional flaws of American-style democracy, the speculative nature of its politics and the politicization and hypocrisy of its rule of law. Ever keen to play the beacon or teacher of democracy, the United States is facing a deficit of trust, leading many who were intoxicated with the exquisite design of the democratic system to experience a rude awakening.

From a historical point of view, democracy in the United States has given rise to alienation since its founding. As Alexander Hamilton and James Madison made clear in the Federalist Papers, the country’s essence lies in its emphasis on “the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share” in the government. The design of a system in which the views of the people are translated into public policy through elected representatives also fundamentally limits the people’s ability to participate directly in governmental decision-making. The extent to which the right to broad participation is present reflects the quality and success of a democracy. If people are only roused when it is time to vote and enter a state of dormancy again as soon as their votes have been cast; if they only pay attention to extravagant slogans during election campaigns but have no say afterward; if they are only paid attention to when being canvassed but are left out in the cold after the election; then such a democracy is not a true democracy.

From a pragmatic point of view, American-style democracy emerged in the United States as a tool of the rulers. It was only from the beginning of the 19th century onward that politicians began to clothe a nation that was ideologically strongly individualistic in the heretofore unaccustomed robes of democracy. At the time, old social hierarchies were being upended by rapid industrialization, mass immigration, westward expansion and civil war. Egalitarian sentiments were on the rise, and the institutions that were once designed to exclude the people from government were later called on to promote the existence of a government “of the people, by the people and for the people.” Several subsequent constitutional amendments also appeared to give the United States’ claim to being a democracy a grounding in reality.

But more and more people are noticing that the foundations of this system are crumbling and that the halo of American-style democracy is being shattered by reality, the alienation it engenders becoming increasingly visible.

First, there are the systemic flaws in American-style democracy. The “separation of the three powers” at the core of American politics was originally created as a system of checks and balances against each other and to prevent the dominance of a single entity. However, the constant partisan conflict between the U.S. legislature and the executive has led to a permanent stalemate, with some scholars considering the president, the House of Representatives and the Senate — the three veto-wielding players [with legislation] — to be important factors in the rise of social inequality. This is the reason why any attempt to replicate the American model of democracy, whether in South America or in Eastern European countries, has, for the most part, been a disaster: The various institutions of the state are so busy vying for power and profit that they have long since relegated to the back of their minds the original democratic intent of advancing national governance. In many policy areas in the United States, the work of legislation has been replaced by so-called independent agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency, many of which were established by Congress and are largely free from legislative oversight. The two-party system, an important component of American democracy, was also fully exposed as confrontational and polarizing during Donald Trump’s presidency, in much the same way it has been since Joe Biden took office.

Second, the politically speculative nature of American-style democracy. Elections in the United States are a one-man show in which interest groups use democracy as a cover for achieving their political objectives. Since the gradual legalization of corporate lobbying in the 20th century, the influence of businesspeople on government in American society today has become enormous. It has been reported that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has prepared a model schedule for new members of Congress, instructing them to spend roughly four hours a day calling donors for financial support, and that candidates are also increasingly indulging in this political money game. The presidential and congressional elections of 2020 shattered the record previously set in 2016, with total spending increasing to nearly $14 billion. A 2015 Gallup poll found that more than 80% of Americans believed Congress to be corrupt, with some campaigners who are private citizens having referred to raising money for elections as a form of torture.

But the real victims of this torture are the American people, who have no say in this seemingly democratic system. While financial backers give generously in attempts to buy their way into having a say in political decisions, candidates degenerate into political lobbyists in order to raise large sums of money, increasing the time they spend with donors, at the expense of time spent with the voters. So, under normal circumstances, when it comes to voting on political bills of interest to the financial backers, legislators do not need to go on the warpath, because they are already in bed with each other.

Third is the tendency of American-style democracy to politicize the rule of law. As the third-century B.C. philosopher Xunzi observed, “Law is the beginning of governance.” The rule of law is an indispensable element of democratic politics, but the tense relationship between public opinion and the rule of law is readily apparent in the debate over the powers of the nine unelected U.S. Supreme Court justices. In the period following World War II, the long-standing situation in which a majority of seats were held by left-leaning justices began to change, and the rule of law gradually became an elegant fig leaf for the corruption of power, influenced by the profit motive and the “economic man” paradigm, while democracy was torn apart by the interweaving chains of interest. Many of the court’s rulings have also contributed to the expansion of undemocratic elements in the social system. In the 2010 landmark case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, for example, the Supreme Court overturned legislative restrictions on campaign spending by corporations and other private groups that had been in place in previous cases. This ruling indirectly and massively amplified the voices of groups with pecuniary interests, making it easier for economic elites to override the demands of the people.

Finally, there is the hypocritical nature of American-style democracy. Politicians should take the promotion of the people’s well-being as their governing philosophy and original intention, rather than using and manipulating public opinion for political purposes, as a government lacking in self-restraint and a sense of responsibility can easily destroy democracy: The levers of power in the United States are in the hands of the few. Plato’s contemptuous description of the “democratic man” is essentially consistent with the image of former U.S. President Trump. Trump, who never held public office before entering the White House, despises experts and lacks the most basic grasp of public policy. He is fond of false and boastful words and opinions and sees wantonness as good breeding, permissiveness as freedom, lavishness as splendor and shamelessness as the essence of manliness. And his successor, Biden, is continuing this takeoff on the runway of anti-democracy from within his administration.

In the United States, public policy does not reflect the preferences of most Americans. Scholars have tracked the formulation process of 1,779 policy issues in Congress and the executive branch over a 20-year period and the results are astonishing: Economic elites and interest groups are so influential that they succeed in getting policies they like passed approximately 50% of the time and blocking legislation they oppose almost all of the time. Meanwhile, civil society has little influence on public policy, and the will of ordinary citizens is closer to a drop in the ocean, making barely a ripple. As a result, the average American voter has probably been feeling more alienated from traditional political institutions in recent years than ever before.

The practice of democracy in the United States has demonstrated the gullibility and manipulability of American public opinion, against which lies, hatred and bigotry can be used to deflect attention, thus escaping accountability for misguided policy-making. The hypocrisy of the United States’ democratic system is that, while it is characterized superficially by bipartisan power struggles and politics manipulated by money, a closer look reveals that the system is not working for the common people. There was a time when U.S. legislators had a strong sense of place: when a Democrat might rise to prominence from a local labor union or school, when a Republican might be a local business owner or community leader, and when the lives of members of both parties were intertwined with the lives of their constituents. But now, by the time they reach office, many politicians have been labeled as cultural, educational and financial elites, setting them apart from ordinary Americans. While some among them have strong relationships with their districts, such vote-based ties are fragile, even for legislators who were born and raised in the districts they represent. They receive expensive educations, live in metropolitan areas as teenagers and are more likely than previous generations to pursue lucrative opportunities in cities such as Washington, D.C., New York or San Francisco. And by almost every measure, irrespective of life experience, educational background or net worth, these politicians are thoroughly out of touch with the general population. When everything that politicians do is geared toward getting them their seats in office, American-style democracy is drifting further and further down a dark path.

Democracy is a value shared by all humanity, a crystallization of human civilization and a means of advancing national governance and enhancing the well-being of the people. American-style democracy uses the alienation of the democratic system like a tool, in turn generating disregard for public opinion and contempt and hostility toward the democratic systems of other countries; this is the greatest obstacle to the healthy development of human democracy.

The author is a Contributing Researcher at Peking University's Institute of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, and a lecturer at China University of Political Science and Law's Institute for Human Rights.


作者:杨博超(北京市习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想研究中心特约研究员、中国政法大学人权研究院讲师)

“历史终结论”曾展现了美国对美式民主的自负与迷恋,似乎世界要实现民主,就只有效仿美国一途。但新冠肺炎疫情和美国总统大选的乱象使世界人民越发认识到美国背离民主初心的事实,也揭示了美式民主的制度性缺陷,政治的投机性、法治的政治性和虚伪的本质。热衷于扮演“民主灯塔”,充当“民主教师爷”的美国面临信任赤字,也让很多沉醉于美国“精妙民主制度设计”的人从“美梦”中惊醒。

从历史角度看,自美国建国起,民主在美国就产生了异化。汉密尔顿和麦迪逊在《联邦党人文集》中明确指出,这个国家的本质在于强调“完全排除人民的集体能力,使其在政府中没有任何份额”。民众的意见通过选举代表转化为公共政策的制度设计,也从根本上限制了人民直接参与政府决策的可能性。人民有没有广泛参与权,体现着民主的质量和成色。如果人民只在投票时被唤醒、投票后就进入休眠期,只在竞选时聆听天花乱坠的口号、竞选后就毫无发言权,只在拉票时受宠、选举后就被冷落,这样的民主不是真正的民主。

从现实角度看,美式民主是作为统治者的工具在美国兴起的。自19世纪起,政治家才开始为一个意识形态上个人主义强烈的国家披上曾经并不习惯的民主袍。当时,旧的社会等级制度正被快速的工业化、大规模移民、西进扩张和内战所颠覆。平等主义的情绪上升,那些曾经被设计用来将人民排除在政府之外的机构,之后被称作促进建设“民有、民治、民享”的政府而存在。随后通过的若干宪法修正案使“美国是一个民主国家”的奇特说法也似乎产生了现实依据。

但越来越多的人注意到了这种“民主”的基础正在崩溃,美式民主的“光环”被现实击碎,人们也越发能够发现美式民主的异化。

一是“美式民主”存在系统性缺陷。“三权分立”作为美国的政治核心,其创设初衷是为了彼此制衡,防止一家独大。但美国立法机构和行政机构之间基于党争的常态冲突,导致持续僵局。有学者认为,美国总统和国会参众两院,即持否决票的三位“玩家”正是导致社会不平等加剧的重要因素。这也是为什么任何复制美国民主模式的尝试,无论是在南美还是在东欧国家,大多都是一场灾难的原因。各国家机构之间忙着争权夺利,早已将推进国家治理的民主初衷抛之脑后。在美国许多政策领域,立法的工作已经被所谓的独立机构所取代,如联邦通信委员会和环境保护局等由国会成立的很多机构,在很大程度上不受立法监督。作为美国民主重要组成的“两党制”,也在特朗普担任总统期间充分暴露对峙和“极化”的特点,而拜登上台以后同样如此。

二是“美式民主”的政治投机性。美国选举是利益集团打着民主的幌子来实现政治目的的“独角戏”。企业游说活动自20世纪逐渐合法化后,今天美国社会中,商人对政府的影响巨大。曾有报道指出,民主党国会竞选委员会曾为新任国会议员准备了一份示范日程表,指导他们每天花大约4个小时给捐助者打电话索取金钱支持,参选者也越来越沉迷于这种政治“金钱游戏”。2020年美国总统及国会选举打破了2016年的纪录,总花费增至近140亿美元。2015年盖洛普民意调查显示,超过80%的美国人认为国会是腐败的。曾有平民竞选者表示,为选举筹款是“一种折磨”。而这种折磨的真正受害者是美国人民,因为他们在这个看似民主的系统中没有发言权。“金主”慷慨解囊以试图拿到左右政治决策的“入场券”,参选者则为了筹集大量资金蜕化为政治说客,花费更多时间与捐助者待在一起,进一步压缩与选民接触的时间。所以在通常情况下,当对“金主”关注的政治法案进行投票时,立法者并不需要激烈争斗,因为他们早就暗通款曲。

三是“美式民主”导致法治政治化倾向。“法者,智之端也。”法治是民主政治不可或缺的要素,但在关于美国最高法院9名非选举产生的大法官的权力的辩论中,明显体现了民意和法治之间的紧张关系。二战后长期由左派法官占据多数席位的局面被逐步改变,受逐利思想和“经济人”范式影响,法治逐步成了勾连权力腐败的精美遮羞布,民主在利益链条交织中被扯得支离破碎。法官的许多决定也助推扩大了社会体系中的不民主因素。如2010年的“联合公民”案中,法院推翻了之前案件中对公司和其他私人团体竞选开支的立法限制规定。这项裁决间接大规模放大了金钱利益集团的声音,使经济精英们更容易凌驾于民众的诉求之上。

四是“美式民主”的虚伪本质。政治家应当将增进人民福祉作为执政理念和初心,而绝不应为政治目的利用和操控民意。缺乏自我克制和责任感的政府很容易摧毁民主。美国权力的杠杆掌握在少数人的手里。柏拉图对“民主人”的蔑视性描述与美国前总统特朗普的形象基本一致。特朗普在入主白宫之前没有担任过任何公共职务,他轻视专家,缺乏对公共政策最基本的把握。他喜欢“虚假和吹嘘的言语和观点”,认为放肆是“良好的教养”,许可是“自由”,挥霍是“华丽”,无耻是“男人的精神”。而继任者拜登和他的政府也继续在反民主的道路上放飞自我。在美国,公共政策并不反映大多数美国人的偏好。有学者曾对美国国会和行政部门在20年内1779个政策的制定过程进行追踪,结果是令人震惊的:经济精英和利益集团的影响力巨大,他们在大约一半的时间里成功使自己喜欢的政策获得通过,并在几乎所有的时间里阻止了他们反对的立法通过。与此同时,民间团体对公共政策几乎没有影响,普通公民的意愿更如沧海一粟,无法泛起任何浪花。因此,近年来美国普通选民对传统政治机构的疏离感可能比以往任何时候都强烈。

民主在美国的实践证明了美国民意的易受骗性和可操纵性,谎言、仇恨和偏执可以用来转移视线,从而逃脱政策制定错误的责任。美国虚伪的民主制度,表面上表现为两党争权夺利、金钱操控政治,但究其内里则是没有“端坐在百姓这一面”。曾经美国国会议员具有强烈的地方意识,民主党人可能从当地工会或学校中崛起,共和党人可能是当地的商业或社区领袖,两党议员的生活与选民的生活交织在一起。但现在,当他们到达办公室时,许多政客已经被标签为文化、教育和金融精英,这使他们与普通美国人“泾渭分明”。虽然其中有些人与地区有很强的联系,但这种基于选票的联系是脆弱的,即使那些在所代表地区出生和长大的议员也是如此。他们接受昂贵的教育,青少年时即生活在大都市中,比他们的前辈更有可能在华盛顿、纽约、旧金山等城市追求有利可图的机会。而从几乎所有的指标来看,不论生活经历、教育背景还是净资产,这些政客都与普通民众彻底脱节。当政客所做的一切都是为了自己在办公室的那张座椅的时候,美式民主也就在黑暗的道路上渐行渐远了。

民主是全人类的共同价值,是人类文明的结晶,也是推进国家治理、增进人民福祉的手段。美式民主将民主制度异化为工具,进而产生对民意的忽视以及对他国民主制度的轻蔑和敌视,是人类民主事业健康发展的最大阻碍。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Canada: Tell Me Again Which North American Leader Is Acting like a Dictator?

Austria: The Harvard President’s Voluntary Pay Cut Is a Strong Signal

Austria: The Deal for Kyiv Is Better Than the Many Threats against It

Germany: Trump’s Offer and Trump’s Sword

Austria: Maybe Trump’s Tariff Bludgeon Was Good for Something after All

Topics

Germany: Trump-Putin Call: Nothing but Empty Talk

Austria: The Harvard President’s Voluntary Pay Cut Is a Strong Signal

Canada: No, Joly, We Don’t Want America’s Far-Left Academic Refugees

Germany: Trump’s Selfishness

Austria: Trump Ignores Israel’s Interests during Gulf Visit

Germany: Trump’s Offer and Trump’s Sword

Canada: A Guide To Surviving the Trump Era

Related Articles

Hong Kong: The Lessons of World War II: The Real World Importance of Resisting Hegemony

Japan: Trump’s 100 Days: A Future with No Visible Change So Far

Switzerland: Donald Trump: 100 Days Already, but How Many Years?

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice