Does Democracy Spell Chaos? The Adolescence of a Democracy as Seen Through Early American Presidents

Published in United Daily News
(Taiwan) on 14 January 2016
by Cheng Lap (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Nathan Hsu. Edited by Graeme Stewart-Wilson.
Since ancient times, critics of democracy have called into question the wit of the masses, maintaining that politics dictated by a foolish majority invariably must be imbecilic, inefficient, selfish and weak. But despite what the decriers may say, the fact that the United States is still very much present and powerful today cannot be overlooked.

In the face of this contradiction, some take aim at the United States itself by purporting, for example, that it is, in fact, not a democratic society at all. However, as such assertions are quite easily dismantled, a more frequent tactic is to cast aspersions not on the United States, but upon one's own people instead. Claims that the lofty character of Americans is conducive to democracy while a similar system would be calamitous among the baser tribes are rather common throughout the Chinese sphere.

And often leveraged as evidence for this argument is the fact that the early days of Taiwanese democracy were far from ideal, with the implication being that if democracy could not straightaway elevate Taiwan to a utopian standard, the utility of such a system must be suspect. The fact is, however, that these cognitive acrobatics are all performed simply in service of justifying the conclusion that "American democracy is a success, while Taiwan's is a failure."

Is democracy the proper course to take? It can be difficult at times to take a step back and evaluate the present with clarity of vision, and humanity may not discover the answer in our time. Perhaps hundreds of years into the future we will be able to say with certainty that democracy was a mistake. Such postulations made today, however, simply do not hold water. What one can do instead is turn back the pages to the United States of more than two centuries ago, whereupon one will subsequently find that even after the fledgling nation gained independence and democratically elected its first president, its trials were far from over.

When it comes to stories about U.S. presidents, most of us have only heard (the myth) about George Washington's misadventures with his father and a hatchet. Very few, however, are aware that there was no simple happily ever after for the princes and princesses that followed.

In its days of nascence, the United States was exceptionally weak and unstable. The populations of the 13 former colonies combined did not amount to even half of Britain's at the time, and those in support of American independence were far from the majority, comprising only one-third of the aggregate. Furthermore, after winning independence, the U.S. economy remained heavily reliant on trade with Europe. Far from everything on the horizon being rainbows and sunshine, the newly formed nation was instead in perpetual danger of being subjugated once more by Britain. And internally, its own political factions fought tooth and nail to no end.

For example, following the election of the second U.S. president, John Adams, both the Cabinet and Congress remained under the sway of the opposition's Alexander Hamilton, resulting in a complete lack of cohesion in policy direction. Washington's admonishment that the United States be not only independent but also neutral stemmed from a desire to remain untangled in conflicts on the European continent. Weak nations, however, lack the standing to maintain a middle ground. France strong-armed the United States into its camp as it locked horns with the British, but a bribery scandal caused a furor in Congress and almost resulted in a U.S. declaration of war on the French instead. In the end, Adams barely managed to avert war amid a chorus of boos. Blackened and bloodied, he limped out of office in ignominy, his parting gasp as president sparking a constitutional crisis as he issued a rash of judicial appointments.

The third president, Thomas Jefferson, engaged in a spirited mudslinging battle against his predecessor during his electoral campaign, pegging Adams as having a "hideous hermaphroditical character," while Adams returned fire by declaring Jefferson to be "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."

At a time of upheaval, Jefferson's acts were the subject of much controversy and criticism. It was such that when preparing his epitaph with the greatest achievements of his lifetime, Jefferson chose to include authoring the Declaration of Independence and founding the University of Virginia — with the notable absence of his tenure as U.S. president, reflecting his feelings on the matter.

Moving on to the time of the fourth president, James Madison, the United States would face its greatest challenge in the Napoleonic Wars. As in the past, the United States wished to remain neutral and nurture its economy, and in so doing maintain trade with France. Staying true to form, however, was Britain, which had no intention of allowing such a course. When it seized U.S. ships and pressed American sailors into its navy, the United States came to realize that if it was to preserve itself as an independent state, it must drive British power out of North America.

However, the United States was hardly in a state of preparedness, with vicious infighting between its political parties, incompetent military leadership, loose infrastructure, and an exhausted treasury. Moreover, its soldiers were undisciplined and unwilling to leave their homes to fight a war, making the whole endeavor a nightmare for Madison. Having fought to the point where even the capital was occupied and the White House set alight, the United States finally eked out a peace treaty with Britain, with not a single line moved on the map after all was said and done.

Still, such a taxing war was not completely without benefit, as the United States had been able to fight Britain to a standstill. It was only then that Americans truly began to believe that their independence was secure to some degree, or that at least the British would not reabsorb them. Furthermore, having endured so many hardships the rancor and acrimony between the political parties gradually subsided, the military gained a steady footing, and a collective national consciousness was slowly built.

It was only after reaching this point that Americans truly became confident in the future of their democratic state, some 30 years after the first popularly-elected president took office. At the outset, the majority of Americans had not supported independence, political backbiting was rife, and the United States was often brow beaten by world powers as it was forced to endure many a chaotic episode. While some envy what it means to be an American today, to be an American during the nation's infancy was no easy matter.

Many of these aspects of U.S. history are reflected in Taiwan. In a democratic state such as this, as with the United States, the growing pains are many; this does not mean, however, that Taiwan cannot reach its charted destination in the end.


自古以來,對民主政治的批評,都是質疑,他們認為大部份人都是愚蠢的,由大部份愚蠢的人去主宰的政治,必然導致愚蠢、低效、自私與軟弱。可是你怎樣說都不能無視美國的存在與強大的現實。
面對這矛盾,有些矛頭是直指美國的,例如說,美國根本不是民主。不過這樣說很容易被迎頭痛擊,所以更常見的做法是,與其貶低美國,不如貶低自己——美國人質素高可以民主,質素低的人民主是災難——這個說法在華人世界應該是很常見的說法。
而這個說法常有的佐證是,臺灣初期民主,並沒有令臺灣人走進天堂,如果民主不能直接令臺灣變成天堂,則民主的功用是可疑的。其實說來說去,就是想找些理由去達致「美國的民主是成功的,臺灣的民主是失敗的」這樣的結論。
民主是否正確的?當局者迷,我們這世代的人類難以定論,也許去到幾百年後,我們會確定民主是個錯誤也說不定。但是如果今天說「民主是個錯誤」,應該是沒說服力的。不過,我們卻可以看回二百多年前的美國,是否美國在獨立以及民主選總統後,就一帆風順呢?不是。
關於美國總統的故事,我們多數聽到華盛頓拿斧頭恐嚇他父親(還要是假的)為止。卻很少人會留意到,之後公主和王子可沒有過著幸福快樂的日子。
初 期的美國,非常弱小而且不穩定,十三州殖民地的人口,加起來還不及當年英格蘭的一半,而且也不是大部份美國人支持獨立,支持者只有三份之一。獨立後的美國 經濟,嚴重依賴對歐貿易。獨立的美國與其說前途一片光明,不如說是一個根本隨時就會被英國重新征服的狀態;更要命的是,政黨惡鬥不止。
例 如第二任的總統,約翰‧亞當斯上任時,內閣和議會卻比較受在野的漢米爾頓影響,導致了大家的政策方向根本不一樣。當年的華盛頓,交代美國要獨立而且中立, 就是不想捲入歐洲大陸的衝突。可是現實卻是,弱國根本無權中立,法國迫使美國在英法衝突中歸邊,被法國外交官索賄而發生醜聞,還使美國差點陷入對法開戰的 狀態,激怒了議會,最後在一片噓聲中勉強議和,接著就焦頭爛額的滾下臺。臨走的時候還一次委任大量法官,引發憲政危機。
第三 任總統湯瑪斯‧傑佛遜,在選總統的時期,他和亞當斯可是互打烏賊戰,直接說他是不男不女的亞當斯娘娘,亞當斯則說他是個紅蕃生出來的陰險野種。在世界大亂 時,傑佛遜也是做了很多有爭議也被罵的事情,去到甚麼程度?在他最後為自己預備墓誌銘的時候,他把他一生最大的功業寫下來,他認為,他的功業是寫了美國的 獨立宣言,創立維珍尼亞大學,卻不包括他當過美國總統一事,這反映了他的感受。
去到第四任的總統,詹姆斯‧麥迪遜時,對美國 最大的考驗到來:就是爆發了拿破崙戰爭,美國一如過往想要中立,加上要維持經濟,便繼續法國貿易。英國照樣不打算容許美國中立。就強制扣押美國的船。美國 驚覺英國對自己的鎮壓還是很強大,便向英國宣戰圖生存。美國意識到,獨立後的美國要生存下去,最好把英國勢力從北美驅逐。
但當年的美國是怎樣的狀態呢?政黨惡鬥,將領無能,架構鬆散,國庫貧窮,士兵散漫,而且不願意離開自己家鄉打仗,這場仗完全是麥迪遜的惡夢。打到連首都華盛頓都被佔領,連總統的住宅都被焚燒了,最後才在非常努力下與英國訂下和議,疆界沒有任何改變。
但這場打得焦頭爛額的戰爭並非一無所得,能夠和英國打成平手。美國人才真正的相信,自己的獨立得到保障,至少不會再被英國吞併了。而且經歷過這麼多苦難,美國的政黨惡鬥才慢慢收斂,國運也不再動盪,集體意識慢慢建立。
去到這一步,美國人才正式對這個民主國家的未來,建立了信心。這離美國第一任民選總統上任後,走了差不多三十年。美國人其實一開始也不是大部份支持獨立,也是政黨惡鬥,被強國欺負,亂象頻生,有些人羡慕當美國人,但是當一個早期的美國人,可不是輕鬆的事情。
看看美國的歷史,其實臺灣並不特別差,像這樣的民主國家,例如美國,成長起來都沒有容易過,但不等於她未來就走不到終點。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Sri Lanka: Gaza Genocide: Who Stands for Justice-and Who Stands in the Way?

Nepal: The Battle against American Establishment

Ecuador: Monsters in Florida

Palestine: Ceasefire Not Peace: How Netanyahu and AIPAC Outsourced Israel’s War to Trump

Singapore: The US May Win Some Trade Battles in Southeast Asia but Lose the War

Topics

Ecuador: Monsters in Florida

Austria: It’s High Time Europe Lost Patience with Elon Musk

Singapore: The US May Win Some Trade Battles in Southeast Asia but Lose the War

Ethiopia: “Trump Guitars” Made in China: Strumming a Tariff Tune

Egypt: The B-2 Gamble: How Israel Is Rewriting Middle East Power Politics

China: 3 Insights from ‘Trade War Truce’ between US and China

United Kingdom: We’re Becoming Inured to Trump’s Outbursts – But When He Goes Quiet, We Need To Be Worried

Poland: Jędrzej Bielecki: Trump’s Pyrrhic Victory*

Related Articles

United Kingdom: We’re Becoming Inured to Trump’s Outbursts – But When He Goes Quiet, We Need To Be Worried

Germany: US at a Crossroads

Malaysia: Crackdown on Immigrants in Country Illegally Tears US Society Further Apart

Hong Kong: Amid US Democracy’s Moral Unraveling, Hong Kong’s Role in the Soft Power Struggle

Germany: US Sanctions against the EU