Does America Have “Too Much” Democracy?

How can there be an overabundance of a good thing?  Well, the Constitutional framers certainly thought democracy fell into that category.

The Founders, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, in particular, believed in the desirability of giving voice to the popular will but only with significant constraints.

Today’s general public undoubtedly equates “one man, one vote”, majority rule, as democracy in action.  In a classical Athenian sense, yes, but that’s not the American system.

The very nature of the U.S. Constitution is its limitation upon the popular will.  The Federal Government has three branches.  Consider how their members were to be chosen: 

          Executive:  voters didn’t directly elect the president (and still don’t); members of the Electoral College did and do.

          Legislature:  U.S. Senators were chosen only very indirectly.  Voters selected members of their state legislature which, in turn, named two individuals to serve as Senators.  Only members of the Federal House of Representatives were voted on by what was then a restricted electorate (a would-be voter would have to own land to become one).

          Judiciary:  nominated by the indirectly elected President and selected only with the advice and consent of indirectly chosen Senate members.

That, political philosophers would say, was a representative government, not a democracy, but a republic.

 

The purpose of the structure established in 1787 (clearly set forth in The Federalist Papers, Number 10) was to dilute the “popular will and passion”.  Yet there is another less known reason for a republican form of government, also set forth in Number 10 regarding the advantage “a republic has over a democracy”:

          “Does this advantage consist in the substitution of representatives, whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudice and to schemes of injustice?  It will not be denied that the representatives of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments.”

Has the increase of more voter participation – more democracy – in the ensuing two centuries been a good idea?  U.S. Senators for the past one hundred years have been directly elected (Constitutional Amendment 17).  Do they qualify as more enlightened and virtuous than the general public or less so?

Political filters of the public will may also need to be prevalent in the presidential selection process.  Delegates to national party conventions used to be either hand-selected by party leaders or, again, chosen indirectly in lower elections (regional and county).  Now, of course, primary elections are the rule, with occasional exceptions. 

Has the quality of the candidates changed without minimal screening by those with “enlightened” views (presumably possessing knowledge and experience not available to primary voters)?

Yes, the convention-only system produced Warren G. Harding, of Teapot Dome notoriety.  But in only fifty years, the primary-centric system has spawned major party nominees – Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, both of whom proved to be well out of their depths as Chief Executives.  Whether Donald Trump, another entirely inexperienced Presidential nominee, will join this group remains to be seen. 

Plainly, more democracy is not necessary an unmitigated good for the republic.  The Founders were apparently on to something.

Media Bias against Trump Becomes More Obvious

Nothing the presence of media prejudice against a Republican president is hardly remarkable.  For fifty years, at least, from Richard Nixon on, the liberal press has zeroed in on the foibles, imaginary and real, of GOP office holders in a way not experienced by Democratic chief executives.

The usually fawning coverage given Democrat Barack Obama is a recent contrast.

Recognizing that press assaults on Republican presidents hardly began with Donald Trump does not that mean that they are of the same kind,  however.  Plainly, they contain a level of antagonism, even hostility, not seen since the days of the Nixon presidency.

There is an irony in the liberal media’s treatment of the new White House occupant.  Trump, after all, is the least conservative Republican president in many decades.

But Trump, like Nixon before him, has singled out members of the press for personal attacks.  In response, the “mainstream” media, to put it starkly, has taken the assaults “personally” and responded in kind.  Thus, for instance, when President Trump states his belief that millions of illegal immigrants voted against him last November, the news’ reports not merely the allegation but insert an editorial label in the lead, as in “the President falsely claimed…”  Again, the opinion is contained in the supposed news story, not on the editorial page.

By so doing, the media is making a very big mistake.  The error is not the accuracy of the characterization of Trump’s remarks but the undeniable perception that the press is blatantly biased.  On a personal level, the motivation is understandable.  No one cares to have his integrity or professionalism challenged, as Trump has done repeatedly.  But, by making its antagonism so obvious, participating media outlets further damage their already tarnished image for reliability.  It’s as if they’ve been taunted by Trump into throwing off any cloak of impartiality.  They have vindicated the President’s attacks upon them.

In the old days, liberals controlled the media just as they do today, but press bias was much less transparent and therefore much more effective in influencing public opinion in favor of candidates and policies on the Left.

Back then, as now, the New York Times was a key molder of media crusades.  Its masthead proclaimed:  All the News That’s Fit to Print.  A National Review wag observed that, in practice, the slogan actually meant “all the news that fits”.  In other words, the liberal publication printed good stories about the left and refused to publish pieces that put the Right in a good light.  It’s not that the positive stories were false.  Rather, it was that the Times ignored “the other side”.  Thus, the bias in practice was not apparent; hence its effectiveness.

Subtle bias, at least for the sake of honesty, is evidently no longer sufficient.  In this day of blunt expressiveness, members of the media feel emboldened to tell everyone what they really think.

President Donald Trump is understandably appreciative.

Why does Israel Persist in Building New West Bank Settlements?

Shortly before its demise, the Obama Administration, citing new impediments to the peace process, blasted the Israeli government’s announcement that it was expanding settlements in the West Bank.

The response was predictable.  Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made clear his anger and denied any change in Israel’s support for a two state solution in Palestine.  Republicans, and many Democrats, voiced strong approval for the Israeli decision.

For its part, the PLO – Fatah – certainly was not pleased by the news, and it is seen as a necessary party to any peace settlement, right?  So why would Israel further inflame the situation by building new settlements?  It seemingly makes no sense.  But things are sometimes not what they seem.

Perhaps Israel is using a policy of expanding Jewish settlements as leverage to expedite resolution of the impasse between the two sides.  The longer the delay in reaching an agreement, the more numerous will Jews on the West Bank become.

Consider some demographics.  At present, about 430,000 Jews live in distinct settlements throughout the West Bank, an area roughly twenty miles wide and sixty five miles long.  Since the 1967 war, this area has been controlled by the Israeli government.  Arabs on the West Bank are about two and a half million.  Increasing settlements will certainly strengthen the Jewish presence in territory claimed by the Palestinians and pose greater difficulties for accommodation between the two peoples.

But, ironically, that prod, that incentive to compromise, may be too sensible for that part of the world.  As discussed previously here (TSC 1/15/17l), the genuine hope for a lasting peace is probably illusory.  Neither side expects it nor may want it, actually fearing its potential consequences more than the status quo.

Israel’s leadership is suspicious of Fatah’s claims to want peace and fears that if it were to occur, the lull would be temporary and damage the country’s ability to recover when, as expected, hostilities resumed.

As for the largely secular PLO government, peace, too, is dangerous.  Hamas, its deadly foe, would seize upon the period of peace to oust it from power.  [Israel is hardly unmindful of the fact that Hamas, unlike Fatah, has maintained its vow to destroy the Jewish state.]

Interestingly, it is a well-known secret in the area that Israel provides support to the PLO, military and otherwise, in its struggle to hold the upper hand over Hamas.  The settlements, existing or proposed new ones, accordingly, don’t seem so important to either side.  Of course, the PLO Palestinians don’t like the intrusions, but they need, evidently, Israel’s cooperation for their security needs.  And Israel wants a release for some of its six million Jews (out of eight million citizens within its borders) who have the religious zeal to reoccupy biblical lands.  There seems no downside.  Certainly the more Jews living in the West Bank, the more likely their presence results in a fait accompli, negating any need for a negotiated settlement whatever.  So if the impasse between the two parties proves to be interminable, the continuing settlement influx will have a strategic effect:  the West Bank will simply become absorbed into greater Israel with citizenship rights of Arab inhabitants to be determined.

Is Donald Trump Being Underestimated?

The attacks upon the new President have only intensified since his election.  Yes, he’s certainly brash, boastful, blustering, crude and petty, as well as thin-skinned.

He seemingly speaks and tweets without first weighing consequences.  Yet his perceived deficiencies, as obvious as they are, do not mandate that he will fail in the White House. 

Simply put, we Americans make the mistake of thinking that a positive appearance and manner (“being presidential”) in our Chief Executive equates with success at the job.

History says otherwise.

 

Looking back into the last century, consider Harry Truman.  He was a little regarded Missouri senator who was disdained by the Washington elite as a Midwest bumpkin and a failure as a small town businessman.  He was considered a non-entity when chosen by FDR to be his fourth term running mate.  Yet, as president, Harry Truman made critical and wise decisions in ending the war with Japan and rebuilding Europe.

How about Lyndon Johnson?  He, too, was quite crude and displayed many other of Donald Trump’s negative characteristics.  Despite possessing little of his immediate predecessor’s appeal, Johnson was quite successful in accomplishing his very liberal purposes (unlike “presidential” JFK).

And then there’s the very presentable and well-spoken Barack Obama – we know how he did. 

So don’t rush to judgment.  Thus far, Donald Trump has surprised many by making major cabinet selections who are significant, well-qualified  individuals, not necessarily in accord with the new president’s pronouncements.  Retired General James Mattis is a prime example.  He is far more skeptical of Russia than Trump.

History also shows that Abraham Lincoln, arguably America’s finest leader, was widely disparaged when he took office as a one-term congressman from the backwoods of Illinois who looked the part:  rough-hewn, unattractive and ill-suited.

Now I’m hardly suggesting that Trump is a reincarnation.  But the example does illustrate that first, and subsequent, impressions can indeed be proven horribly wrong.  As Americans, we have to hope that negative assessments for which the new president has provided ample support will prove not to define his presidency.