Democracy in America, Essay Example

American Democracy was, at its inception, a novel form of governance. It’s commitment to values such as freedom, democracy, individuality and populism made it both unique and appealing. Furthermore, its continuing advancements in terms of liberty and equality have made it increasingly admirable. Yet democracy in America faces many challenges and there are several ways in which the American system could be greatly improved.

Civic Values vs. Democratic Challenges

Two of the greatest challenges to American Democracy are radical individualism and lack of participation (Hudson, 1997). Both have the potential to weaken and perhaps even destroy the current system. Giving every citizen, regardless of race, sex or creed furthers the principle of equality. But if only a select few wield the power they are given, then the majority does not, in fact, rule. Instead, the voting minority rules and this can have disastrous consequences. Suppose, for instance, someone sympathetic to genocide ran for office against a candidate whose ideas were more mainstream. If the majority of Americans voted in the election, the genocidal candidate would, most likely, be voted out. But suppose the only people who voted were Nazi sympathizers. Even if the majority of Americans disagreed with genocide, the genocidal candidate, would, most likely, win. Therefore, lack of participation in the democratic process puts the health of both democracy and the country in grave danger.

At the same time, radical individualism, as championed by Ayn Rand might also threaten democracy (Barr, Rankin, & Baird, 1999). If voters vote solely out of self-interested, never considering the rights, needs or desires of others, they could very easily, tear the country apart. A Democracy based on the will of individuals can be strong- but it is weakened when individuals do not take stock in civic values. One civic value that is popular today is volunteerism. Those who helped rescue, house and clean up the disaster, for instance, helped the union by committing to civic values, rather than pure individualism. The country is better off for it.

Victor Davis Hansen, however, points out that civic values have, to some degree, fallen by the way side. He reports that when he was a child, he and his classmates were graded on citizenship. Citizenship, in Hansen’s day, included using the proper forms of address when speaking to teachers, using proper hygiene, out of respect for one’s fellow students, and maintaining order in the classroom (Hansen, 2002). These things fly in the face of the ideas of many modern movements, such as feminism. Feminist theory urges women to consider their own wishes and wants and to value themselves, rather than the community. Yet if every individual focuses on himself, passing any legislation might become extremely difficult. If Democracy is to survive, civic values that stress the importance of serving the community must be adhered to (Hansen, 2002). Radical individualism threatens these.

Another, more complex challenge to Democracy is the task of balancing equality and liberty. If men are entirely free, they are free to discriminate against other men, which threatens equality. Yet, if governments legislate against discrimination to protect equality, they necessarily limit men’s freedom. Civic values can help balance these things, helping Americans to appreciate their fellow citizens, to end discrimination without the need of legislation. Recently, two other challenges to democracy have arisen. One is a blurring of the lines that separate power in America and the other is the complication of balancing liberty and national security (Hudson, 1997).  When powers are not kept separate, tyrannical rule becomes more likely.  Yet, in the face of terrorism, some have begun to believe that a quick response is more important than proper procedure and that security trumps liberty. In order to understand the significance of these ideas, it is helpful to examine the best and worst aspects of democracy and The Constitution.

The Best and Worst Aspects of Democracy and the Constitution

Perhaps the best parts of the constitution are those which attempt to keep powers separate. Particularly important is the constitutions delegation of powers. The power of creating legislation is given to Congress, while the executive branch is tasked with enforcing such legislation. Meanwhile, the courts are given judiciary power. Unfortunately, the roles and limitations of the courts are not always well-defined and this had made the court assume for itself power that was not specifically granted to it. The courts ability to give itself new powers and its tendency to usurp the authority of the legislative branch threatens the principle of the separation of powers.

Similarly harmful is the president’s ability to issue executive orders, with which some argue the president, can usurp the powers of congress. This is particularly true in regard to military action. The constitution gives congress, rather than the president, the power to declare war, but presidents have engaged in military action without congressional approval by using executive orders to get around limitations. Meanwhile, President Obama used an executive order to push through his healthcare bill. This has resulted in a loss of faith in governance and has lead to a non-violent rebellion by individual states. At least twenty states have filed lawsuits against the government because of it. It is hard to think that such division is healthy for the union.

One way to prevent governing bodies or individuals from usurping the authority of the other branches would be to define clear punishments for such actions. It is currently very difficult to hold Supreme Court Justices accountable for their decisions. Although the House of Representatives can impeach a Supreme Court Justice, justices have no term limits and are not subject to recall (Carliner, 2010). There is no mechanism through with the American people can voice their disapproval with court decisions. There is no higher court that can reverse the Supreme Court’s decision. It is only the court itself that can do so. Democracy might be better served if the justices were subject to more checks and balances. In the case of presidential usurpation, a clearly defined punishment for the usurpation of power might ward off some abuses of power. If presidents could, for instance, be suspended for such abuse, they might be less likely to take for themselves powers delegated to Congress.

Civil Liberties

The constitution does a fairly good job of protecting civil liberties. It guarantees the right to free speech, a free press and the free exercise of religion, but it is not sufficiently clear about who may exercise religion freely and because it includes both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause, it has lead to many court battles. It would be helpful if congress issued a more specific amendment, so that matters of religious expression would not have to be left, so often, to the courts. The issue of marriage is also problematic. Some Americans favor defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Others believe that homosexual Americans should be allowed to marry in the name of equality. Individual states have been battling over the issue, and the court has often made the decision. It would serve the American people better if congress, listening to its constituents, made a clear decision and wrote it into law.

It would then be easier for authorities to know how to protect marriage, whether hetero or homosexual.

The Electoral College and Democratic Participation

Americans love the idea of Democracy, but some of their forefathers – James Madison, most notably – feared it. They worried about both the tyranny of the minority and tyranny of the majority (Edwards III, Wattenberg, & Lineberry, 2008). The Electoral College was made to help prevent these things. Kristina Dell of Time, claims that the founding fathers worried that allowing a direct election would be “reckless.” At the time of the founding, says Dell, both travel and communication were slow and the founding. Therefore, the founding fathers were afraid that most Americans would not have sufficient information about individual candidates to make an informed decision (Dell, 2004).

Yet, now that information on candidates is readily available, some argue that the Electoral College is unnecessary and even that it impedes the democratic process. Dell disagrees. She argues that the Electoral College has helped keep elections peaceful, while direct elections would give a stronger voice to fringe groups and radicals. Yet if fringe groups really are fringe groups, they have little choice of winning a democratic election. Some worry that individual fringe groups could group together to prevent the chances of a more mainstream candidate, but it seems unlikely that such groups could or would do so without compromise. Furthermore, mainstream candidates are perfectly capable of leading the country into disasters. This happened in the thirties, during the depression and in the seventies during the Vietnam War. It certainly would be more democratic to hold direct elections that reflected the will of the real majority.

Yet even if the Electoral College were abolished, the majority might not rule. In order to truly have majority rule, the majority of Americans must participate in elections. This participation could be either helpful or harmful, depending on the knowledge and values of the citizenry. If there were a direct democracy, the majority could easily persecute minorities by legislating against them. If, for instance, the majority of Americans disliked Jews, they could vote for a president and a congress that supported placing Jews in concentration camps. This might not be moral, but if it was the will of the majority, it could become lawful.

Perhaps a more likely problem with direct democracy, however, would be the making of accidental mistakes. As Edwards et al point out, most American kids have grown up in age of channel surfing. They are willing and able to avoid the news and because of this, they are often less informed than they ought to be (Edwards III, Wattenberg, & Lineberry, 2008). If uneducated voters vote, they may inadvertently vote for a candidate whose policies are reprehensible, simply because they like how he looks or sounds and are unaware of the negative aspects of his platform. Participation, then, is not always good, but it can be if voters are sufficiently engaged and educated. Efforts such as Rock the Vote are good at increasing youth participation in the electoral process – but they do not always provide sufficient background on issues and candidates.

The founding fathers intentionally made Congress a deliberative body. Legislation is meant to take time. This was part of the elaborate system of checks and balances the founding fathers attempted to create. Yet in modern times, congress has sped up the process by delegating committees to handle particular bills. This is beneficial when the government must deal with urgent matters, but it also provides less protection to the people. It would be safer if committees were only used during matters of great urgency (Edwards III, Wattenberg, & Lineberry, 2008). Furthermore, Congress showed itself able to act quickly without need for committees after the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11^th, when it granted the president the full authority to respond to the attack – without the use of any committees. Indeed, the text authorizing such measures says the following:

The leaders of the Senate and the House decided at the outset that the discussions and negotiations with the President and White House officials over the specific language of the joint resolution would be conducted by them, and not through the formal committee legislation review process.2 Consequently, no formal reports on this legislation were made by any committee of either the House or the Senate (Bush, 2001).

Congress, then, is perfectly capable of making decisions without the use of committees and it serves the spirit of democracy better to avoid the use of them whenever possible. Nevertheless, legislation does tend to move slowly and deliberately through congress and even when bills go into committees, they are debated over and processed. While congressional work is sometimes slow, the deliberation of congress is a great boon to the democratic process.

The President

Perhaps the strongest roles of the President are that of Commander and Chief and Chief Executive. The president’s role as military commander gives him a great deal of strength and makes him a force to be reckoned with. His power to oversee the execution of laws is also a great strength, as is the president’s authority to sign treaties. Equally important is the president’s ability to command troops overseas, without a formal declaration of war. The president’s power to veto bills is also one of his strongest powers. Perhaps less important are the powers to appoint ambassadors, to adjourn congress, and to give a state of the union address (Edwards III, Wattenberg, & Lineberry, 2008).

The president’s ability to move troops and his inability to declare war have lead to a series of informal wars that seem to bypass constitutional regulations. They have given America’s wars a feeling of illegitimacy and have caused resentment. It would be helpful, then, either to limit the president’s military capabilities or to officially give him the power to declare war. The danger in giving one man such a power is enormous. It echoes back to the days of monarchy and tyranny. Therefore, a better plan would be to reign in the president’s military capabilities. Congress has shown itself able to act quickly during times of war; therefore, war powers ought to rest with it. (Bush, 2001)

Bureaucratic Influence           

Bureaucratic Influence has left many Americans disillusioned with politics. The amount of red tape Americans must go through to receive medical care, obtain marriage licenses or driver’s licenses, hunt, fish or carry firearms is sometimes nearly immobilizing. Less Bureaucracy would ensure quicker access to needed services. Bureaucracy does, sometimes, help keep order, but it also prevents Americans from getting the help they need, or, sometimes, from helping themselves. American Democracy is strong today. It prevents the tyranny of the majority as well as the tyranny of minorities. It defends civil liberties, including free speech and freedom of religion and it espouses respect for life and liberty. Its separation of powers keep its people free from tyranny. Nevertheless, democracy in America could be stronger. The separation of powers ought to be protected, presidential military powers ought to be reigned in, and the will of the people ought to be considered more often.

Works Cited

Barr, E., Rankin, T., & Baird, J. (1999). Challenges to Democracy. Retrieved July 5, 2010, from Oracle ThinkQuest: http://library.thinkquest.org/26466/challenges_to_american_democracy.htm

Bush, G. W. (2001, September 12). Presidential remarks of September 12, 2001. Retrieved July 6, 2010, from Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22357.pdf

Carliner, L. (2010). Can Supreme Court justices be impeached? Retrieved July 6, 2010, from Congress.Org: http://www.congress.org/news/2010/03/12/can_supreme_court_justices_be_impeached

Dell, K. (2004, November 1). The Electoral College Explained. Retrieved July 6, 2010, from Time: http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,749496,00.html

Edwards III, G. C., Wattenberg, M. P., & Lineberry, R. L. (2008). Government in America: People. Politics and Policy. Brief Ninth Edition, Study Edition. Pearson Education.

Hansen, V. D. (2002, Summer). The Civic Education America Needs. Retrieved jULY 6, 2010, from The City Journal: http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_3_the_civic.html

Hudson, W. E. (1997). American Democracy in Peril: Seven Challenges to America’s Future. New York: Chatham House Publishers.