The Pew Research Center reported yesterday that the voters of 29 states have already approved bans on same-sex marriage.
For me, this observation highlights the absurdity of the naïve apotheosis of populism and democratic institutions that constitutes a core element of the contemporary Western zeitgeist. We tend to take for granted that democracy is something intrinsically good, an assumption that gives strength to the growing scorn we see in our society for “elitism” or any other movement that threatens to usurp the will of the people. We Americans seem to invariably forget that, while democratic institutions may sculpt our society in accord with the will of the people, this in no way implies that the people’s vision of a perfect society is something we should wish to see given form. Democracy does indeed give power to the people, but it does not and can never give the people the moral integrity to put that power to proper use.
Indeed, if the age-old adage that “power corrupts” is true, then democracy might even contribute to the moral and intellectual degradation of the populations of democratic nations. Or, as seems more likely, the age-old adage is simply wrong: corruption is a part of the human inheritance, and power, like alcohol, simply brings that latent vice to the forefront.
Before I close, I should note that this is not a peculiarly American problem, though I know many people who would like to claim so. After all, the Swiss are about to vote on a law that would permanently ban the construction of minarets.
Really, when I think of all the crimes that democratic nations commit against their own moral codes, it’s enough to make me wonder if William Henry Vanderbilt was onto something when he said, “the people be damned.”
Number 1, we don’t have a pure democracy in the United States, and so blaming this problem, the denial of human rights to one group by the masses, on democracy isn’t really fair.
Number 2, prove that there is something better out there than what we have or what we are striving for.
I am fine with criticizing democracy and the will of the people. But I think you are dead wrong with the assertion that democracy is generally thought of as “good.” I don’t put any sort of moral judgment upon democracy, it just is the “best” we’ve got. It is a system of government and the people involved in our democracy are what make it good or evil, not the system itself.
I also think that your statement about power corrupting to be a bit off. If you are saying that in the way that a bunch of people got together and because they can vote against another’s human rights, they did so, just because they could, that seems ridiculous to me. I think a bunch of people have gotten together, manipulated by a select few in positions of authority who have used their money and influence to push a very specific agenda. This is a bit different from the American people getting drunk on their voting power.
I’d bet that a significant amount that voted against gay marriage rights did so not even necessarily thinking they’d win (like many anti abortion voters) but doing so because they were voting their conscience and it’s what their church told them to do.
k, that’s all i got for now. :)
Here’s my reply to your points, Katherine.
Number 1: California’s Proposition 8 was the result of a purely democratic vote in which the voters of California made the decision to ban gay marriage directly. There were no intermediate representatives, so the vote was the result of pure, direct democracy. Similarly, the vote coming up in Switzerland will be a direct democratic vote. I’m not sure why you neglected to discuss the Swiss case.
Moreover, your general argument is the classic — and fallacious — argument employed by all apologists: the assertion that previous and current examples of X have not been pure examples of X, so that it is impossible to judge X based on evidence from the past. This was the battle cry of communists for decades; it continues to be a point made by Christian apologists when the historical crimes committed by Christian armies are discussed. If pure democracy is so hard to come across that no examples can be adduced, it is irrelevant to our decisions about how to govern our society.
Number 2: Whether or not something better than democracy is currently being considered is irrelevant to my point. I’m not advocating monarchy: I’m critiquing democracy. Unless you think certain truths should be banned, there’s no reason to avoid pointing out democracy’s failings. Indeed, the Federalist Papers were so influential during the formation of American government precisely because they exemplified the widespread mistrust of naïve democratic government that was felt by the Founders.
Paragraph 3: I think your willingness to evade facts as discussed in response to point Number 1 is a sign that you are in fact using a moral form of reasoning, because the signature of moral reasoning is indifference to empiricism coupled with a countervailing preference for “principled” argument.
Furthermore, if we can consider a system in the abstract without taking into account the people who must implement it, there is no cogent argument against monarchy, fascism or any other form of government. The problem with those systems is the way in which they promote the unethical behavior of those living under them; democracy, in my view, has similar, though less severe, faults.
Paragraph 4: Again, you’ve made an assertion I find highly contentious: you’ve posited the existence of a secret “ruling party” who swayed the ignorant masses with their money and influence. You use this theoretical select few to exculpate the actual voters who did in fact go to the voting booths in November 2008 with the intention to deny the right to marry to their fellow human beings. That vote is the fact; the supposition that the voters would not have made such a decision so except for the corrupting influence of a cabal of evil plutocrats is merely a claim without any evidence.
The presumption of the influence of a conspiracy is another hallmark of moral crusades that are indifferent to empirical evidence. It embodies the desire Solzhenitsyn expressed in The Gulag Archipelago: “if only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them.”
Paragraph 5: Whether or not voters who chose to prohibit gay marriage believed they’d win is irrelevant: their goal was to deny others the right to marriage, which they intended to keep for themselves. Your point simply ignores a core element of legal and moral thinking, which finds little reason to excuse the incompetent criminal for his bungled attempts at a crime. We punish attempted murder with intent comparably to successful murder with intent. The voters in California intended to harm their fellow citizens and they succeeded. Their prior beliefs about the impact of their votes are irrelevant. No one would forgive a sniper whose sole defense was that he never really thought his aim was good enough for the bullet to hit his mark.