The Rational

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Guideline #1 - Priorities Are Necessary For Efficiency

Priorities Are Necessary For Efficiency

“Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning.”

-- General George S. Patton, Jr.

Now is the time for a renewed debate about what truly constitutes our national 'security' interests. As Hornberg and Clark point out:

The problem-as the works of theorists with perspectives as diverse as those of Macpherson (1962, 1977); Mayo (1960); Nozick (1974); Pateman (1970, 1979); and Rawls (1971, 1980) make clear-is that a number of the goals and conditions that collectively constitute the normative ends of democratic theory are in tension and conflict. Fundamental questions such as how should a democratic political system balance liberty with equality and the rights of the individual (and more recently, the group) with those of the community are long-standing and unresolved.[1]

We must identify what the vital aspects of American life are, and then determine which are under threat and from what are they threatened. Will these vital aspects be defined by what makes us rich, keeps us safe, eases our consciences, or some combination of the three? Are we willing to sacrifice any of the above for one of the others? Since President Carter’s ignominious “Crisis of Confidence” speech of 1979, the preference has been seemingly obvious. Every threat identified in his speech was real. Every warning justified. What America took exception to was the solution. Raising taxes, leveling import quotas, slowing a slow economy and promising security at the expense of lowered expectations did not sit well with the American populace.[2]vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” And the train ride that has marked American national security policy over the last three decades had begun. Is cheap gasoline truly a vital interest? Or, to hit more deeply, is our national ability to keep consuming more stuff a vital interest? It very well might be. This realization set in motion the Carter Doctrine. His statement merely months later in which he let the world know that: “An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the

After we define our vital interest we must prioritize which features of that identity are the most important and which threats are the most imminent. External threats grab the news,. President Eisenhower cautions of the 1961 ring true today. “We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”[3] All must be weighed. but internal threats are often far more intractable and infinitely more subtle

During the Cold War the ever lurking menace of Communism answered this question for us. If the crimson tide swept across our shores it would take with it ‘our’ intellectual, economic,, and even physical freedoms. The ideals of the Declaration of Independence were at stake: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness could have been no more. The Soviet Union. Do the threats of today give the “evil empire” a run for its money? Yes, the potential, nay even the likelihood of terrorist violence exists, but does the ‘new’ totalitarian ideology of radical Islam threaten our very identity? Does intolerance, murder, terror, enslavement, and repression in the Dar al-Islam threaten our, then how much is their removal worth? Should America’s priority,, well-governed states that can meet the needs of their citizens and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system?” Is this truly “the best way to provide enduring security for the American people?”[4] The American people need to consciously ask themselves these questions, because the politicians on both sides of the aisle do not seem to be doing so. I am not writing to answer them, only to encourage their asking. religious had the indicted itself with its doctrine of worldwide revolution and had the military and ideological strength to make the threat palpable innate liberties? If they don’t be to “seek and support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world?” Does “the fundamental character of regimes [matter] as much as the distribution of power among them” and should the goal of our statecraft be “to help create a world of democratic

The next election will probably not change America’s trajectory no matter the elected party. The current indignation about the decisions of the Bush administration do not lie in its choice of goals (i.e. forcefully encouraging democratic change in the international arena), but of implementation. Though obviously each candidate has a slightly different idea about the plan they would implement if elected the Democratic Party’s National Security Strategy, entitled "Real Security: The Democratic Plan to Protect America and Restore Our Leadership in the World," outlines a ‘bold’ vision for how Democrats will lead on National Security. Replete with attacks on the manner in which the Bush administration failed in its promises (such as “Since [the Iraq invasion], inadequate planning and incompetent policies have failed to make Americans as safe as we should be.”) the Democrats promise to, “Hold the Bush Administration accountable for its manipulated pre-war intelligence, poor planning and contracting abuses that have placed our troops at greater risk and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars,”[5] but offer no concrete steps toward changing foundational issues within our foreign policy. Instead we will “eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive; lead international efforts to uphold and defend human rights; and renew longstanding alliances that have advanced our national security objectives.” More importantly, to do this we will, “Rebuild a state-of-the-art military by making the needed investments in equipment and manpower so that we can project power to protect America wherever and whenever necessary.” My joy runneth over for a policy of: “More of the same, only better!”

No matter how successful we are at achieving goals, if they are poorly chosen it is failure. That much is obvious. The second truth is that even achieving a beneficial objective can be inappropriate if it precludes the attainment of a more beneficial one. Opportunity cost may not be a popular determinant, but its beauty lays in its clarity not its charm. There truly is never a free lunch.

[1] Kornberg, Allan and Harold D. Clarke. “Beliefs about Democracy and Satisfaction with Democratic Government: The Canadian Case.” Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 3. (Sep., 1994), pp. 537-563.
[2] Carter, Jimmy. “The ‘Crisis of Confidence’ Speech.” Televised speech, July 15, 1979.
[3] Eisenhower, Dwight. “Farewell Address to the Nation.” January 17, 1961.
[4] “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America.” Washington, D.C., March 2006. http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionI.html
[5] The Democratic Party. “Democrats Offer Bold Security Agenda” http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/03/real_security_t.php#flash

Sunday, July 8, 2007

Reports from Baqubah, or California

Funny the discrepancy between these two experiences of Baqubah.

It probably helps that Michael Yon is actually there, while Kiki Munshi of the Washington Post is in California...

Assertion #5

5. War endangers both.

If capitalism is not the answer, can the possibility of spreading democracy by force suffice? Our foreign policy must be built on the knowledge that war can never be a first option because of the inherent dangers—win or lose—that it brings. The difficulties of spreading democratic values coercively do not need further emphasis. Suffice it to say they are immense and it seems that force is as likely to bring about a rejection of such values as imbed them. Additionally, no matter how successful such interventions might be,[1] the threat of America becoming a real empire of coercive force is an anathema to, and a betrayal of, the democratic revolution itself. Thomas Jefferson wrote that even if such a path resulted in America becoming “dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.”[2]

Studies have been done that assert that war itself is not a direct threat to democracy,[3] but such studies seem to put excessive focus on the mere survival of democratic forms and institutions rather than their progressive health or the dangers they face. One such danger lies in the side effects of the economic needs of a powerful military. As Meade writes, throughout history wars have been a threat to democratic institutions: even for the losers

Wars cost money, piling up debts that concentrated power in the central government and forced most of the population to labor and pay taxes to support the minority that owned the government bonds issued to cover the debt; wars built up a concentrated economic and political machinery dependent on government funds, addicted to secrecy, and with a permanent interest in discovering ever new dangers abroad; they also made the development of strong standing armies and navies inevitable, a development that, historically has often been fatal to republican liberty.[4]

As Frederick Ogg wrote, while the military results of war itself might be impossible to predict, one thing was certain. America can depend on the fact that it will lead to more "‘big government’ functioning in a big way-more power wielded by public authority than ever before…a more colossal mechanism of controls, a more numerous bureaucracy, an economy more completely underpinned by government initiative, participation, and support.”[5] In the large scale ‘world’ wars, and even the more limited actions in Korea and Vietnam this has been exceedingly true. Since then the mechanisms have been less extreme, but still real. The war excuse (and the only period since 1947 where there was no overarching 'war' being fought was a few odd years between 1991 and 2001) has allowed even avowedly 'small government’ Republicans to become pork-ladling spenders, and Democrats have been just as, or even more, complicit. Though often mocked, the threat that Eisenhower warned of, “the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,” [6] by the military-industrial complex might not be immediate, but it remains very real.

Secondly, there is the danger of an increasing disconnect between those who serve to protect the values of the citizenry of the United States and the citizens themselves. As Sir Henry Sumner Maine wrote, at the foundation of the Republic: "The difficulties of popular government which arise from the modern military spirit…could not perhaps have been determined without actual experience." The increasing disjunction between the values and standards of the United States’ AVF (all-volunteer force) and the average citizen might be as over dramatized by some as it is ignored by others. The topic however is a very interesting one that requires more than this brief space to flesh out adequately. Andrew Bacevich does so very nicely in his book, “The New American Militarism,” a book that comes very highly recommended. We are obviously far, far from becoming another Turkey, a country whose ‘foundational’ institutions are only maintained through consistent interventions (coups) by the military, but the seed of danger has been planted and is seemingly receiving excellent care.

[1] Peceny, Mark. “Forcing Them to Be Free.” Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 3. Sep., 1999, pp. 549-582.
[2] Meade, op. cit., pp. 185
[3] Reiter, Dan. “Does Peace Nurture Democracy?” The Journal of Politics. Vol. 63, No. 3 (Aug., 2001), pp. 935-948
[4] Meade, op. cit., pp. 186
[5] Ogg, Frederic A. “American Democracy--After War.” The American Political Science Review > Vol. 36, No. 1 (Feb., 1942), pp. 1-15
[6] See Paul Koistinen’s work: “The "Industrial-Military Complex" in Historical Perspective: The InterWar Years,” for a very interesting discussion on the early origins of such worries.

*Also see the section on War and Big Power Politics in Sheldon Richman's article, "The Goal is Freedom: Class Struggle Rightly Conceived."

Saturday, July 7, 2007

LiveEarth - what's this for again?

I couldn't resist putting up a post on "man-made global warming," the new fad amongst the socialists, er, environmentalists. Anyone who knows me knows that I am very skeptical of any theory which demands the destruction of our economy, and the economies of developing countries around the world, as a cure.

We've seen this before. Carson's "Silent Spring" proclaiming the destruction which would surely pass due to DDT (including instant cancer to humans) resulted in the ban of DDT across the world. The results? Millions dead. Malaria continues to run rampant throughout Africa, causing the deaths of so many. And the worst part is that it could be prevented through the use of DDT to eradicate insects which carry the disease. For evidence of this, look at the US and Europe, where malaria was wiped out decades ago through the use of DDT. And what about the instant cancer? Subsequent studies proved no connection between DDT and cancer, and even indicated that it had a minimal impact on the ecosystem. For more, see Give Us DDT.

It's all the same with "man-made global warming." The most alarming fact is that there are hundreds of scientists suggesting that this is not what it has been made out to be. And the response? Ridicule, death threats, and accusations of being in the pockets of big oil (rather than in the pockets of big corn or big government?). But there's a consensus! The debate is over! This is just lies, and anyone with an elementary education in debate psychology knows the fallacy involved in the Bandwagon Effect which has been consistently used by the environmentalists.

"Man-made global warming" is dangerous. But not because of melting polar ice caps. The "cure" involves stopping development in the developing world and grinding our economy here at home to a halt. This is unacceptable, and real lives are in the balance, not that doomsday fiction you see so often. If you want to promote the environment, fine, go ahead! But don't force people who a) disagree with you and b)can't afford to sacrifice what little they have.

See The Great Global Warming Swindle for a little bit of balance in this debate.

Assertion #4

4. Capitalism can serve to promote both democratic institutions at home and abroad, but does not necessarily protect either.

We should desire the spread of democracy and democratic values, but we must understand the limitations of American power. Can the proliferation of ‘capitalism’ and curing the ‘poverty problem’ be the way to both defend our own liberties and encourage their spread to the rest of the world? The theory goes that the higher levels of employment and skill brought about by a capitalist economy would directly facilitate the organization of middle, or ‘subsidiary’ classes. The middle class would use its newfound political capital to push for reformist political movements, strengthened formal democracy, and social democratic policies that would work effectively increase the sectors or classes of the population that could make effective use of their political, civil, and social rights. These classes would in turn continue the cycle. This story definitely has feel good value, and, in its essence, has essential merit,[1] but even if it were possible to spread capitalistic institutions and freedoms to the ends of the earth (which, for all of our “imperial” power, the Washington Consensus has had difficulty doing) it would still not be the perfect answer.

With regard to the question of whether economic growth causes democracy studies have been surprisingly inconclusive. Minier writes that “income levels and the estimated probability of a democratic movement occurring in an authoritarian country are positively correlated over most ranges of income…However as per capita incomes increase beyond a certain threshold the costs of demonstrating for democracy increase enough that the probability of a democratic movement occurring actually falls with further increases in income.”[2] It seems like “it is [only] as likely that economic growth causes democracy as that democracy causes economic growth.”[3] Huber, Rueschemeyer, and Stephens have found that “it is not the mere rise in per capita income that is of greatest importance, but rather the changes in the class and social structure caused by industrialization and urbanization which are most consequential for democracy.”[4]

Additionally, though it does often result from, and in some circumstances can encourage the development of democratic liberties, capitalism is far from an honest defender of freedom. Emphasizing the dangers of capitalist practices bereft of democratic foundations, Huber and her fellow researchers have been bold enough to assert that: “Market-oriented economic policies supported by international pressures and by local constituencies gaining from them tend not only to undercut social democratic reform policies, but also to threaten the foundations of even formal democracy.”[5] Such studies are obviously limited in scope (Latin America was the focus of the study that led to this particular assertion), but the trends are evident and the reasons obvious. The danger of great fortunes and private concentration of wealth perverting and suborning the political process is obvious and fundamental. Even when capitalism works to enrich a few, not at the expense of the many but merely in relation to them, it is dangerous. Laissez faire implementation of a capitalist program will likely eliminate one danger to democracy. The increased level of employment and higher standard of living reduce the number of those “whose bitter necessities make a few dollars on election day, or some little job with the city government a great temptation,”[6] but it merely raises the stakes. In a well developed economy, democracy or no, buying an individual voter is rarely worth much; buying the individual legislator is worth more, and buying the media can buy you the entire legislature. Witness the emphasis our friend Vladimir has put on returning the Russian media to its ‘proper’ place under government control. Individual, non-governmental, ownership does not mean independent. An oligarch with media power can have a subversive influence either for, or against, the needs of ‘democracy.’

[1] See work by Boix, 2001, Barro, 1996, Lipset, 1995 and Huber, et al, 1997.
[2] Minier, Jenny A. “Is Democracy a Normal Good? Evidence from Democratic Movements.” Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 67, No. 4. Apr., 2001, pp. 996-1009.
[3] Uk, Heo and Alexander C. Tan. “Democracy and Economic Growth: A Causal Analysis.” Comparative Politics, Vol. 33, No. 4. Jul., 2001, pp. 463-473.
[4] Huber Evelyne; D. Rueschemeyer and J. Stephens. “The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 7, No. 3. (Summer, 1993), pp. 85.
[5] Huber, Evelyne; D. Rueschemeyer and J. Stephens. “The Paradoxes of Contemporary Democracy: Formal, Participatory, and Social Dimensions.” Comparative Politics, Vol. 29, No. 3, Transitions to Democracy: A Special Issue in Memory of Dankwart A. Rustow. (Apr., 1997), pp. 338-9.
[6] Miller, op. cit., pp. 220.

Friday, July 6, 2007

Positive Signs from Iraq: Baqubah Update

"The big news on the streets today is that the people of Baqubah are generally ecstatic, although many hold in reserve a serious concern that we will abandon them again."

-- Michael Yon (embedded reporter in the I-4 CAV)

Big News from Baqubah. While Operation Ripper has not been a complete success, it has seemingly led to substantial progress in the area. From the purely numerical standpoint 80% of the AQI top leadership escaping sounds like a failure, but even if that's true 20% didn't and wherever the 80% went, they aren't in Baqubah. Michael Yon writes that the Iraqi populace in the area seems to be adjusting its views of the American forces.

"I’ve seen this kind of progression in Mosul, out in Anbar and other places, and when I ask our military leaders if they have sensed any shift, many have said, yes, they too sense that Iraqis view us differently. In the context of sectarian and tribal strife, we are the tribe that people can—more or less and with giant caveats—rely on."

Daily interaction with the American soldiers, on top of the recent passage of the Oil Law have led most Iraqis to understand that we don't want to stay. Yon writes that:

"It finally has settled in that we are telling the truth. Now that all those realizations and more have settled in, the dynamics here are changing in palpable ways."

It might only be Baqubah, but as one blogger has said, the areas the longest under Al-Qaeda control seem to 'flip' the fastest and want to stay 'flipped' the most. Anbar is awakening. Diyala might be following suit. The future of Iraq is far, far from settled, one way or the other. The Jeremiads at home present as great a danger as the sectarian issues that still rumble beneath the country's surface. If we stay too long we will probably fail. 'Basing rights' are not an option. Iraq cannot stand as our firebase of democracy and American values in the Middle East. But there is also no doubt that if we leave now we also fail. The Iraqi people and our military might never 'get it together,' but they might...and a little more time is the least we can offer. The origins and justifications of the war are not the issue. The past is the past and only serves to help judge which road to take in the present. Should we pursue another Iraq? Heavens no. Should we abandon those, both American and Iraqi, who have worked so hard and suffered so much for their country and their people? Heavens no.

Assertion #3

3. The realization of democratic values abroad will (on the whole) help to secure them at home and therefore should be encouraged, but not enforced.

We cannot ignore the potential benefits of a continuing spread of “democratic” values., or in different terminology, providing an appealing democratic ‘witness’ abroad, is an important part of maintaining the plant at home. It is obvious that democracies generally make “better and more reliable partners than monarchies and tyrannies”[1] for a variety of quite valid reasons. Though everything truly depends on how you define both war and democracy, it has become axiomatic that democracies do not war with each other.[2] There are lower likelihoods of episodes of ‘royal caprice,’ succession politics or a lack of reliance on the public will, and a much smaller chance of domination by hawkish military elites., democracies tend to prosper economically, and prosperous countries both increase the worldwide market for goods from other prosperous countries and are generally less likely to suffer from issues of internal weakness and strife. The rhetoric of the America’s current National Security Strategy, namely that: “Championing freedom advances our interests because the survival of liberty at home increasingly depends on the success of liberty abroad,”[3] is excessive, but the important role played by external conditions in the promotion of both autocracy and democracy remains undeniable.[4] The reversal of stable democracies such as the United States would likely require a great deal of such external influence, and if our international neighbors are edging toward democratic institutions of their own then they are much less likely to pressure or influence our own foundations toward autocracy.

[1] Meade, Walter R. and Richard C. Leone. “Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World.” Routledge: New York, NY. 2002. p. 162-3
[2] Rioux, Jean-Sébastien. “A Crisis-Based Evaluation of the Democratic Peace Proposition.” Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, Vol. 31, No. 2. (Jun., 1998), pp. 263-283.
[3] “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America.” Washington D.C., March 2006. http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionI.html

[4] O'Loughlin, John; et al. “The Diffusion of Democracy, 1946-1994” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 88, No. 4. (Dec., 1998), pp. 545-574.

Thursday, July 5, 2007

Book review - The Sword of the Prophet

I just finished reading The Sword of the Prophet by Serge Trifkovic, which I thought was a quick and revealing read. It is the self proclaimed "politically incorrect guide to Islam," and holds no bars. After a couple chapters portraying the down and dirty of Islam's history and central tenets, Trifkovic exhaustively lays out the policy failures throughout the last few decades which have put us where we are today. The one consistent policy failure, as portrayed in the book, is political tolerance of the dangerous aspects of the religion. Among these are intolerance of non-believers, hatred for Jews, and mistreatment of women. The point is made repeatedly that there is no moderate Islam - a topic which could be strongly argued, but is startlingly supported by recent polls revealing the broad level of support for terrorist actions throughout the Muslim world. Trifkovic also does a good job of exploring Saudi Arabia, the elephant in the room. It's absolutely shocking how backward Saudi Arabia society is under Shari'a law, and how much money and power the Saudi's use for the advancement of Islam throughout the world (including the U.S.).

I'm a big person on small interesting details - here are a couple of shocking ones from this book:

--> The GDP excluding oil of the entire Middle East is less than that of Finland's alone.

--> One California public school requires teaching of Islam in one of its classes, including "a day in the life of a Muslim" where girls practice wearing headscarfs and they go through the motion of daily prayers.

The book is not a pleasant read - there is nothing comforting about fundamentalist Islam - but it is a necessary one for anyone looking for a start in education of this religion and culture.

Celebration of July 4th

I'm looking forward to contributing to this blog in whatever meaningful way I can. As a sort of introductory and celebratory post, see http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/, a copy of the Declaration of Independence. This July 4th, I've decided that I'm going to make a tradition of reading the document and encourage others to do the same. Two parts I think are especially important:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

The first quote is often taken out of context, in particular "that all men are created equal." It should be noted that all men are not equal in nature, but do have equal rights under the law, and society should strive to preserve equality of opportunity and treatment, not equality of outcome. The second quote reminds us of the sacrifice of the Founding Fathers, many whom lost both family and fortune for their dream of a free and just society.

Happy July 4th!

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

Assertion #2

2. Every step toward the maintenance of a stable and secure democracy at home is effectively a step that will encourages the gradual implementation of the same abroad.

History has seemingly taken an increasingly “democratic” path, but the trail is fraught with difficulty and danger. Though obviously a beneficial system if implementation is possible, a democratic system that protects the rights of minorities while not infringing on the civil liberties of the majority is not currently a globally acceptable path. The ever present trade off is the feeling (or reality) of security for the reality of freedom. They are interdependent, but far from the identical. A significant reason for Russia's (as one example) return to authoritarianism has been the average Russian's desire for some semblance of security (both economically and physically) from both oligarch and terrorist. Putin provides that. What does it matter that they lose the potential of democracy when democracy had never really lived up to the expectations foisted upon them after the fall of the Soviet Union. Democracy is not a cure all, and in fact it often opens up more societal rifts than other forms of government. The beauty is that, if it is allowed time and freedom from interference, it fixes them.

Not all societies seem to be ready for this transition however, because the responsibilities it put upon the average citizen are great. Unless there is a substantial middle class who stand to gain from the spread of representation and lose by the overthrow of such assurances as property rights, Democracy is quite likely to crash into either the tyranny of the majority or an authoritarian return. Despite these difficulties, despite many failures, despite the internal difficulties inherent in democracy that have already been mentioned, democracy is spreading. In the last 20 years the number of electoral democracies has almost doubled from 66 to 123. While assuming that such a rise is due to imitation might be flattering, it is only partly true, but that partly is important. The success, though not perfection, of America’s democratic system brings forth admiration and emulation. Though many populations across the world would follow very different paths if given the ballot, the attraction of choice is undeniable.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

The Defense: Assertion #1

1. The secure and enduring liberty of a stable democratic system is an appropriate goal for all nations and one which the United States has not yet fully achieved.

The fact that once a secure institutional basis for a republican or democratic system (i.e. "A distinctive set of political institutions and practices, a particular body of rights, a social and economic order, a system that ensures desirable results, or a unique process for making collective and binding decisions.”[1]) is laid, the resulting system will provide many benefits is unquestioned. The strengths of popular sovereignty meshed with a liberal focus on the rights of individual citizens generally lead to the creation of “social and economic conditions and political structures and processes that empower people and thereby help them to realize their optimum potential.”[2] Studies have shown that “countries can later look forward to increasing income equality levels as they further democratize, suggesting there is no optimal stopping point for democracy.”[3] Even the ‘inefficiency argument’ against systems of direct democracy has been largely discounted.[4]

Our American democracy is still far from perfect however, and doesn’t seem to be truly progressing. A democrat to the core, Joseph Dana Miller puts forth a very enlightening critique of ‘settling’ for current implementation of democracy as either satisfactory or secure. On the United States’ chosen method of indirect, representative democracy he writes that:

There is danger that the reins of government will slip into the hands of privilege, and the laws become in reality government by the few… It is found in practice that representatives, often through ignorance, corruption, or misinterpretation of the meaning of the mandate of the people, retard the doing of the popular will instead of expressing it… Perceiving this the friends of the Initiative and Referendum would resort to direct legislation. But the difficulty of obtaining an expression of their will from democracies composed of widely differing social elements must be recognized. The numbers to be reckoned with are one difficulty; local interests are another; unreasoning party traditions another; the failure of all but a few minds to grasp the essentials of legislative proposals is another.[5]

On checks and balances:

It is useless to deny [that they] were not intended to guard democracies from a danger that is very real—the power that tends to further increase of power—and because of this that one branch of government tends constantly to usurp functions which belong to other branches… If it be the tendency of power to aggrandize power, then it must be no less true of majorities than minorities.

Democracies with universal suffrage, unenlightened by the severest knowledge, are likely to encroach upon the liberties of minorities. Indeed this is one of the chief difficulties to be guarded against. Though liberty is always to be preferred, liberty without knowledge must degenerate into license, and hence the inevitable reactions and loss of liberty.[6]

On the danger of corporate power:

The tendency of large industrial, especially of semi-public, corporations, to assert a power independent of the state… Democracies are less vigilant in detecting such forms of infringement which stronger governments, being jealous of their prerogatives, are quick to suppress.[7]

The democratic project will never be truly free of danger, but it is on the right track. The issue is that if we are moving further along the track, it is not at a very high speed, and we could easily slip into reverse. The same problems that Miller warns of so eloquently are still loom dangerously and he wrote those lines over 90 years ago.[8] The greatest danger is becoming so content with our forms and institutions that we fight only weakly to maintain them and less to strengthening them. Eternal vigilance will surely remain the price of liberty for emotion, not reason, buys the most votes. The will of an unrefined majority will remain little more than the cry of the demagogue.

[1] Robert Dahl, “Democracy and Its Critics.” New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. p. 5
[2] Kornberg, Allen and Harold D. Clarke. “Beliefs about Democracy and Satisfaction with Democratic Government: The Canadian Case.” Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 3. (Sep., 1994), pp. 537-563.
[3] Burkhart, Ross E. “Comparative Democracy and Income Distribution: Shape and Direction of the Causal Arrow.” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 59, No. 1. (Feb., 1997), pp. 148-164.
[4] Noam, Eli M. “The Efficiency of Direct Democracy.” The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 88, No. 4. (Aug., 1980), pp. 803-810.
[5] Miller, Joseph Dana. “The Difficulties of Democracy.” International Journal of Ethics,
[6] Ibid, p. 223.
[7] Ibid, p. 222.
[8] See also Ellwood, Charles A. “Democracy and Social Conditions in the United States.” International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 28, No. 4. (Ju Vol. 25, No. 2. (Jan., 1915), p. 220.l., 1918), pp. 499-514.