Another Malware Trait Of Our Democracy

Though America prides itself on being a democracy, it shouldn't. Its democracy is weak if it exists at all. And it is plagued with at least 3 malware operating traits that we seem too arrogantly stubborn to even acknowledge let alone address.

The first malware trait of our democracy is that we employ a lazy democracy. Democracy for us is voting every x number of years for officials whom we hope to be able to ignore until the next election. If what these officials do does not negatively interfere with our pursuit of happiness and wealth, we are content. If not, generally speaking, we store up our anger for the next election. 

The second malware trait of our democracy is that it is bipolar. That is we keep switching between the leadership of one of two political parties: the Republicans and the Democrats. This puts these two parties in a co-dependent, job security relationship where their failures ensure future work for the other party. The so-called independent voter is a bipolar voter, while those who vote for one party or the other find themselves choosing between political tribalism and voter resignation.

Now if those two malware traits were not bad enough, we have another one that sabotages democracy by ensuring that only an elite-centered rule emerges despite, or perhaps because of, our democratic processes. This third malware trait has more to do with the behavior of our 2 major political parties. To different degrees, our two major political parties act as proxies dressed up in vanguard clothing.

So what does it mean for a political party to act as a proxy? It means that its actions and what it advocates are directed by others. And here, in particular, those directing our political parties are not the voters, but are one or a few small interest groups. This consolidates political power so that our government employs elite-centered rule that revolves around the interests and welfare of a few "exceptional" people who call the shots (click here for America's democratic status).

Both of our major political parties serve financial elites before they serve us. One party serves these elites more than the other, but both are pretty much under the control of the financial elites in our nation--here, we should note that sometimes there is a conflict of interest between different sets of elites.

So we have both political parties whose main purpose is follow the directives of our nation's financial elites when writing and passing legislation. Why would we voters support such political parties with our votes? It is because disguise their allegiances by putting on their vanguard clothing over their proxy clothing. 

What is a vanguard? The Meriam-Webster Dictionary defines a vanguard as 'the forefront of an action or movement' (click here for the reference). The vanguard of a political group is a small group that sets the pace for the larger group while claiming to represent the larger group. And it also markets itself as a vicarious leader in that how one reacts to the vanguard is interpreted how one reacts to the larger group.

A perfect historical example of a vanguard was seen in Lenin and the Bolsheviks as they led, or hijacked, the Russian Revolution. Those who opposed them, even if they were fellow Socialists,  were then portrayed and treated as if they opposed the Revolution and its people. This mentality caused a great number of purges among the Socialists in Russia.

Now it's not like we see purges in our political parties here. But both the Republican and Democratic Parties have portrayed themselves as vanguards of different movements. The Republicans claim to be the vanguard for the anti-abortion segment of the Pro-life movement as well as for American traditionalists. The Democrats claim to be the vanguard for minorities and human rights. However, both parties act more as proxies for the financial elites than as vanguards though being a vanguard can sometimes take a little away from being proxy. That last point helps explain the difference in how much more the Republicans act as a proxy for our nation's financial elites than how the Democrats act.

The problem with relying on the vanguard, however, is that it still  utilizes an elite-centered rule political structure. Vanguards rely on a few to represent/rule over many. And any elite-centered rule political structure allows for minimal input and participation by the masses.

I suppose that when the masses are so interested in or, by necessity, forced to focus on, making a living, they are prohibited from being more politically involved. As a result, depending on vanguards makes a certain amount of sense. The problem is that such a setup carries all of the baggage that the elite-centered rule of allowing vanguards involves. And since being proxies are these political parties' alter-egos, being vanguards enables these parties to pretend to care for the masses while they cater to the needs and even whims of the few. Certainly we don't see the kind of control over dissent exercised by the example of a vanguard which was mentioned earlier. We don't see the purges within either political party that Lenin instituted among the Socialists of his day. But we see half-hearted, if that much, representations of the masses by those claiming to be vanguards while at the same time our participation and voices are greatly reduced.

The Trump Presidency has moved more and more people to call for change. But the change begins with us. The change means that we must become more politically active than just voting every x number of years. The change includes a rejection of our bipolar democracy by investing in and voting for 3rd party candidates. And the change also involves refusing to let our political parties act as vanguards for the groups we belong to. If we make these changes, then perhaps our political parties will not just shed the vanguard apparel, it will forsake its proxy roles and look to represent the general public rather than some elite sector of the population.

The American Left's Fork In The Road

Way back in the days of Occupy, we on the Left were aware of a violent group of protesters known as Black Bloc. And we allowed them to protest with us on the condition that they did not engage in violence.  For with Occupy, peaceful protesting was vital to what we wanted to do. We weren't perfect, but nonviolent protesting what we emphasized. In contrast to that, Black Bloc wanted to make their political statements through the destruction of property. And because they attacked property and not people, they did not see themselves as practicing violence. But the rest of us saw things differently. 

Today, we have antifa. It's not that we no longer have Black Bloc, but we have a new kid on the block. And one of this new kid's approaches to protesting is to exercise violence against those who support fascism. We might have some others who are willing to resort to violence. There are some Stalinists and others who believe in revolution who will resort to violence. But the group that is grabbing the headlines and attention of the press is antifa.

One way that we on the Left could look at those groups willing to exercise violence in order to get what their methods suggest or imply in supporting elite-centered rule or dispersed rule through democracy. Elite-centered rule is when those who are in government make decisions based on the views and desires of a few who are said to be specially qualified. This kind of rule was attributed to Lenin by Rosa Luxemburg and was the key criteria for Luxemburg calling Lenin's rule a bourgeoisie dictatorship. Dispersed rule occurs when decisions and laws are determined by those representing all of the people.

When we look at antifa from that perspective, we see antifa assuming some rights and power when they attack fascists, such as neo-nazis, in order to prevent these fascists from even speaking freely and demonstrating peacefully. Certainly the contents of speeches made by fascists like neo-nazis and their political positions are utterly abominable. What they want cannot be tolerated in terms of being implemented. But they are still afforded the right to speak freely and to peacefully demonstrate. Thus, when antifa physically attacks these neo-nazis, those in antifa are assuming some of the powers of the government. And the decision to carry out of these attacks is a decision made by a few who assume the right to act as judge, jury, and execution of another group. And their attacks give a picture of how they might govern the whole nation if given the chance. So we might say that the violence exercised by antifa implies a reliance of an promotion of elite-centered rule.

And since antifa is not the only group on the Left which would employ violence, others need to be mentioned too. I ran into a person who advocated violent revolution at the last May Day rally I attended in NYC. I asked him what would happen to democracy if his revolution took place. His answer was difficult to understand since it sounded like he answered in Russian. I ran into another person who wanted to wage war on the police because he believed that the police were the guardians of the bourgeoisie. He expressed the belief in attacking all who did not agree with his politics. That person is a Stalinist. And though not all Stalinists believe in relying on violent revolution to gain control of the state, this man did.

Those who advocate violent revolution in a democratic nation are often enemies of democracy more than they are enemies of the state. This is because political power in a working democracy is more dispersed rather than being elite-centered. And since those who would resort to violence imply a reliance on and promotion of elite-centered rule, we can say that they oppose a dispersed rule through democracy while they have no problems assuming the powers of the state when they take away the rights of others. And in this last item alone, the one of the things that separates these violent groups from the Democrats and the Republicans is in the use of violence.

What is tragic for the American Left is that we have a significant nonviolent tradition. The key person for that tradition would be Martin Luther King Jr. But we could also include figures like Eugene Debs, Noam Chomsky, and Howard Zinn. But not only that, we have constantly opposed state violence whether it is exercised in other countries or domestically. The advantage that nonviolent activism has over the violence of groups like antifa is that it seeks to win over people rather than trying to conquer them. Those who would resort to violence do not have the patience to wait for people to be persuaded. But those relying on persuasion, assume no power to rule over the rest of the people. Rather, they want to rule with others as equals.

Thus, it is incumbent on those on the Left to unambiguously reject groups like antifa because of their methods. Their methods merit their rejection not just because they are violent; but also because of the kind of political rule the use of their methods implies. For it is clear that their methods imply an elite-centered rule. That right there is a denial of what the American Left has been about.

Where Does The American Conservative Church Fit In Here?

In the above video, Noam Chomsky emphasizes how, in elite-centered governments whether they be modeled after Lenin's rule or that of State Capitalism, public opinion must be controlled. The general public, especially in a democracy, must be put into a state of 'apathy and obedience' so that it does not interfere with those with power. 

When the general public is not apathetic and obedient, Chomsky goes on to say, there exists a problem with democracy. The problem with Democracy, however, is a vexation only for those with power because the problem with Democracy is that power is more equitably shared. And it often accompanies turbulent times where people experience a sense of urgency to 'press their own demands.'

Thus, some view the job of institutions is to nip the problem of democracy in the bud: that is to return the general public to being apathetic and obedient. Those with power will present and even see themselves as having to do this for the public's good because the public does not know what is good for them while the ruling elites do.

So where does the American Conservative Church fit in here? We might say that concern over personal sin plays a similar role in the American Conservative Church that our economic system does for most of America in controlling people for the sake of the ruling elites. For just as many Americans have neither the time nor the energy to pay attention to what our political and economic leaders do because they are too busy trying to earn a living, so focusing on personal sins has so preoccupied many American Conservative Christians that they are unable or unwilling to follow and then analyze what our leaders are doing. 

An illustration of the focus that the American Conservative Church has put on personal sins can be seen in how it has reacted to the same-sex marriage issue. For whether one goes to Conservative Christian blogs such as the First Things blog (click here), the blogs associated with the Gospel Coalition website (click here), or Denny Burk's blog (click here), or whether one goes to the publications of conservative denominations like that of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (see here), interaction with society is largely reduced to trying to control its sexual mores. Thus, our exploitive economic system, our current destruction of the environment, and our bend toward war and militarism all fly under the radar of concerns for many American Conservative Christians. 

But it isn't just the personal sins of others that cause us to be too fatigued to resist societal and system sins, it is our own personal sins and how they interfere with our quest for holiness that rob us of the energy or desire to pay attention the sins practiced by the groups we belong to and by many with wealth and power. And that is regardless of the fact that society and our nation often violates the Biblical prohibitions against murder and theft when it practices injustice against others. Somehow, we don't see some sins when favorite groups practice them as we see them when individuals do.

As a result, our hyper-concern with personal sin, whether that be the sins of others or ourselves, can cause us to be numb to respond to societal or system injustices forced on ourselves or our neighbors. And all of that is enabled by most American Conservative Christian churches.

But we also must count the silence practiced by the American Conservative Church regarding economic exploitation, environmental destruction, and war and militarism as a passive way by which the American Conservative Church encourages its members to remain apathetic and obedient to those who abuse power. Expressing too much concern over group social sins will cause many American Conservative Christians to accuse one of following the 'heresy' of the social gospel. And what many American Conservative Christians who make such accusations seem unaware of is that to neglect to express these concerns at all ignores the injunction of Romans 12:2 where we are told not to conform to the world. If we don't resist the sins of those with wealth and power, we become complicit, if not worse, in their sins.

One of the many tragedies coming from the American Conservative Church practice of creating apathetic and obedient  subjects to power is that its reluctance to preach truth to power gives many unbelievers reasons not to listen to the Gospel.

For as much as the American Conservative Christian Church enables its members to be apathetic to working for social change, the more this Church serves power and wealth; the more it serves the interests of ruling elites. Thus, the American Conservative Church seems to have fallen into a state that it claimed to fear the most: the state of being regulated, however informally, by and ruled over by either the State or elite private sector power.

Understanding The Conservative Whipping Boy: The State

The Imaginative Conservative blog just posted an article by Joseph Sorban (1946-2010) on what we are obligated to give to the State (click here). In one sense, this article by Joseph Sorban is a followup article on another article that briefly described how democracy has failed because it did not hold the size of government and the state in check (click here for that article).

In this article, Sorban wants to question the credentials of state because, regardless of its form, democratic or otherwise, the state seems to always become like the Hulk. As it grow bigger, it becomes more destructive. And certainly, Sorban does not have to work hard at finding a number of examples where this is true. The state, in way too many cases, abuses its power and, in one way or another, falsely tells us that what it commands us to do are moral mandates.

However, one must realize that Sorban is judging the state from a conservative-libertarian point of view. That view states that the state should take a minimalist approach at how it should govern its people. The conservative-libertarian view states that individual liberty should be king and what prevents individual liberty from harming others is a notion of 'natural order.' Natural order, according to Sorban is a self-evident set of standards that should prevent us from using individual liberty as a license to kill and steal. Some call similar sets of standards 'the created order' while others refer to them as 'natural law.' And though the standards may not be identical, the general result is. That is there exists a moral code that keeps practitioners of individual liberty from reaching a state of mutually insured destruction.

At this point, we should note the first comment posted is my comment. In that comment, I briefly described what I think are the problems of Sorban's position. The first problem is that the state, according to Sorban, is what I call an 'amorphous monolith.' By that I mean that the form of the state is meaningless because he is judging the state solely by its size. Thus, a big government or an intrusive state makes all state or governments look the same.

Now lest one assumes that only conservatives have the problem of using stereotyped scapegoats, my fellow political Leftist do the same to the Rich as conservatives, like Sorban, do to big government (see here). 

My next point regarding Sorban's article is that his emphasis on natural order or law, whatever you want to call it, leads to an elite-centered type of rule. That is because we must have the right group of people who can discern between what is part of the natural order and what isn't. And since not all share the same view of either natural law or order or how it should be implemented today, this right group of people have the duty to lead all others to follow natural law or order regardless of what anyone else has to say.

At this point, we should note that, in reality, a government based on elite-centered rule rather than democratic rule is more than easily distinguishable from those governments that employs democracy. This distinguishability contradicts Sorban's treatment of all big governments as being the same. This is shown by a previous blogpost (click here) that used a 2-dimensional model with one of the dimensions being the degree to which power is distributed. 

When power is dispersed, as should occur in a democracy, then we limit the power of government. However, we should note that a true democracy requires more than just certain political structures. It also requires enough people to hold to a certain cultural and societal ethic that leads people to share society as equals with those who are different. The failure to do so not only keeps a nation with democratic political processes from being a true democracy, it shows that, especially in America's case, its economic values of competition and conquest are counted as being more important than its democratic values of sharing and equality. Otherwise, democratic values would be crossing the border into how our economic system works rather than our capitalists values of competition and conquest have been bleeding into our political structures.

One might be tempted to say that this missing ethic of how to share society could be the reason why some, like Sorban, think democracy has failed. In essence, we've never tried democracy. And that is because, again, democracy requires both political structures and a certain societal ethic that revolves around sharing.

The conservative approach to government is one designed to enable elite-centered power. We should note that the liberal approach to government does the same. The difference between the two groups is that the elites who rule in the conservative scheme tend to be from the private sector while the elites who rule in the liberal scheme tend to be from the public sector. In either case, most of the people are being told what to do and what to either like or tolerate. And was pointed out in my comment attached to the article being reviewed, elite-centered rule will cause power structures to grow. This growth guts Sorban's black-white view of the state.

One final point that was not touched on in my comment to this article. The conservative view of government presupposes that government is an alien being to the people. And in many cases, that has shown itself to be true. But it does not have to be the case. What enables government to be an alien force is for the people to let be that way. And we often let government become an alien force when our pursuit for prosperity and/or distractions rob us of either the time or the desire to be involved with our government and hold it accountable. Of course, since Sorban's criteria for what makes government good is getting government out of the way of the right elites, he could have never appreciated a true democratic society.