There are a lot of people talking about dangers to our democracy. I'm surprised that fewer aren't asking for a definition.
The current spate of attacks on the idea of a mosque in New York City near the site of the World Trade Center, joined, surprisingly, by the Anti-Defamation League, is only one symptom of America's allergy to certain aspects of democracy which is, after all, a word derived from the Greek "demos," the people.
The bruhaha over Arizona's efforts to curb illegal immigration by mandating possession of valid identification to be produced upon demand has garnered a judicial no-no, followed by fuming protests.
Attacks on elected government are daily, and sometimes hourly, events.. The fact that this government is different from the one before doesn't seem to matter. Government is bad. Period.
The release of thousands of classified documents by Wikileaks has been blasted up one side of the hill and down the other despite some still, small voices asking for a discussion about freedom of the press.
All these raise an interesting question about our form of government. In short, is it working? Let me submit a few dichotomies to ponder:
- If a mosque near the WTC is an insult to the families of those who died in an attack by Muslim fanatics, wouldn't it also be an insult to the families of molested children to build a Catholic church at the same spot? Is one kind of deviant preferable to another?
- If Mexicans should be forced to carry identification to prove they aren't illegal aliens, shouldn't all Italians have to carry proof they're not Mafiosi?
3.If revealing killings by our military is a crime, why is the same action by a civilian considered heroic?
- If the government is so bad, how come advocating anarchy can get you in such trouble?
If a group wanted to put up a Christmas manger scene in front of the town hall, would there be as much of a fuss as if another group wanted to erect a shrine to Lord Shiva next to it? There are hundreds of questions like these, some valid and some ridiculous, but all relevant to our definition of democracy. All too often, we hear people defend actions not on the basis of our Constitution, but on what they consider "right." Alexander Haig, former Secretary of State during the Reagan administration, defended the attack on Grenada as "right" because there was a possibility it could be used as a communist base. The constitutional requirement about only the Congress having the ability to declare war didn't enter into the conversation.
The problem, of course, is that one man's "right" is another's "wrong." And, it's against every tenet of democracy that somebody is somehow "worth more" than somebody else. And perhaps this, more than most things, is what irritates us about democracy. The fact is, we don't like the idea that the guy in the (pick one) - sombrero, turban, yarmulke, dress - should have the same rights as "we" do. But that's the way democracy should work. The whole idea of "us" and "them" are antithetical to the principle of equality. But should we all be equal?
You can read every day about somebody getting death threats for saying one thing or another. The role of the police, especially in minority neighborhoods, is under intense scrutiny. Privacy is becoming a thing of the past. Maybe these are proofs that democracy, like so many of the relics of "the good, old days," should be relegated to the dustbin of history.
Do we still want democracy? And, if so, what are we willing to do to keep it?