The Problem with American Democracy
A kingdom must be concerned with the will of the monarch. A dependent state must be concerned with the will of the central state. But American democracy has placed its focus on will of the individual, or the “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” of the individual. At least that is what the Declaration of Independence states, or does it? Does the document truly assert that the foundational logic of the American Republic is the rights of the individual, or does it take the broader view that the individual’s tastes and likes must be tempered to what is best for the greater community?
Later the Preamble of the Constitution clarified that it is “We the People” who establish laws, implying that it is not a series of individuals who insisted on individual rights, but it was society at large, the nation as a whole, at least in theory, that established these laws. And in so doing it is required for each of us to forgo what we may want individually so that we may have safety and peace. But I fear we have forgotten this fact and are increasingly insisting on “my right” instead of “my responsibility.”
This is the question that is plaguing America today, the rights of the individual vs the subduing and controlling of individual preferences for the benefit and progress and safety of the greater community. A fair reading of the Declaration of Independence can easily observe that there was never a thought that any government could be established or maintained that did not have the power and the moral right to establish laws for communities that would provide safety for the group of citizens, and not obsess on the unbridled freedom of the individual. For example, we take this quote from the document:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Jefferson wrote of the “Right of the People,” that is all the people working together, and that they should work to provide both “Safety and Happiness,” both of which, if they will be experienced at all, must be experienced on both the individual AND the community levels.
Get Dr. David Packer’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
For example, I will not be safe or happy if my neighbor insists on the individual right of loudly honking his horn in the middle of the night, awakening the whole neighborhood, causing unnecessary stress and disharmony which might lead to arguing and fighting and harming one another’s property and even our very selves. “But that is common sense,” some one might say, and I hope it is and that it remains so, but any community at all must realize our moral responsibility to live peacefully with one another, and not just to not disturb each other, but to have a moral obligation to watch over one another, to help one another, and to fend for one another.
The chief problem of American democracy is two-fold: we have lifted the individual’s rights over the rights of society, and in so doing have also dispensed with responsible moral codes. In this new thinking, the individual’s right to be and do whatever he wants IS the new moral code. So we have produced an entire generation that feels no responsibility to anything other than their own wants and wishes and desires. And they justify this with the idea that it is actually in the interest of the greater good to do so, so that others can also express their individual desires and wishes, and do what makes them feel good. But when a darkness descends and someone’s desires includes that which is disturbing, harmful, and non-peaceful to society, then the entire thing unravels.
So, there must be a moral foundation for society that comes from more than their individual wishes. As the saying goes, “My right to swing my fist in the air ends where your nose begins,” and actually it ends way before the tip of your nose, for even threatening words and actions can be considered dangerous affronts. But where would such a moral foundation come from other than religion, and from Christian religion in particular? What religion, other than Christianity, has in history provided a moral foundation for independent democratic-republics? Islam calls for the religious leaders to rule society. Buddhism and Hinduism and Shintoism teach passive-ness and not active helpfulness. The Christian-Judaic teaching, “As you would that men should do to you, do you even so to them,” lays a foundation of responsibility to make society safe and pleasant for all.
Even today, many of the laws that are on the books have as their historic basis, Old Testament principles of fairness, or right of workers, of repayments for destruction of property, of protection of children, of caring for the poor and dispossessed, of mutual respect and compassion. Whenever American society forgets and forsakes the moral foundation of the biblical teachings, and seeks to lay instead the “pursuit of happiness” as the moral foundation, above all else, then the foundation will be beginning to crack and decay and will eventually fall apart.
The moral obligations of fairness, mutual respect, a willingness to help, neighborliness, protecting the vulnerable, upholding the law, respect for authority, the strength of marrige and family, personally contributing to help better society, and so forth, held by people and families in society have more to do with shaping a safe and happy society than the written laws.
