Delineating Democracy

In a previous article Defining Democracy: A Continuous Stream of Political Evolution, it was stated that the democratic process ought to be concrete in it’s values and goals, but also have the ability to be flexible with the everlasting changes of the human condition and the will of nature as new eras rise and fall and when technology eliminates human dependency. However, as the political events surrounding the presidency of Donald Trump, his administration, the liberal majority in the House; in contrast to the conservative majority of the Senate and Supreme Court, It must be made clear that the current model of American Democracy both does and does not follow the thesis of the older article. For democracy in the United States continually battles amongst itself to continually evolve with the changing tides of culture and technology; meanwhile certain figures of political power and position continually advocate that such progress is resulting in the abandonment of the efforts of the Founders as set down in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. An argument which closely mirrors the ever constant battle between the word of God in the Holy Bible and the word of Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species.

When it was said that our current democratic process here in the United States is not following the thesis of ideological equilibrium, it was meant that by examining the practice of congressional lobbying by corporations and interest groups to advocate for laws that only benefit themselves and not the general population. As well as the recent rulings of the Supreme Court; mainly by the former Justice Antonin Scalia, his replacement, Neil Gorsuch, and the most recent admission to the court, Brett Kavanaugh. In contrast to the definitions and standards of pure democracy where the popular vote alone determines who gets elected into office (who in turn advocate legislation to benefit the people and the government itself), the popular vote is rendered almost useless on a federal level, with the financial support of corporations and political interest groups rendering which bills are made into law and which representatives have more financial means to campaign more and remain voted into office, until these Congressmen and Senators (in some cases) die in office. Even with the concept of the Executive Order, the entire process of how a bill becomes a law no longer matters, and it’s never been examined by the Supreme Court in regards to its constitutionality (or potential lack thereof). According to the Lobbying Spending Database on OpenSecrets.org, that over $3,000,000,000 have been invested into political parties and officials favored by over 11,000 lobbyists acting on behalf of American corporations and private businesses, such as Boeing, Amazon, AT&T, and Facebook. In contrast to what the individual American voter can provide in terms of finances to a political party or favored candidate, $3,000,000,000 is an extremely difficult act to follow. To the point that the American system of democracy begins to phase into bureaucracy. Such a system does not fit in my previous definition.

In a pure democracy, the judges of the Supreme Court would also be voted into their respected offices by the the votes of the electorate; however, this is not so. They are appointed by the President and have the ability to serve for life. In the cases of the most recent rulings by the Supreme Court, they reflect the stances advocated by the former Justice Scalia, of how the laws of the Constitution are not living and do not require change or re-examination for a modern era; “Originalism” as he specifically referred to it.

You will sometimes hear [originalism] described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don't care about the intent, and I don't care if the Framers of the U.S. Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words. I do the same with statutes, by the way, which is why I don't use legislative history. The words are the law. I think that's what is meant by a government of laws, not of men. We are bound not by the intent of our legislators, but by the laws which they enacted, laws which are set forth in words, of course. (Carter, 2016)

Furthermore, Scalia’s advocation for his originalist interpretation of the Constitution and the laws which have been established in it’s wake are intended to cement American representative government against the growing threat of what a “living constitution” can unintentionally create; such as the potential for financial exploitation of the government by the lobbyists and major corporations who provide funds for political parties and campaigns for favored officials. However, being that Scalia himself was a devout Christian, his efforts towards a fundamentalist interpretation of our laws have led to only a halt in civil rights and liberties from being established and enforced. Especially in the recent cases of the the liberal struggles for the right to same-sex marriage, federal gun control legislation, and the right for women to have abortions. Even with Scalia’s passing and the appointment of Neil Gorsuch (favored by Donald Trump) in replacement, these issues are still yet to be ruled by the court and the efforts of Scalia carry on with the current conservative majority. In a pure democracy, outside influences such as businesses and institutions ought to never lobby with their money for the support of desired officials and favored legislation. It is the will of the popular electorate and the unbiased officials elected into office who create legislation on behalf of themselves and the people for the greater good of the nation which they control the ultimate destiny of. America clearly does not follow such principles.

However, there are many aspects of which American democracy does abide by in accordance to the ideological principles as well as my personal definition of democracy. In the edict of the populous as a whole (regardless of social stature) being able to equally cast votes for their political representatives, as well as the legislative branch of the American government being well represented equally (in the case of the Senate) and by population per state (as seen in the House of Representatives). In contrast to other forms of democracy in the annals of history, only a certain delegation of a nation’s citizenry were capable of running for office, let alone vote. Only the white, upper class, property owners, were capable to vote and hold office in legislative government (such as the Athenian Senate, the Roman Consulship, and the early stages of the American government). Women, the impoverished workers, and the enslaved had no right to vote in the United States until the 20th Century. Only then were these delegations of society granted such a right by the government itself.

However, with the systems of the electoral college, as well as gerrymandering, such a form of popular vote is weakened in terms of it’s value. With the advancement of modern technology to a point where messages can be sent from one corner of the globe to another instantaneously, the recommendation can only be made that our system of voting and the qualification of who can vote in which specific state becomes both standardized and digitalized for the sake of keeping a faster and more accurate record of popular votes to determine the outcome of elections. Even the National Public Radio reporter, Miles Parks, quoted the following regards to the state of the electoral college in American politics.

Other Democratic presidential candidates agree. Former Representative Beto O'Rourke said he thinks there's a, quote, "lot of wisdom in that." And Senator Kamala Harris says she's open to the idea. There's even a growing movement in states controlled by Democrats to bypass the Electoral College in favor of rewarding the candidate who wins the popular vote. Even President Trump has weighed in. Seven years ago, he tweeted that the Electoral College is a, quote, "disaster for democracy." But since becoming president, his views have changed. On Tuesday, he wrote, quote, "I used to like the idea of the popular vote but now realize the Electoral College is far better for the USA.” (Parks, 2019)

Another aspect of American Democracy which is compliant with my previous definition, is the process of judicial review and the supreme power which the court holds, when determining the constitutionality of a potential law or the actions of the opposite branches. Since Marbury v. Madison (the court case which established such power of judicial review) in 1803 to the most recent and upcoming cases concerning the establishment of L.G.B.T. rights against state laws which prohibit such liberties, the rulings of the Supreme Court have played one of the most important roles outside of the Presidential executive order and the legislation advocated by Congress to secure law and order in the United States and to challenge the value of such laws as time progresses. Certainly in comparison to other historical forms of democracy, either the vote of the Athenian senators, the Roman consuls, or the popular vote of pirates amongst the Caribbean Sea (Yes. Even pirates implemented democratic systems of law and economics on board ships; including the equal sharing of plundered loot, as well as a popular vote to determine every decision conducted on the open sea; from where they went, to what ships to attack, to who would serve as the vessel's captain). However, in the United States, the rulings of the Supreme Court are conducted by justices who interpret the established laws and from them, create verdicts to purposely hinder the powers of the President and Congress. Their rulings have enforced civil rights for ethnic and racial minorities, and upheld the Constitution in order to challenge the times where Congress and the Executive office have discarded the Constitution to carry out their own political agendas (such as the cases of Brown v. B.O.E., and Miranda v. Arizona).

Yet, like a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible (where the creation took place in seven literal days and the Earth being only 6,000 years old) conflicting with Charles Darwin’s theory of Evolution and the carbon dating of the Earth’s age to 4.5 billion years, the laws of the United States which grow like a political tree from the roots of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution require correlation with the ever-changing standards of society. To have an “originalist” perspective and treat the laws of the Constitution as if they are set in stone like the Ten Commandments upon Mount Sinai, deters U.S. law from the mandatory change to fit the culture of the American citizens. To have a continual progressing nation of people with outdated laws deteriorates the power of the government as a symbol of authority. Without federal authority in law, a process of devolution begins where the differing states determine (unequally) the rights of its inhabitants, and can lead to internal struggle which always has the potential to turn violent (as seen with the American Civil War). And soon, with banners flying high and drums beating loud, our American society as we know it will be marching backward to the days of antiquity, where bigots and corrupted family dynasties influenced the powers of law and church, and condemned to death those with enough gall to bring advancement to the human race.

Works Cited

• Carter, J. (2016, February 18). Justice Scalia's Two Most Essential Speeches. Retrieved from https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/justice-scalias-two-most-essential-speeches. Web. Accessed August 23, 2020.
• Parks, M. (2019, March 21). Momentum Builds To Eliminate The Electoral College. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2019/03/21/705395107/momentum-builds-to-eliminate-the-electoral-college. Web. Accessed August 23, 2020.
• Lobbying Spending Database. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s&showYear=2018. Web. Accessed August 23, 2020.
• Ginsberg, B., T. Lowi, M. Weir, and C. Tolbert. 2017. We the People: An Introduction to American Politics. Eleventh Core Edition. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. Print. Accessed August 23, 2020.
• Miroff, B., R. Seidelman, and T. Swanstrom. 2012. Debating Democracy: A Reader in American Politics, 7th Edition. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Print. Accessed, August 23, 2020.