The Pathology of U.S. Democracy
By Anthony Gregory • Thursday August 30, 2012 8:38 AM PDT • 23 Comments
Electoral politics is a moral and intellectual wasteland. There is no room for anyone of principle, whatever that principle might be.
As a libertarian, I see little difference between Obama and Romney. They both favor a perpetual war on terror, an occupation of Afghanistan, military aid to Israel, indefinite detention of terror suspects, military imprisonment outside the bounds of habeas corpus, warrantless wiretapping, the TSA, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the FDA, the war on drugs, gun control, bailouts, Keynesian economics, income taxation, Social Security, Medicare, central banking, subsidies for rich and poor, licensing in industry, public education, employment regulation, agriculture corporatism, tariffs, and a federal budget that amounts to far more than ten thousand dollars for every man, woman, and child in this country.
It is not only that the two candidates share much more in common with one another than they do with my vision of a free society; both candidates offer very little for the principled folks in their own party. I would think even a progressive or conservative would find it almost impossible to support either side. On issues like immigration, abortion, trade, taxes, deficit spending, and healthcare, for better or worse, the two politicians have gravitated toward a policy of status quo interventionism.
It may very well be, from whatever point of view, that Obama is worse than Romney, or vice versa, but we have no way of knowing. On the major issues that drive government policy the most—war and domestic crises—there is no way to predict how each candidate would respond.
The core problem concerns the nationalist collectivism that has overtaken American political culture. The majority of Americans expect the central state and its presidential figurehead to address any and all problems—unemployment, economic instability, the business cycle, Syrian despotism, terrorism, rising healthcare costs, prescription drugs, poor performance in the public schools, trade and labor issues, family planning, gun violence, the tone of civil discourse, housing prices, and everything else. Of course it is madness to expect 300 million people to live under one person who effectively directs the nation in all these affairs. It is ridiculous to expect one person to even understand all these affairs. The way it is supposed to work is that two candidates offer very different approaches to all issues. Even if this occurred, it would hardly be ideal—who is to say that either side would get more than a handful of issues right? Yet it is worse than this. When voters expect Washington, DC, to take the lead role in solving all problems under the sun, and look particularly to the president to lead every crusade, we should not suffer shock when both candidates try their best to hold on to the support from their side while catering to the center, thus gravitating toward similar positions on all the big issues. And the more issues there are, of course the more superficial becomes even the language with which the candidates approach them.
The pathology of mass democracy translates into ugly social divisions. Great liberal thinkers from Bastiat to Mises have demonstrated that all classes have nothing to fear from one another in a market economy. Freedom of exchange results in the harmonization of interests. Politics, on the other hand, creates fissures that need not exist. Every minor issue becomes blown up into a Manichean struggle. This happens especially over relatively minor issues, because these are the only ones over which the mainstream politicians evince even a rhetorical disagreement. The truly foundational issues of our time—mass confiscation of wealth, IRS despotism, mass imprisonment, militarized policing at home and unending warfare abroad—unite both major parties behind an establishment agenda. They bicker instead over relatively small matters, each one of which becomes amplified into the greatest battle in the history of the world at election time.
It is disturbing to see the hatred flying back and forth between partisans close to a presidential election. It is also ironic, because in terms of core principles, I feel I have less in common with either a Romney or Obama supporter than they do with one another. Yet as someone with a political philosophy completely at odds with zeitgeist thinking, I have forced myself to learn how to coexist civilly and peacefully with people whose views I find contemptible and dangerous. I can get along fine with neighbors who I sincerely believe embrace mass murder, slavery, torture, and armed robbery—and they can get along fine with me, a person with positions that they probably think would undermine civilization if implemented. Given my capacity to amicably interact with people whose views could hardly be more different, I would think that a debate over 1% of the federal budget should never escalate into the exaggerated acrimony we see at election time. Yet online, especially, it seems that Republicans and Democrats see one another as enemies of all that is good. So they line up behind politicians with much in common and scream at the other side, as though what happens in November will determine the very fate of the republic in any sort of predictable sense.
I am accustomed to taking positions that some would regard as extreme or radical. Yet on Election Day, I feel like a moderate compared to most of my compatriots. Whether America suffers another four years of Obama’s rule or Romney gets a chance to reign over the nation, I doubt it will make that much a difference on the whole.
I do expect it to matter somewhat to the way political debate becomes framed, and this does carry importance in the long run. If Obama wins, conservatives will continue condemning the growth of government and the antiwar movement will continue to be a curiosity of early 21st century history, rather than a living and breathing force to be reckoned with, as it was early in the Iraq war. If Romney wins, conservatives will become much less vocal in standing up against domestic government expansion, and the antiwar left will possibly come back to life. If Obama wins, any problems overseas will be wrongly blamed on American pacifism. If Romney wins, a faltering economy will be wrongly blamed on the free market.
I used to find it depressing that no matter who won, I had to share disappointment with the losing side, and never got to cheer for the winner. For the first time, I think I will look at it differently this November. Either Obama or Romney will lose, and both surely deserve to. At least I’ll get to see that happen.
Tags: American History, Bailouts, Budget and Tax Policy, Philosophy, Politics, The State, War 
In short, I think you are trying to simplify things way too much. And, for the record, no, I and my fellow conservatives have very little in common with the liberals. To say that we are the same is incomprehensible, to say the least.
I see lots of attempts to impress with your use of foreign authors, big words and fatalistic finger pointing in an attempt to push us all into the same category, but little of substance.
So this, like so much I hear from the “libertarians” has no real impact on anyone except to point out that you really have NO plan to improve things, but a huge desire to gripe about it.
Scott H | Aug 30, 2012 | Reply
No Scott, you’re wrong and you miss the point. Although conservative politicians give lip service to small govt and decry central planning, they never put their words into practice.
“you really have NO plan to improve things”
That is exactly the point of Austrian Economic analysis and philosophy and what is wrong w both D’s and R’s, or L’s and C’s if you prefer. The market is too complex to plan. Any state intervention will result in a worse outcome than allowing the market to factor and adapt to changing conditions. No expert or group of experts from either side can accumulate the amount of info necessary to plan ahead or steer the market. The market itself, or more accurately the individual participanyts will adapt far more efficiently in the absence of central (mis)guidance. Macro-planning never works in the long run.
c graviss | Aug 30, 2012 | Reply
c graviss... you are so correct. there are those who SAY they believe in a “free market”, a “free society”, a “free world”... and then there are those who live that way and work to convince others to DO the same. If the election of either President Obama or candidate Romney is inevitable (I don’t believe its the case, but in theory I’m saying, and I acknowledge what a long shot it is to think otherwise) I will live a free man because I choose to do so, in spite of either of them winning...and I will celebrate the loss one of them will surely suffer, for as one suffers so will the other. The more one sided the loss is the better. Four more years of President Obama, or the potential eight years of Romney... four or eight? Glad there are other choices.
Michael Stone | Aug 30, 2012 | Reply
Yes, Scott, after many years of being a Republican, I’m beginning to see that, if you look at what they DO in office, they are actually moving in the same direction as the Democrats, Just not as quickly!
Your article brings out the issues they have agreed upon, very well. Yes, some of the social issues, such as abortion, they disagree, BUT, as you point out, too many Americans are looking to the Gov’t to solve their problems in some way or another...we are being led to believe that the occupant of the White House is the major determiner of quality of life in the US. But,if you give the Feds all this power, it can and will be abused. Republicans & Dems, Please note...Obama did LITTLE to stop the bombing and fighting in the Middle East. Bush II talked about smaller gov’t yet expanded Federal power in numerous ways: NoChild Left Behind was a major power grab,
Sharron Smith | Aug 30, 2012 | Reply
the TSA, and other anti-terrorist legislation, supposedly for our security, has taken away more rights, in exchange for security.
Until Jan, I had never given Ron Paul much serious thought, but the way the networks, even FOX, ignored him, made me curious. So, I listened to his speeches, interviews, etc. & he explained beautifully what’s wrong with our foreign policy, etc. I am old enough to remember how much freedom we used to have. Yes, there are a few terrorists, BUT now I fear our over-regulated police state much more.
Freedom to learn to support oneself, make mistakes, smoke pot, or be a teetotaller...is much better than this Nanny state.
Sharron Smith | Aug 30, 2012 | Reply
To clarify: my first sentence was aimed at Scott, the rest to Anthony Gregory.
Sharron Smith | Aug 30, 2012 | Reply
Why accept that either Romney or Obama will be elected? Why not fight to ensure that neither of them can rule over us?
Aya Katz | Aug 30, 2012 | Reply
There was a survey going around social media recently. It invited participants to look at 20 to 25 position statements and say whether they agree, or disagree with the position. Then their positions were compared to positions of current candidates for national office. Many people were surprised, even shocked, to learn they they agreed, often with a rather high percentage, with candidates from the “other” party. And, several of the candidates were in agreement on many issues with someone from the “other” party. So, it doesn’t surprise me to see Scott write that conservatives have little in common with liberals. If you actually take the time to examine the issues, and compare your views with members of the “other” party – rather than calling them names and making accusations... I mean, really have a constructive conversation – you would discover that you have much in common. (The most important part of an effective conversation is listening!)
Otherwise, Anthony, I enjoyed reading your thoughts. You make some very good points. Obviously well-thought out.
Bill A | Aug 30, 2012 | Reply
It doesn’t matter whether Romney or Obama wins because the real power in America is the power behind the scenes. This power is the globalist Elites who have bought,paid for and own most of the important politicians,judges and bureaucrats who administer America’s Government. They also own most of the Main Stream Media in America. If you stand back and study history most of the Ten Planks to the Communist Manifesto have been implemented in America. Income Taxation,Central Banking,Public Education,Etc. The average American has been issued a Social Security Number that follows them their entire life. Everything the citizen does of importance is recorded,cataloged and filed for future reference by the State. Free men don’t have numbers. These 10 planks may have been modified into a Fascist model yet they are still in place. Nothing will change in America until,one by one,these 10 Planks are dismantled and kicked into the dustbin of history. This is why Ron Paul was a threat to the Elitists. He wanted to abolish the Central Bank,Fiat Currency,the Income Tax and abolish the Federal Dept.of Education. And this was only for starters. Unfortunately, Ron Paul is no longer on the American political stage. A pity.
libertarian jerry | Aug 30, 2012 | Reply
Our rulers determine policy and agendas. The political sideshow, staring Congress and the Admin, plus candidates, is operated to distract amd emtertain the masses.
richard | Aug 31, 2012 | Reply
I sure wish to Hell that people would stop calling the fascists in the Oral Orifice the President, and instead call them what they are.
The Criminal-in-Chief.
Thank You, and Good Night.
Big M | Aug 31, 2012 | Reply
The divide and rule strategy is so obvious to anybody that can step back and look at the process rationally, but too many have a strong emotional attachment to the rituals that sooth their cognitive dissonance. Well done, Anthony.
Mark Davis | Aug 31, 2012 | Reply
The idea of a free society terrifies me, yet a restricted society as we have and others across the blue marble. George Sorous, anti-semite and economy destroyer is a huge open society lover. Open society, free society little difference from my perspective. As I see it free or open societies, absent of any guiding principle leads to negative anarchism, “Road warrior”.
To trust another human being to do the right thing?? That impinges on either ignorance or stupidity. A free market also seems to reflect these same terrifying principles however a closed society is just as scary. For me the question is, “What is the truthful, honest, genuine answer?” Can you answer that?
tom | Sep 1, 2012 | Reply
The very concept of government represents history’s most tragic example of mass psychosis, of widespread belief in the imaginary.
Vanmind | Sep 1, 2012 | Reply
Tom writes “To trust another human being to do the right thing?? That impinges on either ignorance or stupidity” And yet you are willing to give another human being – or group of them – a monopoly on the “authorized” use of violence. Yeah, what could go wrong?
Rocky Eades | Sep 1, 2012 | Reply
You don’t need to “own” someone to get them to do your bidding; they merely have to accept the ideology of the state.
Lee Waaks | Sep 1, 2012 | Reply
@Scott H.
To make this as simple as possible. But for a few minor differences of detail:
Obama and Romney both favor a perpetual war on terror
Both favor continued occupation of Afghanistan.
Both favor military aid to Israel.
Both favor indefinite detention of terror suspects, without due process.
Both favor warrantless wiretapping.
Both favor the TSA, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the FDA and the war on drugs.
Both subscribe to Keynesian economics, which requires a central bank and income taxation to service an ever increasing national debt.
Both favor Social Security and Medicare
Both support subsidies for rich (i.e., the bank bailouts) and poor (welfare entitlements).
Where do Obama and Romney differ?
Gay Marriage.
Trade with Cuba.
Space exploration.
No doubt I have missed a few. But the point is, so what? What happens if there is no space exploration? What happens if gay marriage isn’t approved? Does anybody die? Does anybody wind up in prison?
Mr. Gregory is arguing that all public attention is directed toward these relatively minor issues of the day. Lots of smoke and mirrors, but no fire; no demonstrated policy differences of a fundamental nature.
Neither candidate and neither “major” party seems concerned with the steady erosion of freedom in America; the fact that a twice decorated former military man can be involuntarily committed to a mental hospital because he posted some messages critical of the government on Facebook. The statements the government claimed were threatening were actually quotations from song lyrics.
Neither “major” candidate seems willing to admit that America is headed for bankruptcy, if it is not already there. Neither candidate is willing to admit that we ARE undergoing a major inflationary cycle because of the massive amounts of bailout money that was pumped into the economy 3-4 years ago. Neither candidate is willing to admit that our assumed role as world policeman has made us more enemies than friends.
The only candidate who was willing to talk about these things got shut down this past week in the most disgraceful and despicable showing of “rudeness and stupidity” (to quote former RNC chairman Michael Steele) in modern politics.
As for a plan to improve things: That mindset, that all social problems need some public official to fix them, is one of the reasons we are in the fix we are in now! Government does not, and can not, have all the answers to every problem of human existence. Sometimes the best thing that government could possibly do is to just get out of the way! But the idea that government would let markets and natural human compassion solve problems is now so alien as to seem ridiculous. But it isn’t ridiculous. It is how most governments have operated throughout recorded history.
Richard Shepard | Sep 1, 2012 | Reply
You, not unlike many alleged Americans, have absolutely no idea what this country is supposed to represent. The founding fathers abhored the very concept of democracy since it graduated into autocracy and anarchy.
We are, or at the least were supposed to be a Constitutionally limited and restricted Republic. Of course that has gone down the road of defeat because so many have been totally dumbed-down to believe that we are a democracy; as you very well know since you freely cally us a democracy: Welcome comrade!
Patriot 2012 | Sep 1, 2012 | Reply
If you do not believe what I have written above, then please read Charlotte Iserbyt’s outstanding book, The Deliberate Dumbing-Down of America. You can obtain it for free by doing a search of her name that will provide her website and the free book. Read it and become enlightened!
Patriot 2012 | Sep 1, 2012 | Reply
Tom, do you behave yourself just because government tells you to, and it threatens to punish or kill you if you don’t?
Do you believe your neighbors do?
So exactly what frightens you so about a “free society”?
Without government, are you going to go to your neighbor and rob and kill him? Do you believe he will you?
Why or why not?
Are you free right now to live in peace with your neighbors, and they with you? Does it require government for you to do so?
Why is a “free society” — of people like you and your peaceful neighbor — so frightening?
Do you believe there would be wholesale war or slaughter of “innocents” without governments to initiate it and promulgate it? Only governments/states can wage war; individual localized societies cannot, nor do they want to. But they can defend themselves against other individual robbers and would-be murderers.
It doesn’t take a government to make a civil society. It takes a government to destroy it.
GrayCat | Sep 2, 2012 | Reply