Another Goron heard from:
The Myth of Democracy
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly VersionBy David K. Shipler
Sunday, December 3, 2000; Page B07
Since the election I've been remembering a Soviet legal scholar who once told me of a trip he made to observe jury trials in the United States. He was struck by how ordinary laymen unschooled in the law could rise above their humble predilections to fill the awesome role of rendering judgment. This so impressed him that he became the author of a new law, now on the books in Russia, permitting jury trials in serious cases.
He had seen one of our national myths at work. Jurors don't always perform admirably, but the myth of a jury's ultimate fairness usually inspires its members to act accordingly. In other words, a myth is useful, and the politicians who are now tampering with ours had better be careful.
Think how different the aftermath of this election would have been if Katherine Harris, Florida's Republican secretary of state, had risen to her larger responsibilities as simple jurors generally do. The outcome would have been settled with less rancor and litigation had she played to the American myth of popular democracy rather than the American lust for partisan victory. Nobody could have faulted her for making sure there was time for a full and careful count.
The myths of our democracy are not delusions. They may be just part of the truth, or embellishments of an inner reality in our culture's creed. But coupled with our freedom to expose our flaws, the myths have power, because they celebrate the powerful ideas that government belongs to the people, that voting is a universal right, that all citizens are equal, that we are governed by the rule of law, that minority views are protected no matter how abhorrent to the majority. The myths have been highly effective in setting ideals and standards.
Consequently, we need our myths in the same way a reader of poetry needs to adopt a "willing suspension of disbelief," in Coleridge's phrase. Our system of self-government cannot run on skepticism and contest alone; we also need to believe in it. And belief is what ambitious partisans may put at risk as they try to win instead of trying to learn who won.
The American myths have been difficult to explain in other countries where I've lived, because their vitality depends on something intangible--not just on free speech or the separation of powers, but also on our sense of our system as a moral enterprise. In the Middle East, I used to tell people that the closest thing the United States had to a state religion was constitutional democracy. In the Soviet Union, I explained it as our ideology--a word that good Communists could understand. It is no accident that we sometimes use religious vocabulary to describe our sacred right to vote and our evangelical efforts to convert other peoples according to the gospel of political pluralism.
The post-election turbulence will surely be a Rorschach test in which foreigners will see what they want to see: a democracy messy enough to invite anarchy or a democracy stable enough to ensure order, a system susceptible to manipulation or one that guarantees fairness. But the more important outcome will be how we Americans see the process.
Countries whose myths are false tend to lose them, sooner or later. That's what happened to Russia, whose Communist myths were gradually eroded until hardly anybody believed them. They were then swept away easily by the spate of truth-telling that began under Mikhail Gorbachev. Left behind now is a terrible vacuum of faith that nurtures new forms of exploitation and authoritarianism.
Russian and American cultures are profoundly different, of course. Our strength lies in our disputes, which prevent one or another interest from dominating. We can be scrappy and contentious without trying to destroy those who disagree with us. But we also remain bound together by the overarching myths. If large numbers of us stop believing in them, watch out.
Our political leaders have a larger task than to win. They need to think of self-government not only as a gritty nonfiction work of grubby facts, but also as a piece of poetry.
The writer was a New York Times correspondent in Saigon, Moscow and Jerusalem. His latest book is "A Country of Strangers: Blacks and Whites in America."
© 2000 The Washington Post Company
If I understand his position correctly, the rules of law are only myths. There is a certain credence to that argument, since if everyone decided to disregard a law it would be unenforceable.
However, it does not follow that Katherine Harris, by not extending the deadline, is destroying the "myth." Nor does it follow that, by not certifying Gore as the winner, our system will collapse as the Soviets did. During the election, we saw ads suggesting that GW would allow the elderly to lose their Social Security, allow blacks to be dragged to death, and allow our children to suffocate from pollution. This writer, albeit much more subtly, is suggesting that our entire government will collapse because of the actions of people like Katherine Harris.
I'm going outside to start digging a bomb shelter.
Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
The Myth of Democracy
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly VersionBy David K. Shipler
Sunday, December 3, 2000; Page B07
Since the election I've been remembering a Soviet legal scholar who once told me of a trip he made to observe jury trials in the United States. He was struck by how ordinary laymen unschooled in the law could rise above their humble predilections to fill the awesome role of rendering judgment. This so impressed him that he became the author of a new law, now on the books in Russia, permitting jury trials in serious cases.
He had seen one of our national myths at work. Jurors don't always perform admirably, but the myth of a jury's ultimate fairness usually inspires its members to act accordingly. In other words, a myth is useful, and the politicians who are now tampering with ours had better be careful.
Think how different the aftermath of this election would have been if Katherine Harris, Florida's Republican secretary of state, had risen to her larger responsibilities as simple jurors generally do. The outcome would have been settled with less rancor and litigation had she played to the American myth of popular democracy rather than the American lust for partisan victory. Nobody could have faulted her for making sure there was time for a full and careful count.
The myths of our democracy are not delusions. They may be just part of the truth, or embellishments of an inner reality in our culture's creed. But coupled with our freedom to expose our flaws, the myths have power, because they celebrate the powerful ideas that government belongs to the people, that voting is a universal right, that all citizens are equal, that we are governed by the rule of law, that minority views are protected no matter how abhorrent to the majority. The myths have been highly effective in setting ideals and standards.
Consequently, we need our myths in the same way a reader of poetry needs to adopt a "willing suspension of disbelief," in Coleridge's phrase. Our system of self-government cannot run on skepticism and contest alone; we also need to believe in it. And belief is what ambitious partisans may put at risk as they try to win instead of trying to learn who won.
The American myths have been difficult to explain in other countries where I've lived, because their vitality depends on something intangible--not just on free speech or the separation of powers, but also on our sense of our system as a moral enterprise. In the Middle East, I used to tell people that the closest thing the United States had to a state religion was constitutional democracy. In the Soviet Union, I explained it as our ideology--a word that good Communists could understand. It is no accident that we sometimes use religious vocabulary to describe our sacred right to vote and our evangelical efforts to convert other peoples according to the gospel of political pluralism.
The post-election turbulence will surely be a Rorschach test in which foreigners will see what they want to see: a democracy messy enough to invite anarchy or a democracy stable enough to ensure order, a system susceptible to manipulation or one that guarantees fairness. But the more important outcome will be how we Americans see the process.
Countries whose myths are false tend to lose them, sooner or later. That's what happened to Russia, whose Communist myths were gradually eroded until hardly anybody believed them. They were then swept away easily by the spate of truth-telling that began under Mikhail Gorbachev. Left behind now is a terrible vacuum of faith that nurtures new forms of exploitation and authoritarianism.
Russian and American cultures are profoundly different, of course. Our strength lies in our disputes, which prevent one or another interest from dominating. We can be scrappy and contentious without trying to destroy those who disagree with us. But we also remain bound together by the overarching myths. If large numbers of us stop believing in them, watch out.
Our political leaders have a larger task than to win. They need to think of self-government not only as a gritty nonfiction work of grubby facts, but also as a piece of poetry.
The writer was a New York Times correspondent in Saigon, Moscow and Jerusalem. His latest book is "A Country of Strangers: Blacks and Whites in America."
© 2000 The Washington Post Company
If I understand his position correctly, the rules of law are only myths. There is a certain credence to that argument, since if everyone decided to disregard a law it would be unenforceable.
However, it does not follow that Katherine Harris, by not extending the deadline, is destroying the "myth." Nor does it follow that, by not certifying Gore as the winner, our system will collapse as the Soviets did. During the election, we saw ads suggesting that GW would allow the elderly to lose their Social Security, allow blacks to be dragged to death, and allow our children to suffocate from pollution. This writer, albeit much more subtly, is suggesting that our entire government will collapse because of the actions of people like Katherine Harris.
I'm going outside to start digging a bomb shelter.
Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
