One Republic
By BEN SZMANDA
Know-it-alls love to point out that in fact, no, the US is not a democracy, but a republic. They’re right; annoying, but right. Just as true, and even less recognized, is that the government left us by the authors of the Constitution disappeared long ago. This is mourned in some circles, but I honestly can’t figure out why. Which changes do you oppose? The abolition of slavery? Universal suffrage? The ability to directly elect senators? We canonize the founding fathers, and we do a disservice to our history when we pretend that they left us a perfect document. Seen in one way, the history of this country has been a constant fight to make our republic more democratic. But this perspective is too rosy. For one thing, those democratic advancements have been countered very effectively by reactionaries, and left us with a form of government that is less democratic, and certainly less republican too. So what do we call this type of government now? It’s an uncomfortable question, because it requires acknowledging that some of what we believe about ourselves is just plain false. Sheldon Wolin thinks he has the answer, and he makes his argument in his book Democracy Inc: Managed Democracy, and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism.
Obviously, calling American an “inverted totalitarian” society is deliberately provocative. And Wolin slaps at least a chapter’s worth of disclaimers on the name. The US is certainly not Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. He points out a lot of ways in which they are obviously different, as if that was necessary. But Weldon says there is a disturbing level of control over our lives, and that our society, atomized and thoroughly penetrated by corporate influence, is not only alarmingly distant from political power, but losing more and more our sense of individuality and our sense of community. It’s a self-perpetuating system, and not static one either: Wolin argues that things are getting much worse.
Wolin makes a strong case for the problem. And I certainly agree with his prescription (increased participation on the local level) but the diagnosis seems a little superfluous. After reading the book, I’m not entirely clear on what he means by “Inverted Totalitarianism” or why it would be different from the less provocative — and more obvious — title Managed Democracy. Wolin makes an excellent case for this one, describing the formation of the modern form of the two major parties, the co-option of both by business interests, the shaping of debate through a handful of large media outlets — all of which contribute to a disenfranchised populace. He also avoids the trap most liberals fall into: Thinking the trouble started over the past 8 (long) years. Instead, Wolin takes a wide view, tracing the history of elitist politics from Alexander Hamilton and James Madison to the modern disciples of Leo Straus and Samuel Huntington, which makes for an interesting read. I’m not sure I could say I learned much from Democracy Inc., but I’d never argue against a well written populist manifesto. We could always use a few more.