Democracy as Panacea

I'm working on a visitor guide to the Oregon Dunes, so yesterday morning I was having breakfast in a Reedsport cafe. A number of Reedsport's senior citizens were enjoying breakfast at the same time and I couldn't help overhearing the conversation. It covered Iraq, and if Bush expects to hold the support of generally conservative old geezers, I think he may have trouble. They were not happy about Iraq.

Then the conversation turned to politics. "Did you hear that Obama announced that he's running for President?" "No, who's Obama." "He's this black guy. He's in Congress. I don't know if it's the Senate or the House, but he's there. Looks like he's figured out that the problem is graft and corruption. And he's only 35!"

Based the opinions of such people, we will run a primary process that determines two candidates, between whom the contest will be settled by who has the best media consultants and the most money to buy advertising. This is democracy. It's what we're trying to give the Iraqis. It's what the UN was trying to give a tribe of pygmies in the Congo, helping them vote for the next government, when the pygmies clearly did not understand either (a) what a government was or (b) what the Congo was.

Democracy is a concept that Americans are in love with. We think it's indispensable to an advanced society, although Singapore does rather well without one. I think it's more an inevitable condition, when enough people gain such a high opinion of themselves that they feel that they must be allowed to participate in decisions. In most advanced society, this works better than any alternatives. In places like Iraq and Congo, it's a dangerous fairytale.