aTypical Joe: a gay New Yorker living in the rural South

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Democracy is not mob rule

As far as I’m concerned, we really don’t get it. Democracy is simply not synonymous with majority rule. It is peaceful self-rule.

At its best, it’s the institutional means to find the most appropriate solutions to social problems, to mediate and reconcile differences, to settle disputes in ways that don’t inspire rancorous violence. It is inclusive; it is fair and equitable; it is just and open.

But that we have come to see democracy as nothing more than majority rule is a very bad thing. Majority rule is mob rule by a better name.

The founding fathers, too, have come to be cartoon characters we use to back-up whatever point we’re looking to make. That’s too bad. My point would be that the worry then was precisely that we would not be able to do it, we would not be able to achieve successful self-rule, so the founding fathers put in place all kinds of admittedly clumsy—some even embarrassing—safeguards to prevent mob rule.

As with the 2000 election, the problem is we don’t do well with breaking a tie. Right now we have a tie. An embarrassment of riches! Two gorgeous Democratic candidates! We should remember that. And going forward maybe we should try to address what to do in a tie.

So I have no problem with the whole super-delegate thing. And I expect the pompous rhetorical declarations of democratic discontent (I love you Chris but that was over the top—and will not happen!) will be forgotten when the deal is brokered, though my high regard for both Hillary & Barack suggests they may settle this on their own.