By WAYNE E. HEIMER
After pondering present presidential pronouncements of the great “threat to our democracy,” I’ve come up with a hypothesis: What if the threat posed to our democracy exists in the mind of the majority because it has claimed exclusive ownership of our common democracy?
I think the great threat the president continually references is actually populism. I suggest populism is just “someone else’s democracy.” That said, while “our democracy” and populism polarize our conversations over President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, our national history may be seen as one of “pluralism,” rather than either dominant democracy. Let me try explaining.
I usually consider retreat to dictionary definitions characteristic of weak arguments, but I’ll start there because pluralism has been lost in the struggle between “our educated/elitist” and “their populist/redneck” democracies. Very simply put, pluralism represents the grudgingly tolerant coexistence of competing ideologies or interests in the same society. This should not be foreign to us.
As a nation we’ve always been pluralistic. American cultures were the early result of European colonialism. Colonies were established to make money. My generation is most familiar with the puritan colonies of the Plymouth zone. These colonists signed up to colonize the New World because they had been persecuted for their religion in the Old World. They saw themselves as a “New Israel,” and America as a second “Promised Land” to be governed by adherence to their perception of God’s law. Their influence was significant. Many of America’s social mores/traditions flowed from it (think “the puritan ethic). Also, think a ready-made profitable export — cod from the Grand Banks of Nova Scotia.
This was not the case with the colonies farther south located (about the distance from Prudhoe Bay to Delta Junction). When those colonies were established, labor-intensive exports like tobacco and cotton produced via the plantation system, were not yet established. It wasn’t until John Rolf married Pocahontas and learned the secrets of tobacco cultivation at the plantation level that the need for labor to serve agriculture introduced imported slavery to America.
When these diverse cultures found it necessary to assert nationhood, they held radically differing notions of economy. One was ready-resource based and lent itself to individual capitalism (the northern colonies). The other was dominantly labor-based” and, dependent on slave labor. Our historians have minimized these disparate factors in our national development. Until the “1619 Project,” the New England account dominated. The “1619 Project” offers a more southerly allegory of our nation’s fundamental founding. Neither stands sufficiently by itself.
Given the cultural differences between the colonial regions, forming a nation was a significant challenge. For a popular primer dramatizing the differences, I suggest viewing Steven Spielberg’s 1997 movie, “Amistad.”
The unifying approach to nationhood was “pluralism.” The more detailed dictionary definition of pluralistic society is “One formed by accommodation of diverse interests (ethnic, racial, economic, religious, etc.) to maintain individual special interests within a common civilization.“ Bringing the diverse social perspectives of the northern and southern colonies together to establish a nation required pluralism respecting differing regional perspectives above the whims of the majority. This is less pure democracy than pragmatic rational use of democracy to govern.
Is there such a thing as “irrational” democracy? Pure democracy is majority rule, and without respect for minority interests, that may result in tyranny. Majority means “one vote more than half.” So, what I suggest the president and his supporters fear when they speak of a threat to “our democracy,” is that “someone else’s democracy” may prevail over their progressive perspective. Progressive efforts to negate Trump and the Republican Party promise of recriminations against Democrats (should Republicans control the next Congress), are equally chilling. Both appear irrational.
When our democratically elected representatives value “democracy” over pluralism, they tend toward “one size fits all” policies. This, of course, neglects the interests of those who lacked one vote of being dominant.
For example, Sen. Lisa Murkowski created a one-vote majority in committee resulting in a “national” solution to school shootings. We’ll see how that works. Similarly, Murkowski champions making Roe v. Wade national policy in the closely divided Senate. If this happens, it would foreclose an Alaskan decision (decided by an Alaskan majority).
Then there’s energy. Whether it is practical to “end fossil fuel” in Alaska, Murkowsi and Sen. Dan Sullivan voted to confirm an anti-petroleum zealot to oversee petroleum development on federal land. This result of majority rule in in the Senate may radically affect the minority of Americans who live in Alaska.
Whether you approve of these actions or not, these examples show how the tyranny of the majority may affect those whose perspectives are not respected.
Wayne E. Heimer is a profligate user of words who worries that words may not retain meaning as “our democracy” redefines language.
