Constitutionally Undemocratic
To many, the U.S. constitution is a document to be revered and held as the end all be all of American idealism; one that need not be touched. Some claim that it is in fact a living document because of its ability to be appended and ratified, yet hold dear the concept of its excellent delineation of a proper and successful democratic government and its powers. But in a world of reality, as Robert Dahl states, we should all be much more critical of not only our constitution, but how it has shaped this country for better or for worse in the democratic ideal.
When it comes to people, governing them, communicating with them, or interacting with them, I've never been a fan of absolutes. People and societies change, discoveries are made, events occur and idealism slowly mutates intertwined within it all. Certainly, the U.S. Constitution is the somewhat central and idealistic core of our country, however that does not mean it is our job to bend to it's will at all times. Even if 29 gentlemen, some 200 years ago, had the best of intentions for our country when creating our constitution, it does not mean they should be given all the credit for our success, nor does it mean we shouldn't question them, their motives, their words, their intentions, or the repercussions of a document they created. We must consider that it is possible this document isn't the best solution it could be.
All too often, many lose site of the reason why our government works. When it comes down to it, our constitution -- and thereby our government -- works because many people throughout the last couple centuries put a lot of effort into making it work. Certainly it is a solid base, but like American ideology then, and even now, it's is highly contradictory in many ways.
We Americans value and uphold the ideal of success and prosperity of the individual. We rain words of grandeur from our rooftops about our individual rights, individual success stories, biographies and the "American dream," abound. We hold individuals responsible for successes and failures, not groups; much of this was rooted in our way of life even before the country was founded.
Our country sprung from idealistic rouges and those looking for a new life, with this came our ravenous individualism. We wanted ourselves to benefit from the abundant natural resources of the country, not others. We cared little, until recently, about the rest of the world. We wanted solutions to problems to be quick and practical, not complex and spread over a long timeline: we're impatient. Religion imbedded in us the ideal of payoff through hard work. Capitalism gave us a guise to orientate ourselves around our own selfishness. We wanted to be self-reliant, and we've forced these ideals into the minds of our citizens throughout the history of our country. We are an amalgam of those who scream for independence, yet still, we care greatly for the societal good.
When society is prosperous, the country is well off, therefore, so are we. Our standard of living is judged only upon an average over the whole country. So it is to this extent that we care for society. A prosperous economy, low homelessness, low unemployment and low sickness all lead to us having better lives. People affect people, but this is at converse to our mainstays of individualism. In one sense, our constitution reflects these controversial ideals, where the bill of rights states the given rights of our citizens, and congress reflects our value in local government. In another sense, the development of our country reflects the opposite ideal with an increase and respect of national government with our emergence as an international power after WWI and WWII, defined through a new reliance upon national government to solve national problems after the Great Depression and the Civil Rights Movement and our will to put much more power in the hands of our chief executive, the President.
Robert Dahl interjects a number of interesting -- but radical -- ideas into the typical analysis of our constitution, if for no other reason then to play devils advocate, almost as an exercise in opposition prep to get us thinking. Where many might feel that Dahl completely missed the point of the support of the minority in terms of states and their democratic misrepresentation, I read it as a solid argument that fully accounted for the inadequacies of a purported democratic writ, or maybe even the democratic ideal as a whole when implemented in a country as large as the U.S. Dahl pushes our ideals most upon this un-representational process that has been a mainstay and hallmark of American political fallacy.
All people are supposed to be equal under the law, meaning no citizens should have more or less rights then any other. Under greater scrutiny, our government not only condones, but celebrates, this inequality. States have their own rights to determine rules and regulations which citizens must abide by, no matter what rights other citizens in other states have. Smaller states essentially have more power then they should in terms of population based representation. While our congress, between the first and second chambers, certainly prevents the minority to be governed and overruled by the majority, one must take into account to what extent we Americans truly live up to our confident statements about the spread of "democracy," across the world.
If we hold democratic principles so dear, why do we, have we, and will we continue to violate some it's most basic requirements. Is it because Americans like to practice in reality not idealism, is it because we value what does work not "should?" I think so. We would be, and are, ignorant if we continue to tout American government as the most desirable democratic institution around. Our system works for us because we developed it, homebrewed it, nurtured it, put effort into it, forcing it to work while making slight adjustments and fixes along the way.
Like everything else in this world, our constitution has it's success as well as it's failures, there are reasons why it was written the way it was, why certain ideals were implemented and others weren't, but really, it was a document developed out of felt necessity for a cohesive country. I'm not sure it should have ever been thought of as an absolute to the democratic ideal, even if that's what current political rhetoric supports. It is from this perspective that I value all of Dahl's arguments, because they show what few others have ventured to speak on, yet another, but undisclosed, example of American contradictive hypocrisy. We say one thing when it is another, we value two ideals when they are in opposition, we praise an old, decrepit document, written before life, government and world changing events, and continue attempting to force feed it into the mouth of the present and the future.
I'm all for tradition, values and procedure, but not at the expense of functionality. Dahl most certainly has a point when he says we should, "begin to view our American Constitution as notion more or less then a set of basic institutions and practices designed to the best of our abilities for the purpose of attaining democratic values."