In 1992, I wrote a little essay in which I criticized the widespread belief that democracy is nothing more than a mere local custom of a few “western” countries, of little interest or applicability to most of the world. This orthodoxy, taught in countless university courses and glibly (and gleefully) chanted by all the world’s enthusiasts for tyranny and exploitation, was, I wrote, without historical or anthropological foundation. I pointed out that the elements on which modern representative democracies were built exist in every major cultural tradition, and are the common experience and heritage of humankind. I sketched out a series of examples that supported my thesis. But the article was nothing more than an anecdotal “think piece”.
My friend Steven Muhlberger, an experienced historian, suggested that it be turned into a systematically researched academic paper. Together, we undertook this task, pouring into it roughly ten times the effort that a short paper would normally require. My knowledge of historiographical methodology and discipline was limited. Steve trained me on the spot. The cross-cultural theme required us to familiarize ourselves with a huge range of sources. We split the workload, bounced text back and forth until we couldn’t tell who wrote what, and fussed over every detail.
The paper appeared in a relatively minor academic publication, the University of Hawaii ’s Journal of World History. We expected to get a handful of responses, the usual letters or e‑mails from specialists with a bone to pick about a detail; and after that, the oblivion that the vast majority of papers, even in major journals, can expect.
Well, that’s not what happened. Over the years, the paper seems to have been passed around quite a bit, and influenced a lot of people. A few years later, it was reprinted in book form by the University of California, in an anthology with a wide readership. Since then, it has been repeatedly cited in a variety of books and articles, sometimes by leading historians. [Anyone interested in the movie rights?] Very gratifying. Much more gratifying has been the knowledge that it has provided some intellectual ammunition to students and democratic activists around the globe, many of whom are struggling against desperate odds to improve conditions for their compatriots. I am very proud of that little work, and I’m sure that Steve feels the same.
Some of the contexts in which we are quoted are surprising, and some are downright goofy, but none has taken me aback as much is this one, sent to me by a distant friend.
It seems that former United States House Majority Leader, Richard Gephart, twice a contender for the Presidential nomination, and a major player in the Democratic party for a generation, gave a speech in New York last year, which began thus:
The recent history of humankind contains good news about the advance of democracy in nations across the world. Americans have always believed that democracy is — as said by Phil Paine and Steve Muhlberger: “A moral imperative of universal application and validity to all human communities”. Abraham Lincoln put it this way: “Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as a heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere”.
Well, after picking myself off the floor and nursing an elbow that collided with the furniture, I poured out a shot of Canadian whiskey (a reflex in Canadians as instinctive as saluting the flag is to Americans). To find myself, as I sit in my little apartment in Toronto, contemplating how to spend the eleven dollars I have left after paying the rent, being quoted by Dick Gephart, is bizarre enough. To have it in the same breath with Abraham Lincoln is weirdness overload.
Now, I don’t have any particular opinion about Dick Gephart. I know that he has been a fixture in American politics for decades, and that he is generally considered a “pragmatist” [i.e., he occasionally changes his opinion or surprises the press with a position. In the less rigid Canadian parliament, this would not be particularly noteworthy]. I know that he opposed NAFTA. That’s about it.
Throughout his speech, Gephart seems to assume that the democratic movement in the world is the result of Americans spreading the gospel of an American idea. This is the polar opposite of what Steve and I were trying to convey in our paper. We explicitly stated that democracy is a way of doing things with historical roots in the entire human community. It is not an “American idea” ― or a British Idea, or a French Idea, or any other specific country’s idea. It is not “western” (whatever the hell that idiotic term is supposed to mean). It is human. That is what the words Mr. Gephart quoted are intended to convey. Some individual Americans have been helpful to the world democracy movement. Occasionally, U. S. government policies have been helpful to some struggles. But far more often, American policies have hampered democracy movements throughout the world, either crushing and betraying them, or subverting and corrupting them into instruments for purely aristocratic purposes. I’m sure that Mr. Gephart had no idea that the authors he was quoting are Canadians, not Americans. I doubt that he got the message of what he was reading.
His speech went on to encourage retired Americans to volunteer for programs that would “teach democracy” to people in other countries. Now, there is nothing objectionable about some of the examples he gave, such as a retired American businessman starting a “micro-loan” service in Morocco. Micro-loan services are great, and they do a lot of good, and while they are not directly relevant to political democracy, they fit in with the democratic ethos. But Gephart seemed to think that this was an American idea. It is not. The micro-loaning movement was pioneered in Bangladesh and Peru, by local people who were frustrated by the monotonous failure of the ideas promoted by American and European universities, aid agencies, and politicians. It was partly inspired by movements in 19th Century Scotland, Bohemia, and Canada, though mostly conceived and developed by people on the spot. American public officials, economists, businessmen and academics scorned it, until it proved magnificently successful.
As a democratic theorist, I look for inspiration to many American thinkers. I read Thomas Paine, Frederick Douglas, Jefferson, Lincoln, and many others with attention. America was once led by men of that stamp. But from an America in which a disgusting little pipsqueak traitor like George W. Bush can actually become President, there is very little anyone can learn. Until Americans can clean up their own act and put themselves back on track, their reforming energies are better used at home than in “spreading democracy” to distant soils. After all, who would buy hair restorer from a bald man? If you are looking for a tutor to help you get better marks, you don’t pick the large, muscular kid in the schoolyard, who is giving wedgies to nerds and beating up the little kids. Yes, it is true that the United States has made many important contributions to the history of democratic ideas. Anyone interested in democracy would be wise to study its history, to learn from both its successes and its failures. But, at the moment, Americans are not in a good position to act as tutors to the world in democratic theory. Their own democratic institutions are rapidly eroding, their last election was only dubiously legitimate, and they are presently ruled by a gang of thugs who are a menace to democracy and civilization. The country is in debt up to its ears, culturally stagnant, and has a long, shameful record of supporting kings, dictators, and other international criminals.
0 Comments.