"there’s a lot more to our democracy than these formal structures. If you were trying to understand the human body, you might start by looking at a skeleton. This is obviously the basic structure and we couldn’t survive without it. But studying the skeletal structure, by itself, isn’t nearly enough for you to understand what a living human being is. The truth is that in a working democracy there are all sorts of institutions that matter, formal as well as informal. The informal institutions are not specifically defined or in many cases are not even referenced in the Constitution. But they can and do play a pivotal role. A very familiar example would be the press...
GAZETTE: You argue that though democracy is fragile, political conflict at every level of society is vital to a vibrant democracy. That seems counterintuitive. What do you mean?
MOSS: I think political conflict — even intense political conflict — is absolutely essential in a democracy. Conflict is what generates and surfaces good ideas. There’s a competition in the marketplace of ideas just like in the economic marketplace. Competition in the business world is immensely productive because it plays a vital role in generating innovation, new ideas, and new products. The same is true in the policy sphere. Policymakers need to identify problems, and some people are better at doing this than others. Then there’s the need to diagnose the problems and come up with solutions, and of course implement those solutions effectively. All of these things require ideas and creativity. Conflict within the context of political competition is important for this, and conflict is also essential to help keep at bay some fundamental threats to the democracy, from undue special-interest influence to tyranny of the majority...
So today, for those who worry about the health of our democracy, what I think we need to be looking at most carefully is our “culture of democracy,” including our commitment to democratic values and processes. We need to ask ourselves as honestly as we can whether our commitment to the democracy stands above our particular partisan and policy preferences. To the extent that the answer is yes, then I think we can handle the intense conflict that we’re seeing in our political system these days. To the extent the answer tilts toward no or even leans in that direction, then I think we need to be extraordinarily vigilant because that’s when we can get into real trouble. The right question is not “How do we tamp down the conflict?” Instead, it’s “How do we make sure that what we share in common is rock solid and ultimately stronger than our differences?”"
Related: take it from a German, Americans too afraid of conflict
FB: "when Americans have shown a strong common faith in the democracy— when they have sought above all to safeguard the democracy and sustain it and strengthen it — this common faith has been the glue that held them together. This is what rendered political conflict constructive, rather than destructive. In America, we don’t all share a common ethnic heritage or common religious beliefs. We never have. So long as Americans have, deep down, put protection of the democracy first — above their partisan differences — individual citizens and political leaders have been careful not to push political conflict too far. They have been willing to give a little for the sake of the democracy."
No comments:
Post a Comment