Letters from Cathay, No. 22

Have you ever been curious as to the content of Chinese-language newspaper and magazine articles and to the sentiments and views they express, whether towards their own societies and cultures, or towards those of the West? This ongoing series aims to provide such insights by removing the language barrier, allowing Chinese writers to speak directly to an English-speaking readership. Find content here covering politics and foreign relations, economics, history, culture, and more from the Sinosphere—and follow the hashtag?#LettersFromCathay to be alerted to the latest pieces.

The Myth and Alienation of Democracy in the US

Translated by Matthew McKay and published by?WatchingAmerica ?on 10 June 2022.

The concept of the “end of history ” once demonstrated the United States’ conceit and obsession with American-style democracy, as if the only way for the world to achieve democracy was by following the United States’ example. But the COVID-19 pandemic and the chaos of the 2020 U.S. presidential election have increasingly brought the United States’ deviation from the original tenets of democracy to the world’s attention, revealing the institutional flaws of American-style democracy, the speculative nature of its politics and the politicisation and hypocrisy of its rule of law. Ever keen to play the beacon or teacher of democracy, the United States is facing a deficit of trust, leading many who were intoxicated with the exquisite design of the democratic system to experience a rude awakening.

From a historical point of view, democracy in the United States has given rise to alienation since its founding. As Alexander Hamilton and James Madison made clear in the Federalist Papers , the country’s essence lies in its emphasis on “the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share ” in the government. The design of a system in which the views of the people are translated into public policy through elected representatives also fundamentally limits the people’s ability to participate directly in governmental decision-making. The extent to which the right to broad participation is present reflects the quality and success of a democracy. If people are only roused when it is time to vote and enter a state of dormancy again as soon as their votes have been cast; if they only pay attention to extravagant slogans during election campaigns but have no say afterward; if they are only paid attention to when being canvassed but are left out in the cold after the election; then such a democracy is not a true democracy.

From a pragmatic point of view, American-style democracy emerged in the United States as a tool of the rulers. It was only from the beginning of the 19th century onward that politicians began to clothe a nation that was ideologically strongly individualistic in the heretofore unaccustomed robes of democracy. At the time, old social hierarchies were being upended by rapid industrialisation, mass immigration, westward expansion, and civil war. Egalitarian sentiments were on the rise, and the institutions that were once designed to exclude the people from government were later called on to promote the existence of a government “of the people, by the people and for the people.” Several subsequent constitutional amendments also appeared to give the United States’ claim to being a democracy a grounding in reality.

But more and more people are noticing that the foundations of this system are crumbling and that the halo of American-style democracy is being shattered by reality, the alienation it engenders becoming increasingly visible.

First, there are the systemic flaws in American-style democracy. The “separation of the three powers” at the core of American politics was originally created as a system of checks and balances against each other and to prevent the dominance of a single entity. However, the constant partisan conflict between the U.S. legislature and the executive has led to a permanent stalemate, with some scholars considering the president, the House of Representatives and the Senate — the three veto-wielding players [with legislation] — to be important factors in the rise of social inequality. This is the reason why any attempt to replicate the American model of democracy, whether in South America or in Eastern European countries, has, for the most part, been a disaster: The various institutions of the state are so busy vying for power and profit that they have long since relegated to the back of their minds the original democratic intent of advancing national governance. In many policy areas in the United States, the work of legislation has been replaced by so-called independent agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency, many of which were established by Congress and are largely free from legislative oversight. The two-party system, an important component of American democracy, was also fully exposed as confrontational and polarising during Donald Trump’s presidency, in much the same way it has been since Joe Biden took office.

Second, the politically speculative nature of American-style democracy. Elections in the United States are a one-man show in which interest groups use democracy as a cover for achieving their political objectives. Since the gradual legalisation of corporate lobbying in the 20th century, the influence of businesspeople on government in American society today has become enormous. It has been reported that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has prepared a model schedule for new members of Congress, instructing them to spend roughly four hours a day calling donors for financial support, and that candidates are also increasingly indulging in this political money game. The presidential and congressional elections of 2020 shattered the record previously set in 2016, with total spending increasing to nearly $14 billion. A 2015 Gallup poll found that more than 80% of Americans believed Congress to be corrupt, with some campaigners who are private citizens having referred to raising money for elections as a form of torture.

But the real victims of this torture are the American people, who have no say in this seemingly democratic system. While financial backers give generously in attempts to buy their way into having a say in political decisions, candidates degenerate into political lobbyists in order to raise large sums of money, increasing the time they spend with donors, at the expense of time spent with the voters. So, under normal circumstances, when it comes to voting on political bills of interest to the financial backers, legislators do not need to go on the warpath, because they are already in bed with each other.

荀子曰：「法者，治之端也。」

Third is the tendency of American-style democracy to politicise the rule of law. As the third-century B.C. philosopher Xunzi observed, “Law is the beginning of governance.”* The rule of law is an indispensable element of democratic politics, but the tense relationship between public opinion and the rule of law is readily apparent in the debate over the powers of the nine unelected U.S. Supreme Court justices. In the period following World War II, the long-standing situation in which a majority of seats were held by left-leaning justices began to change, and the rule of law gradually became an elegant fig leaf for the corruption of power, influenced by the profit motive and the “homo economicus ” paradigm, while democracy was torn apart by the interweaving chains of interest. Many of the court’s rulings have also contributed to the expansion of undemocratic elements in the social system. In the 2010 landmark case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, for example, the Supreme Court overturned legislative restrictions on campaign spending by corporations and other private groups that had been in place in previous cases. This ruling indirectly and massively amplified the voices of groups with pecuniary interests, making it easier for economic elites to override the demands of the people.

Finally, there is the hypocritical nature of American-style democracy. Politicians should take the promotion of the people’s well-being as their governing philosophy and original intention, rather than using and manipulating public opinion for political purposes, as a government lacking in self-restraint and a sense of responsibility can easily destroy democracy: The levers of power in the United States are in the hands of the few. Plato’s contemptuous description of the “democratic man ” is essentially consistent with the image of former U.S. President Trump. Trump, who never held public office before entering the White House, despises experts and lacks the most basic grasp of public policy. He is fond of false and boastful words and opinions and sees wantonness as good breeding, permissiveness as freedom, lavishness as splendor and shamelessness as the essence of manliness. And his successor, Biden, is continuing this takeoff on the runway of anti-democracy from within his administration.

In the United States, public policy does not reflect the preferences of most Americans. Scholars have tracked the formulation process of 1,779 policy issues in Congress and the executive branch over a 20-year period and the results are astonishing: Economic elites and interest groups are so influential that they succeed in getting policies they like passed approximately 50% of the time and blocking legislation they oppose almost all of the time. Meanwhile, civil society has little influence on public policy, and the will of ordinary citizens is closer to a drop in the ocean, making barely a ripple. As a result, the average American voter has probably been feeling more alienated from traditional political institutions in recent years than ever before.

The practice of democracy in the United States has demonstrated the gullibility and manipulability of American public opinion, against which lies, hatred and bigotry can be used to deflect attention, thus escaping accountability for misguided policy-making. The hypocrisy of the United States’ democratic system is that, while it is characterised superficially by bipartisan power struggles and politics manipulated by money, a closer look reveals that the system is not working for the common people. There was a time when U.S. legislators had a strong sense of place: when a Democrat might rise to prominence from a local labour union or school, when a Republican might be a local business owner or community leader, and when the lives of members of both parties were intertwined with the lives of their constituents. But now, by the time they reach office, many politicians have been labelled as cultural, educational and financial elites, setting them apart from ordinary Americans. While some among them have strong relationships with their districts, such vote-based ties are fragile, even for legislators who were born and raised in the districts they represent. They receive expensive educations, live in metropolitan areas as teenagers and are more likely than previous generations to pursue lucrative opportunities in cities such as Washington, New York or San Francisco. And by almost every measure, irrespective of life experience, educational background or net worth, these politicians are thoroughly out of touch with the general population. When everything that politicians do is geared toward getting them their seats in office, American-style democracy is drifting further and further down a dark path.

Democracy is a value shared by all humanity, a crystallisation of human civilisation and a means of advancing national governance and enhancing the well-being of the people. American-style democracy uses the alienation of the democratic system like a tool, in turn generating disregard for public opinion and contempt and hostility toward the democratic systems of other countries; and this is the greatest obstacle to the healthy development of human democracy.

The author is a Contributing Researcher at Peking University’s Institute of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, and a lecturer at China University of Political Science and Law’s Institute for Human Rights.

?. ?.

*Translator’s Note:

From the eponymous work, Xunzi , scroll eight, chapter 12, titled “The Way of the Gentleman” (荀子第八卷君道篇第十二).

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author or authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the translator. All reasonable efforts are made to ensure accuracy with respect to tone, register, and lexical choice, but for the avoidance of doubt, only the original version shall be considered definitive.

Image: “Forbidden City during Spring Festival and China Zun”, by?維基小霸王,?CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons