Cynicism and democracy

Last week's hot topic was the dethronement of Lieberman in the Connecticut primary. I use the word "dethronement" deliberately, since Senators are the closest thing to aristocracy this country has (not counting the rebirthed plutocrats).

I am the thousandth to point out how deeply undemocratic the commentariat turned in its fear. Lieberman:

I am disappointed not just because I lost, but because the old politics of partisan polarization won today. For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand.

Cheney:

...It strikes me that it's a perhaps unfortunate and significant development from the standpoint of the Democratic Party — that... they, in effect, purge a man like Joe Lieberman, is a concern...

Every Republican rafter rang out with that favorite word "purge," as well as "partisan," "vicious," "anger," and "hot-button issue." The epitome is found in Laurence Cohen for the Hartford Courant:

The primary vote for Lamont was somewhat akin to throwing a lemon pie in Joe Lieberman's face. Come November, the game is over and it will be time to come home...

So the voters were acting as purgers, or they were playing a game, or they were angrily partisan and polarized.

The goal of these words? To label as illegitimate a choice of the people. Partisanship -- anger -- oh, that's not very nice, the frightened rube is supposed to obediently say. We can't have that. That's not how our country is supposed to be.

In other words, we aren't to take elections seriously if the voters weren't thinking right.

This is where the modern pride at being jaded and cynical leads us astray. We know that democracy doesn't always work. The People get excited -- angry -- vengeful -- and act against their better judgment. We all know this. We know it too well.

We know it so well that "partisanship" can now apparently taint the very idea of democracy by association.

That is how freedom's enemies operate when they would be pilloried for a stray word against universal suffrage.

And it is suffrage's drowsy power that we glimpsed in the 8th's primary. We have slid into a regime where 98% of representatives are re-elected. They need do nothing to keep their power but avoid epithets and scandals, stay within the party line favored by a majority of the district, and use the warm, forgiving glow of incumbency to maintain a supermajority. What spur have they to do anything further? Lieberman, like all Senators, saw the voters not as his benefactors but as his servants. They disagreed.

What happens once is not bound to happen again. Even if the Democrats retake the House this fall, there may be no wave of sentiment against incumbents: the Regime is well guarded. Lamont only got the chance to reach out to voters thanks to his millions. Some form of public financing that eliminates discrimination-by-funds would be an excellent way to start our escape from the prison of steady habits. How many little people there might be out there who could stir our nation's soul, if only they had the money!

When we cynically patter "democracy is the worst form of government in the world, except for all the others," we are acknowledging that democracy is good, while denying it can overcome its faults. Uncovered, this is ridiculous. If we managed once to overcome our worst nature as humans and establish something like a democracy, why can we not do so once more to make a better democracy? Only our cynical indolence holds us back.