The strength of US democracy even in confused and contested elections: the “invisible hand” of empiricism

25 November 20203 years ago babelfish

We are facing a strong anomaly in the history of American democracy, but not the "crisis" that some would like. Only in totalitarian regimes are elections always perfect and their outcome is indisputable. Voting by mail and unreliable software are part of its somewhat "naive" character, which has many short-term flaws but long-term strengths. At the base, an empirical mentality that is capable of learning from its mistakes, but which needs to make mistakes to learn, pushing to test one's ideas as the only means to prove their validity. Also for this reason, the perspectives of the single globalist thought, strong throughout the West, in America are contrasted by a competitive alternative vision, while they do not seem to find real viable political alternatives in continental Europe.

To say that the 2020 US presidential elections will be remembered as anomalous elections is like discovering hot water, were it not for the fact that it is not yet known who will be the winner and the final decision could still be made by the judges. Therefore, inevitably, they will leave a legacy of controversy and, in the most detached observers, a series of doubts regarding their actual correctness, even if only from a political-moral point of view. This, whether it is considered possible that a candidate (Biden) has even unknowingly benefited from irregularities in the voting, or if one considers instead the hypothesis that a candidate (Trump) has mounted even lightheartedly an accusation of fraud .

All in all, however, we are faced with a strong anomaly in the history of American democracy, but not with its "crisis" (perhaps "definitive"), as some hastily say a little too hastily. The history of the United States has seen, albeit rarely, similar episodes of electoral procedures during which not everything went smoothly: only twenty years ago the 2000 elections were decided by the Supreme Court, which essentially assigned the presidency to George W. Bush; in 1876 it was even necessary to resort to a special electoral commission made up of deputies, senators and judges, which ended up attributing the disputed delegates and therefore the victory to Rutheford B. Hayes; anomalous elections were also those of 1824 which led John Q. Adams to the presidency and, almost at the dawn of the history of the Union, those of 1800 which gave the victory to a "sacred monster" of American history, Thomas Jefferson. Only in totalitarian regimes are elections always perfect and their outcome is indisputable, in the sense that it is forbidden to discuss it, while disputes and accusations of irregularities (whether founded or not) are instead typical of democracies, as has happened in the past. also in Italy when, as is well known, Umberto II and the monarchists contested for a long time the outcome of the referendum of June 2, 1946. The fact, therefore, that the electoral protests in America are particularly "blatant" and end up before the judges a sign of the strength of cross-Atlantic democracy, because transparency is always such, even with regard to things that are not very “telegenic” such as accusations of electoral irregularities, for a liberal democracy.

Going a little further, we could almost say, paradoxically as it may seem, that the strength of American democracy, the most liberal democracy in the West, lies in its "naive" character, in the way it acts almost like "amateurs in disarray" which is typical of many of those who perform public functions in the United States. Think of the postal voting system, adopted for the first time in such a widespread way, which makes it very difficult to identify the voter, or the vote-counting software, which was partially unreliable. This way of being of American democracy presents many defects in the short term but in the long term they turn into merits, those merits that have allowed it and allow it to better face the possible difficulties and dangers of deviation, yesterday in ideological totalitarianism, today in the politically correct technocracy. From this point of view the United States is like an elephant (obviously no reference to the symbol of the Republican Party), whose movements are awkward and clumsy, but which almost unstoppable reaches its goal and leaves its mark at every step.

At the base of these defects that in the long run turn into merits is an empirical mentality that is capable of learning from its mistakes, but that needs to make mistakes to learn: for example, from the mistakes of legalized slavery and segregation towards people of color have reached the current multi-ethnic society (the only multi-ethnic society based, despite the more or less violent protests of marginal groups, on common values that exists in the world). Think also of the fact that the Pearl Harbor disaster was necessary to make the Americans decide to fight the Axis dictatorships, or to come to lighter things (on which Hollywood filmography has indulged) think of the idea " folle ”to insert the ban on the consumption of alcoholic substances in the Constitution (XVIII amendment, 1919), only to be repealed after a little over a decade (XXI amendment, 1933). It almost seems that Americans in a sense urge extreme positions to come out in the open and then correct them if they prove to be wrong: a harmful (sometimes tragic) cultural strategy in the short term, but extremely profitable in terms of human and social values. (as well as in terms of economic progress) in the long term; a strategy that is the most enduring legacy of the culture of Anglo-Saxon radical Protestantism and the pilgrim fathers of the Mayflower , and which (beyond religious convictions and even beyond political differences) is shared by almost all those who clash today (peacefully) in the streets and in the courts to support Trump's or Biden's arguments.

One of the most important values, both individual and social, which represent the result of this mentality, is that of the clarity of the various positions on the pitch. Let's be clear, not that human beings living across the Atlantic are naturally more frank than those of the old continent, for example, but precisely this empirical mentality that pushes us to test our ideas as the only means to prove their validity, so far from compromise and from the agreements in view of social peace and / or the "common good" so typical of continental European nations, which often lead their citizens to conceal their opinions and / or to accept even unjustified authoritarian impositions, precisely this mentality serves almost such as the famous "invisible hand" to clearly show any errors and excesses that subsequent experience can correct.

In this electoral campaign there have been many examples, first of all by both candidates, of this way of carrying out their positions in an almost "brutal" way with the effect (unwanted, but here is the "invisible hand "Of empiricism) to allow others to fully evaluate them and possibly to criticize and correct them. But in my opinion one was particularly significant: it is the refusal by many televisions to broadcast the statements of the outgoing President Trump relating to possible electoral irregularities against him, complete with television "blackout" to the detriment of what is often defines "the most powerful man in the world", treated as an inappropriate and insignificant troublemaker. We have always been accustomed to criticizing the rulers of the past and present who have silenced the spokespersons of free information: for the first time, we have seen the reverse reality, an exponent of public power (and at its highest levels) silenced by the spokespersons of free information. To take a typical journalistic example (since we're on the subject), we used to see the dog biting the man and we have seen the man biting the dog. Nothing similar would have happened in Europe, where journalists in hypotheses equally hostile to the politician who makes statements not in line with their ideas would have acted in a more "savvy" way, allowing him to speak and then "demolish" him and ridicule him in their comments. In our case, the objection is left to the more or less organized "square" and, perhaps, more or less favored by articles and / or television services that are not exactly impartial: even in this the Americans are still "amateurs in jeopardy". If, however, what has been said about the defects and merits of the American mentality is true, it is very likely that these excesses of the world of information can also be reduced and the errors they are leading to be corrected.

More generally, even if the future cannot be predicted and an empirical and liberal concept of history rejects on principle any predetermined vision of human and social development, these anomalous 2020 American elections, whatever their final outcome, have taught us that in the long term it is unlikely that the single thought will prevail in the United States and there will always be political opponents fighting each other (hopefully more by votes than by legal actions) within a pluralistic society. In the 1930s, the authoritarian tendencies following the Great Depression were also very strong in America and President Franklin D. Roosevelt himself was, against tradition, elected four times (something then expressly forbidden by the 22nd Amendment of 1951 ) and adopted some "heterodox" measures with respect to traditional American liberalism in economic and social matters (some not too dissimilar from those of Italian fascism), but in the long run liberal democracy remained stable, contrary to what happened here and in all of continental Europe.

The perspectives of the single globalist, feel-good and environmentalist thought at all costs, which does not admit dissent, now aggravated by its repercussions in health matters that almost always marry with the dogmas of the politically correct, are strong throughout the West, but represent in America only a vision, legitimate but partial of reality, which does not endanger but rather strengthens the democracy of the alternation between positions in the broad sense of progress (now tending to philo-globalism) or conservative (tending to pro-sovereignism), and moreover the verification of the choices of the new president will be made by citizens already in two years in the "mid-term" elections. The situation is different in the countries of continental Europe (Great Britain from this point of view is similar to the United States, despite the greater "aplomb" of the behavior of the holders of power), in which political choices, increasingly linked to the the only one mentioned, they do not seem to find viable political alternatives that can lead not I say to their eventual modification but not even to their simple questioning (for example, it will never be possible to open a politically wide and open debate in its conclusions, regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the euro and the possibility of reviewing the monetary union?), and in which the very democracy of alternation seems to have become a thing of the past, and this not only for us, thanks to the proportional electoral system, but even in countries with a more solid tradition in the matter such as France or Germany, governed by a catch-all party in the first case and by a coalition with no alternatives in the second. Thus, if we look at the anomalous US elections of 2020 with an eye to the news, we can rightly deplore the institutional chaos overseas, but if we raise our eyes to the underlying trends, those along which the history of human societies develops, from the point of view of the crisis of the values of the liberal-democratic state, we can with good reason ask ourselves if we are perhaps criticizing the straw in the eye of others without seeing the beam in ours.

The post The strength of US democracy even in confused and contested elections: the “invisible hand” of empiricism appeared first on Atlantico Quotidiano .

This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Atlantico Quotidiano at the URL http://www.atlanticoquotidiano.it/quotidiano/la-forza-della-democrazia-usa-anche-in-elezioni-confuse-e-contestate-la-mano-invisibile-dellempirismo/ on Wed, 25 Nov 2020 04:36:00 +0000.