Our Democracy versus The Democracy
I’ve noticed an interesting if subtle choice of words in Walz’s commentary. He frequently invokes the phrase “the democracy.”
This is noticeable for two reasons.
First, since the rise of Trump, liberals and progressives of all stripes have resorted to the phrase “our democracy.” I’ve never liked it. It’s cringey and sanctimonious. It has the air of a fetish, as if democracy were a possession, like a precious ring or family heirloom. Democracy is not a possession; it’s a prospect and a process, a condition to be fought for, perpetually.
Second, during the early half of the nineteenth century, democracy was frequently called “the democracy.” As if it were a threatening animal, which it was. It was initially the term of choice among the Federalists, who were democracy’s great critics. But then it got taken up by democracy’s advocates, with pride, much as “queer” was a century and a half later.
I have no idea if Tim Walz knows this history or not, though he was a history teacher in high school, so he might. Whether he does or doesn’t, it’s a welcome shift in the discourse. One that I hope others embrace.
5 Comments
-
I entirely agree, Corey; you are making an important distinction here. Thank you.
-
Hi Corey,
I appreciate your impressive knowledge of political history and would like your opinion on the rhetoric of democracy compared with it’s practice.
It’s often pointed out that our political system resembles moreso an oligarchy than a democracy because of the control economic interests have over the government. This was documented by Princeton’s study and has been the theme of many political critics for a long time. (Study: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746)
is this common phrase “democracy” just rhetoric to obscure the system of oligarchy currently in place, and does it actually undermine democracy because it fails to acknowledge the actual lack of democracy in politics? Identifying a problem is the first step in addressing it.
-
The defense of “our” or “the” “democracy” by liberal Democrats amounts to the same thing: defense of a system of passive compliance by masses of ordinary people who get to choose between two, maybe three, candidates pre-vetted by the corporate plutocracy (which isn’t monolithic but might as well be, insofar as it shares class interests).
-
Hey, I think that 19th-century usage (usually capped, “the Democracy”, and often pejorative) tends to refer to the party. See OED “Democracy” 3a and 3b.
-
fingers crossed