Approximating Democracy

There was a theologian in the first half of the 20th Century named Reinhold Niebuhr. He has a pretty good reputation for being a philosopher, as well as theologian, something that separates him from the kind of theology practiced by today's Republicans. Where I became interested in him was when Barack Obama and John McCain both said nice things about him during their presidential run in 2008. Things have changed massively in not yet a generation. Niebuhr said of democracy that it is the "approximate solution to an intractable problem" . He uses the word approximate; not proximate, which gives it a stronger nuance. To approximate, to come close. Intractable, to have difficulty solving. That pretty much describes the way democracy has been practiced for at least the 20th Century in this and other nations where democracy is practiced by people who are interested in governing; not ruling. That quotation hides a lot of turbulence. It is performed in either legislative democracies or parliamentary democracies accompanied by lofty speeches and by what were once called "smoke-filled rooms". I might be Pollyannish but I presume that, at that time, the lofty speeches were to inspire the electorate. Both parties had their speakers to be proud of, and their Proud Boys. Occasionally, they could even convince a colleague. And the smoke-filled rooms inspired the two sides to come to a solution quickly. A solution that was usually somewhat less, or somewhat more, than was desired, depending on which side. I suppose money in hand was too often hiding in the shadows, as it is today. But the rules were mostly followed and the sinister villains had tighter regulations. Yes there were intractable legislators, but they were kept small in number by the desire to be elected again in what then was a "popular democracy". I'm told it still works this way in other nations. In fact, Hungary, who had been in the grip of totalitarianism for 16 years, is now joining the ranks. I wonder if they are sorry to see us leave.

How did we get here? Boy, howdy, there's a story. There was this memo from a lawyer for the tobacco industry in the early 1970s, a time when smoking legislation was being sought. His name was Lewis Powell, who a few short years later, but before President Nixon was forced to resign, became a Supreme Court Justice. It was called The Powell Memo. This memo was sent to the Chamber of Commerce, an organization concerned with chambers of unrestricted commerce because regulations interfere with the realm of business uber alles. In short he advised his audience that capitalism should stop  accommodating. Which is, I'm pretty sure, not what Niebuhr had in mind when he said what he said about an "approximate solution to an intractable problem". Among the changes made in the Republican sphere of influence peddling are think-tanks, which previously were reliably known for thought, now they have become purveyors of propaganda. He did not stop there. There was The Heritage Society, because what benefits heritage more than airbrushing history. The Federalist Society was created to create a conservative launching pad for federal judges. Once launched on a lifetime judgeship, Leonard Leo, the head of the Federalists who arose from the swamp of states rights, massaged judicial egos with generous "friendships" for targeted judges. Justice for sale, what could possibly go wrong? But there's more. At sometime, post-Soviet Russia started sponsoring American political races. They had been doing it in France and Israel, and maybe more, with some success. They chose the previously anti-communist Republican party. Among the many influencers they sent the Heritage Foundation was a fat fellow named Grover Norquist. His connection to the Kremlin is not well understood but there's some connection. Norquist led an anti-tax group that offered weekly breakfasts, and speeches to Republican legislators interested in rubbing elbows and getting palms greased. One of his notions is that "bi-partisanship is the moral equivolent to date rape". I do not find a direct connection here, but I don't view life with the rose-colored glasses of republicanism. More importantly, how does one reach that "approximate solution" when one party desires absolute power, or as close to absolute as money can buy?

We are there now. We are so far there, that we will never again see things as we saw them while growing old. But we must press on. What does a progressive politician do in, say, the 2031 congress when required to find that approximate solution with 'them'? That feeling will be with us a long time. Maybe things weren't as good in those days as I believe. But they sure as shit are better than we have today.