If there is a center to democracy, so to speak, where or what is it? One candidate would be the 'will' to democracy. There has been in America a strong will to democracy. This exists in individuals as well as institutions and characterizes our history. However it would be a mistake to not acknowledge that there is a strong will which either opposes or diminishes the role or value of democracy. One might conclude that the will to democracy so exceeds that of its antagonists, that the center is holding and is not threatened. In fact its opponents, if not enemies, may well strengthen the democracy in being a corrective of sorts. Surely, democracy needs its correctives in that it is quite capable of lapsing into the tyranny of the crowd, the mistreatment of minorities and neglect of principle.
But can this democracy hold given the existing state of our will, the institutional structures and the practices which sustain it? Not to mention its opponents who do seem to be gaining ground in our recent political history. A troubling feature of existing practice is the method of choosing candidates for office. Harvard professor, Lawrence Lessig, maintains that financial control of the selection processes has devolved into a pre-selective process which limits and determines the outcome of the range and type of candidates. Moreover, he claims, that elected representatives then suffer under the clamor for funding thus becoming the mouthpiece of those who can afford to fund their campaigns. In short the campaign process is corrupted.
Let's just say that regarding the strength of the institutional framework, it is holding given that it was tested severely during the Trump administration. This is not to say that there are not problems with the structure given the ideological pressure from both major parties.
The Constitution itself would seem to hold except for the fact that the massive centralization and bureaucratization of power over against local autonomy and responsibility flies in the face of the federalist intent within this founding document. This leads to my last point regarding shoring up framework. Namely the role of the people and the "structure" that sustains their foundational primacy to democracy philosophically and historically.
It seems that the framework of the people's democracy can't be centered on 'Washington', that is, on political parties and salvational leaders. If 'all politics is local politics,' then all democracy is likewise local democracy. This means that power must be disseminated not by a third or fourth party but by the re-democratization and communalization of communities. There must be a thousand points of light blending into an energizing of democracy as one "light" of the people. More than power, however, there must be a re-absorption of wealth into the communities through the radical reduction of federal/centralist taxation. This money is the money of the people. The central funding of a military for defense and a minimalist central government to mediate disputes between communities and regions is obviously necessary and desireable. But the bureaucracy, the state, the military empire around the world and the practice of "socialism" for the rich must stop and must be deconstructed or, in other words, reduced on the basis of qualitative need and not arbitrary numbers of tax dollars.
The operative principle for communalizing, democratizing and empowering communities and thus enhancing democracy is that of "subsidiarity." This means that what can be done at home for survival and self-fufillment must be done at home. The centralist, wrongly named "Federal," government must be assigned its proper regulative as opposed to constitutive role. The American Constitution intends to constitute a federalism of the people, of communities, regions, localities. And though "republican," it did not intend to disempower politically, expropriate wealth or determine cultural life.
So in brief I have been talking about an enervation of democracy through, firstly, the deconstruction of the bureaucratic-technocratic centralist regime in Washington; secondly, the re-constitution of communities on the basis of the principles of subsidiarity and federalism. But lastly, the question of the individual arises in carrying out the democratic tasks.
It seems, then, that as long as public school system and the community college systems hold, then these are the places that education of individuals for democracy must take place. Instruction in Government, Civic participation, history of democracy and social being must be re-energized and in some cases brought back from the dead as in the case of Civics. So we are talking about an educational re-constitution of individuality as a fundamentally social and political individuality. This is the last plank of the three which could disseminatively "re-center" democracy as a people's democracy and as a genuine federalist democracy.
Lastly, let's note that one obstacle in this slow populist revolution toward a deeper democratization is dealing with the multiplication of cultures, languages, religions and ideologies in America. This multi-culturalism, once identified as a melting pot in America, is a great ideal presumably being realized. This is, to some extent, true but far from a difficulty solved. If a multi-culturalism is to be fully realized this too cannot be the job of government let alone the "culture" industry. Multi-culturalism can only be solved and treated as the opportunity that it is for deeper socialization and communalization at the community level. It will also be the place of a re-valuation of "national" values and the space of value creation in the communities.
There is obviously other central issues to be discussed such as the place of Law and its relation to the ethics of communities and the ethos of cultures. Also the role of parties is highly problematic and their "governance" by the billionaire class that preponderates toward the center and the top of society. But enough for now as to whether the center holds. It does. For now. At least as an idea and ideal if not a realized desire fulfilling its highest intended purpose.
It's future depends upon its re-configuration on a populist as opposed to centralist, globalist, bureaucratic or technocratic basis.
If there is a will to democracy, then it is a generalized will, one centered in the self-understanding of the interests of the people. Not the people as a class, a party, a culture or movement but the People as a principle and idea of freedom, sovereignty and self-determination.
