Authentic Autocracy or Bogus Democracy?

Look at this: “we're still confusing democratic legitimacy with legitimate democracy.” You know who wrote this? It was Andrew C. McCarthy. He is the guy that has been deriding the races and the ethnic groups he calls Islamists. He believes these people will never become democratic because democracy is incompatible with their religion and their set of beliefs.(Elections Are not Democracy, National Review Online, July 6, 2013.)

So now, this same McCarthy says that we – yes, that's “we” not “them,” – we are confused about the word democracy. Wow, what a revelation! Maybe we should laugh the whole thing off at this point and move on. Right? I mean what can be funnier than someone (call him A) poking fun at someone (call him B) for not being the thing that (A) doesn't know what it's supposed to be? This can only be hilarious, Right? I mean it would be hilarious if you're not B, of course. Otherwise you would not want to laugh. Or would you?

But wait a minute, wait a minute. Try to remember something. Try to remember the shout that killed tens of thousands, including Americans; injured hundreds of thousands, including Americans, and displaced millions of people of several ethnic groups and several religions. Remember the words: “Zey know nossing about za damacracy of za Shamir.” Remember this? That was the shout that eventually prompted America to knowingly fabricate false evidence so as to launch a war against Iraq – a blatant criminal act that caused untold horrors.

That horror was done in the name of a democracy that Andrew McCarthy now says we collectively are confused about. No Sir, no we cannot laugh at that. There is no way we can. We cannot even cry, come to think of it. We can only sit in quiet disbelief, stunned at the state of the human condition. And that's not only the physical condition of man but also his mental condition. In turn, this is not so much about the ignorance of a human race that doesn't know the definition of democracy; it is about the ignorance of those among us who believe they know what they eventually discover they don't know. And what do they do after the discovery? They modify the old explanation to prove they were correct to have committed the horrors that they did anyway. Go figure.

Let us now do a thought experiment. Go down any American street and ask people if they know for certain whether Porto Rico is part of the British or the American Commonwealth. Perhaps one in a thousand will know the correct answer. Now go down and ask people to define the word democracy. Perhaps one in a million will give a definition that would come close to being comprehensive. Now go down and ask people to explain the difference between “democratic legitimacy” and “legitimate democracy,” and see what happens. According to McCarthy, not one in three hundred and twenty million Americans will know the answer.

And so we are compelled to ask this question: How does Andrew McCarthy define democracy? Unfortunately, to get the full answer, you must read the entire article because the explanation is scattered all over it. On the other hand, there is a passage where it is concentrated just enough to give a sense of what the author has in mind. This is the passage: “there must be abiding societal commitments to freedom of conscience, the equal dignity of every person, economic liberty, the rule of law, and self-determination.”

So you ask: If not coerced by an outside force, or if not constrained by legacy or by current circumstances, who would want to live a life that is contrary to those principles? Do we not all want to live in freedom, equality, dignity, self-determination, financial independence and rules that bind others as much as they bind us? Certainly, this is what the American people want for themselves. In fact, they say they appreciate this style of life so much that they want it for others too. Apparently, some Americans are even willing to die to impose it on strangers half way around the world.

But why do some Americans accept being patted at the airport while others do not? Why do some people accept being placed under electronic surveillance while others do not? Indeed, why is there a difference between Andrew McCarthy and the neoconservatives whom he says are confused about the things he sees clearly? The moral of this presentation is that different people see things differently therefore accept or reject restrictions on their lifestyle to various degrees. Are some Americans less democratic than others? Try to figure this out.

The truth is that we all live the way we do because legacy brought each of us to where we are. And the difference between a population like that of America, and a population like that of Egypt is that the latter will stand up even to superpower America and tell it to go jump in the lake if the superpower gets out of line. In contrast, the Americans will be smitten by a former Israeli terrorist who will tell them to launch a war because: “Zey know nossing about za damacracy of za Shamir.” So I ask: Which of these two societies is free, and which is a subjugated society? Think about it and try to respond to your question honestly.

At the stage of democratic development where the Egyptians see themselves at this point in time, no government could pepper spray college students doing a peaceful sit-in on campus. And no government could shoot to kill students in the style of a Kent State University without ordinary people marching in the squares and the streets by the millions to tell the government it will stop this sort of activities or be forced to depart. But how will the American public respond in similar circumstances? If you want an honest answer to this question, ask the Occupy Wall Street people.

In Egypt, they know what they want because they are not confused. And this is because it is less confusing to live under an authentic autocrat than live under a bogus democrat. May America develop democratically just enough to someday dare tell the Jewish lobby: You know nossing about za damacracy of za Egypt.