Many years ago, before I was a Democrat, I was a Libertarian, active in dreaming about the possibilities of the private sector to create change. Like all political movements, Libertarians had policy objectives, an like all political movements, they had a culture.
The policy objectives included some social objectives often associated with the left: Gay marriage, marijuana legalization, and civil liberties restored. They also included business regulatory objectives associated with the right: deregulation of financial and business operations, allowing the free market to punish immoral practices rather than government regulation, etc.
The culture was one of so called "personal responsibility". If you wanted something done, you did it. You never were to rely upon a government policy change to accomplish anything, it was your responsibility to get it done yourself by any means necessary. The culture had some positive aspects in terms of inspiring go-getter business people, and some shadowy aspects, in terms of people who, having felt themselves the victims of criminal actions, wouldn't call the cops (government) but would take action themselves to "make things right". That was the culture.
For many years in the US, a small party has been advocating the policy objectives of libertarians, and has largely been laughed at and marginalized, while the Republican and Democratic parties have held the reigns, each with some successes. But what have those successes been?
Well, the Democratic party has achieved its policy objectives and gay rights and marijuana legalization and other social reforms, but not its reigning in of big corporations.
And the Republican party has achieved its objectives of free market operation for big banks and other corporations, and ever decreasing regulation, but none of its family values social causes.
In short, the huge winners of every cause (except civil liberties) in the last few decades has been this marginalized party no one takes seriously. Isn't that odd? Never having gained consensus support, but winning 95% of the big battles and being more dominant than either of the major parties in shaping the policies as a whole?
I bring up all these memories not to advocate for the policy objectives of this group, but as an answer to the question the OP asked:
Is democracy even relevant today?
Because unfortunately, the answer for quite awhile seems to have been a resounding "NO". Building mass consensus to appeal to leaders appears, from a scientific and objective perspective, to be far far less powerful than just going after what you want by any means necessary, as many of these business people do. Its the culture of that small group that gives it its accidental power, not its advocated policies, its popularity, or public approval. Its through their culture that US policy over the last 20 years has almost always gone their way.
The lesson for all the rest of us is pretty simple: Maybe once we figure out the game is rigged, its time to stop playing by their rules, and start playing by our own.
Peace.
= new reply since forum marked as read
