Introduction
“True democracy … will not condemn those whose devotion to principle leads them to unpopular courses, but will reward courage, respect honor, and ultimately recognize right.”
Understanding the cornerstones of the political context is indeed a complex issue because of the various political ideologies that govern modern society. As for John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK), the former President of the United States embraced liberal values and democratic ideology based on liberty, equality, and justice. Political liberalism and democratic ideals form the basis for practically all the political thinking in the modern world. However, JFK was a conservative politician for both his time and today; his liberal values and political strategies might be critically argued in the contemporary political and economic climate. Therefore, examining the ideological perspective of true democracy proposed by Kennedy will help better understand to what extent society can now embrace such a political vision.
Analysis of the Source
Kennedy represented the power of political courage by advocating for democratic ideals in the United States. Political courage is, thus, the principal strength and quality in a democracy. The history of the United States is vividly defined by the times when political figures and citizens claimed the ideals of democracy and the nation’s Constitution. This source implies that true democracy, or direct democracy, is about having faith that the public will elect representatives who will not despise people who support “unpopular causes” if they encourage more meaningful principles of courage, honor, and right (Kennedy, 2003). According to the President himself, democracy goes beyond the popular government and majority rule and the overall system of political techniques. In a democratic society, every citizen holds a leading position in defining the present and future of the political, economic, and social spaces, regardless of individuals’ interests in politics. However, such a political leadership for every member of American society poses some critical challenges in the realities and consequences of true democracy.
The Main Argument
The quote by JFK underpins the general vision that every citizen of the United States is in a position of governmental responsibility. Society, therefore, gets the political leadership that it demands and deserves, regardless of whether it is good or bad. Nevertheless, the main question is whether modern American society can fully embrace the ideological perspectives of true democracy. It is important to note that the modern United States is a federal republic and a representative democracy with a separation of power to prevent its abuse (Heywood, 2017). Given that the United States was founded as a republic, it has never been following the ideology of true democracy. As such, this paper argues that American citizens today should not be embracing the ideological principles of true democracy because of the risk of turmoil across different parts of American society.
Supporting Evidence
The underlying problem with JFK’s vision of true democracy is based on the core differences between conservatives and liberals in the United States. True democracy entails blind hope and faith that people will be intelligent and mindful enough to elect good representatives. In addition, true democracy implies such blind belief that the elected representative of the United States will serve in the best interests of each of the citizens, including minority groups. Political liberalism supports the ideology of true democracy (Heywood, 2017). More specifically, liberalists are generally assured that they can trust the representatives if they place the right people to hold the office. On the other hand, conservatism followers are convinced that such unlimited access to power might corrupt the existing society (Heywood, 2017). For this reason, the political system of the United States must be established in the most efficient way so that the primary interests and needs of the people will comply with the ones of the representatives. Hence, the power of the elected United States representatives must be strictly controlled and limited to the functions the society expects them to perform.
The second piece of evidence refers to the definition of democracy and its understanding by the public. Democratic government is the one led by the people, wherein society has the freedom to enable the policies that are directly opposed to their paramount interests. In the case of direct democracy, public involvement might significantly decline. The ideology of direct democracy questions how much power can be handed over to the public to ensure the safe and equal development of the nation. More particularly, true democracy is a beneficial political tool when most of society participates in its development and cultivation in the nation’s government (Heywood, 2017). Considering that people would need more time for debates and voting procedures, the public interest and active engagement in such processes might rapidly decrease. As a result, the decisions made within direct democracy and such public attitude will not accurately incorporate the will of the majority. This way, Americans might never come up with a joint decision for the benefit of the entire nation.
The third aspect supporting the main argument against true democracy is the deepened understanding of what direct democracy truly represents. As stated by Nyirkos (2018), there is a direct linkage between the direct democracy institutions and majority tyranny in the United States. True democracy, therefore, can undermine and threaten the individual freedom of every American citizen. With the increased policy responsibilities to public interests, the interests of the minority groups are at risk since they inevitably cede to the common interest of the majority. The majority always has the dominating authority compared to the minority groups despite the constitutional order and government. It is essential to recognize how the modern representative democracy of the United States contributes to the disproportionate representation and protection of such minority populations.
Counterarguments
However, some research also reveals that direct democracy does not always imply antiminority regulations. For instance, there is an increased likelihood for “racial prolific bans and hate crimes laws” to succeed within a true democracy (Taylor, Haider-Markel, and Lewis, 2018, p. 197). In addition, the shared ideology of the public mindset under true democracy can considerably impact the sexual-orientation-inclusive non-discriminatory policies. Direct democracy is also proved to be more supportive of same-sex marriages and transgender rights, and related policies. Nevertheless, the current government of the United States responsibly adheres to such policies despite not being a true democracy.
Conclusion
True democracy proposed by Kennedy implies the political courage of individuals that are determined to fight for the ideals of freedom and justice for everyone during crisis times in the political establishment of the country. However, this paper argued that direct democracy is not the best solution for the political system of the United States. Such an ideology of unlimited and uncontrolled freedom and access to governmental authority for everyone might be threatening the overall political and societal order. True democracy might also put the group of minorities at risk due to the dominance of the majority. Most importantly, the United States and its modern democratic ideologies do not require to become truly democratic. The current representative government leads more regular and steady control, and it also takes care of those groups that could be ignored in the case of true democracy. It might seem like a more well-thought-out approach to elect someone who will represent the interests of the entire society because true democracy is not considered feasible in any political government across the world.
References
Heywood, A. (2017). Political ideologies: An introduction. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Kennedy, J. F. (2003). Profiles in courage. Harper.
Nyirkos, T. (2018). The tyranny of the majority: History, concepts, and challenges. Routledge.
Taylor, J. K., Haider-Markel, D. P., & Lewis, D. C. (2018). The remarkable rise of transgender rights. University of Michigan Press.