Democracy and Citizenship - Essay Example

? Democracy and Citizenship Word Count 500 (6 pages) I. Introduction (200 words) Is it possible we could see a new type of Democratic philosophy playing out in American politics these days? With the advent of the agonistic Democrat, there is more of a focus on intellectual charlatanism, political showboating, glad-handing, and political theater than there has been in the past when it came to the simple categories of opponenets, the Democrats versus Republicans. Now, within its own political party, the Democrats have been struggling with the new face of democracy: agonism. The key root word here is ‘agony.’ Agonistic Democrats are, in the end, agonizers. They cause more real harm than good, and create more drama than healing. Agonists might, in some cases, be seen as troublemakers—depending upon one’s viewpoint. Agonist ideals differ more than that of the views of regular Democrats because they insist upon arguing as a means to an end, not for other reasons. Here it will be attempted to explore: whether or not I am an agonistic Democrat; why or why not; and how a consideration of my own political life, my goals, and my experiences as an active citizen might shed light on the larger attractiveness and the applicability of an agonistic approach to democratic politics. II. Am I An Agonistic Democrat? (400 words) Although many times terms can be unclear, I do not consider myself an agonistic Democrat. After all, “One seldom finds a clear definition of the political.”1 I don’t exactly consider myself a deliberative Democrat either by any means. “Liberal democracy…is a specific form of organizing politically human coexistence which results from the articulation between two different traditions: on one side, political liberalism…and, on the other side, the democratic tradition of popular sovereignty.”2 Usually, deliberative Democrats and agonistic Democrats are antagonistic to each other anyway. I’m an active-duty Marine who was the middle child amongst a family with three boys. I was raised in the projects across from a state penitentiary in a small rural town in Georgia. Although I grew up around boys and lived in a rough neighborhood, I am a very passive-aggressive person—so I don’t really think that the role of an ‘agonistic Democrat’ really describes my kind of politics. I strongly believe that exhausting all diplomatic means in order to reach an agreement is the best solution to any type of conflict. Physical disputes are not only barbaric but dated. Honestly, I don’t feel that verbal arguments necessarily solve many problems either. Instead, politicians should focus upon trying not to argue—but, rather, in developing a consistent dialogue that focuses upon the real problems that are plaguing their constituents. Instead of arguing over petty trivialities, politicians—especially Democrats—should be trying to shy away from political theater and the creation of drama for drama’s sake. It’s nice to give news organizations sound bytes—but when it comes down to brass tacks, words are just empty words until actions are aligned with those words. Democrats can argue until they are blue in the face—but until they ensure that positive actions are in line with what they are saying, the Democrats—agonists alike—will not be taken seriously as a political party that can be trusted with the future of the country. Agonists in particular should abandon the notion that they must fight in order to prove their point. In order to effect real change, the American people require genuine diplomats. III. Why or Why Not? (300 words) I think the reason why I do not consider myself agonistic is because I find arguing pedantic and puerile. Agonistic Democrats seem like they are only interested in petty arguments—instead of arguing for the sake of producing true change. Aristotle claimed that “…the intimacy of ethical [alliances] limit…the number of our [alliance]s.”3 Agonistic Democrats are exactly what this country doesn’t need. People who are out just to create drama and political theater are usually the people who might be more inclined to accept agonistic political philosophies. There are definitely several personal peccadilloes that I could mention which I have with people who might think differently than I do—but why would I? Getting into needless arguments with people only hampers the political process, and, unfortunately, that is the state of both political parties today. Most Democratic agonists would probably argue that they are arguing for the good of the country. However, the real truth is that agonists have their own self-interests at heart. They are looking out for themselves, protecting their pride and dignity while real work is still waiting to be done. It is actually more difficult to be correct than critical. While it doesn’t take much work to complain about the state of how things actually are, it is more difficult—and requires work—in order to improve the state of how things are to get them to be where they need to be in the future. Of course, the simple answer to that problem is that one must oust the Democrats from power who are too intellectually lazy to consider the alternative to creating arguments and problems within the Democrats’ political party itself. IV. Attractiveness and Applicability of the Agonistic Approach in Democratic Politics (425 words) The attractiveness of agonistic democracy is only appealing to people who are trying to create filibusters, which ruin the political process. Filibustering stops action in either bodies of Congress. There are plenty of Democrats who would consider themselves agonistic, because their interest in good causes is tangled up with the competing temptation to form a valid argument which shoots down their opponent(s)—who might even be other Democrats. Democracy in itself is antagonistic to agonism, which only prolongs problems and creates dissent. In the case of the Democrats, it creates internal dissent. As though the Democrats didn’t already have a difficult enough time within their own party, agonist philosophy only creates more strife and a party which is already rife with all kinds of ongoing power plays. People may indeed have the idea that the agonistic approach closely aligns with democratic politics. However, even though agonists will readily use their Constitutionally-granted free speech 1st Amendment rights, they do not realize that, by hampering the political process with bickering, they are in fact silencing other peoples’ voices in any kind of conversations because the agonists are the ones who will get into shouting matches over petty trifles. Agonistic philosophy may be attractive to Democrats who simply wish to be in office, but secretly do not either want to accomplish much, or feel overwhelmed at the possibility of being able to accomplish anything. Since the House and Senate are chock-full of Republicans, it might make sense why Democrats would be doing a lot of whining instead of getting down to doing work. This doesn’t excuse their childlike behavior—but it does explain how much of a psychological war that the political game really is in America. It is an ideological war, and what is at stake is money, political campaign contributions, and popular support and public opinion. Truly, one of the problems that the Democrats have is that they either stand up for themselves too much, or they get steamrolled by the Republicans. It’s like they can’t achieve a balance between coming on too strong and completely giving up. The Democratic party needs to strike that balance that is a perfect mix of deal-making and arm-twisting. Of course, sometimes Republicans, as well as Democrats of a different stripe, may very well be difficult to deal with. However, unless agonistic Democrats learn how to work together with others and reach across the aisle, they most likely will not get much more accomplished than their non-agonistic counterparts. The agonists need to stop complaining and start making effective positive changes. V. Conclusion (175 words) Agonistic democracy may work for some people, but it is not a political philosophy that I myself personally espouse. The reason for this is that I cannot morally justify arguing while not getting any real work done for the sake of the people who are constituents depending upon politicians to effect some real political change. It doesn’t seem that democratic agonistic philosophy would be much more effective than being a Republican. Republicans are seen as the party of “No,” because, they are famous for striking down any ideas that might help people to be approved by the House or the Senate. Agonistic philosophy holds similar ideals—that any fight is a good fight worth pursuing. Being in the military, I’ve learned that one must pick one’s battles. Agonistic philosophy is not an argument that Democrats are going to win, nor is it a card that they should necessarily play in this game of poker we call ‘politics’ in America. The American people just want someone to be honest with them and look out for them. WORKS CITED Allen, Danielle. Talking to Strangers: Anxieties of Citizenship since Brown v. Board of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. Mouffe, Chantal. The Democratic Paradox. New York: Verso, 2009. Schmitt, Carl. The Concept of the Political, Expanded Ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007. Read More