The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Radicals ignore lessons of democracy

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Robert Phansalkar:

'Think, Respect' does neither, preempts rational action (November 14, 2007)
'Taser this' editorial tame compared to past (October 2, 2007)
Lawmakers' plan bigger problem than baggy pants (September 18, 2007)
Right-wing judicial activism fault of liberal tactics (August 31, 2007)

by Robert Phansalkar

Monday, November 20, 2006

If you were lucky enough to have witnessed a piece published last week in The Badger Herald called "Voting divides, spurs authority," my job as a columnist will be all the more easy. A guest columnist dubbing himself an "Anti-Authoritarian Social Revolutionary" was telling us all that we should not vote because it is a "divisive system."

Simply put, if you wanted a case against radicalism in politics, he made it for you.

At a campus like UW, where political tensions always seem to be running at full blast regardless of what is on the political docket, it is easy to get swept up into an ideological crusade, whether it be on the right or the left. However, when we do this, we leave valuable abilities like logical reasoning and rationality behind us in favor of adhering strictly to an ideology that none of us can really fathom is beneficial or, in some cases, feasible.

Bill Anderson, the author of the column in question, envisions a world where we are united into utopian decision-making processes by which citizens are actively engaged and where voting is wrong because it encourages divisive political attitudes, such as competition and factionalism.

The problem is not that plans such as Anderson's are simply infeasible, it is what the words behind his message actually mean. He is effectively arguing against democracy, but why would he ever do that?

Most groups are quite content to fall into the democratic process in the United States, if for no other reason than it provides us adequate venues for grievances against over-bearing governmental power and, perhaps the most compelling reason to support democracy, offers a legitimate shot at power.

An additional requirement for belief in democracy is maintaining a certain degree of humility. If you do not enjoy the popular support of the public, then you do not have any legitimate right to rule. That is what voting does; it confers upon electoral victors a legitimate right to rule the people.

Radical political actors have been historically less supportive of concepts such as "legitimacy" and "popular support" because after all, that wouldn't make their politics so radical.

Perhaps Anderson's arrogance is rooted in a greater problem for politics, but certainly much more so for radicalism, the belief that their views are infallible. It is here where distinctions between anarchists, communists, religious extremists and fascists simply disappear.

Radicals certainly believe their politics are correct, but the belief that they are infallible represents a kind of arrogance that even Democrats and Republicans will shy away from, if for no other reason than to maintain the very legitimacy previously discussed.

Remember all those times that President Bush would stand in the face of opposition and bull-headedly respond with classics like "Bring it on?"

Americans loathed that response, and groups, especially on the left, went crazy claiming that the guy had done everything from encouraging more attacks against the United States to mocking the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq.

Public opinion mattered then, as it does today, to Bush. The mid-term elections show just how powerful a base of informed voters can be against the arrogance and vanity of leaders like Bush. Anderson's vision of governance — as a decision-making process done as a collective, absent of accountability and any discernable form of law or economy — falls immensely short as people will continue to make changes to the lives of others, and no one will be held directly responsible.

In a system where you advocate for the end of the Federal Reserve, and with it their "monopoly on money," you should expect people are going to want to hold someone accountable when the plan inevitably breaks down and ruins the lives of others in the process. However, the point is not to rip on leftist or rightist politics, it is to claim that radicalism, generally speaking, is a form of politics so virulent that it threatens the very common institutions that we know.

It is not that radicals could not exist within our government, it is that they choose not to. And with that choice comes consequences that they simply cannot handle.

If Anderson did anything with his column, it was to show all of us why his political views were wrong, and with this, why we should stay grounded with our political thought and not leap to an extremist's point of view.

Robert Phansalkar (phansalkar@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in languages and cultures of Asia and political science.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (November 20, 2006 @ 1:21am):

If your version of democracy is so great, can you tell me why politicians do not do the will of the people? And why is it that we elect representatives to make decisions about war, poverty, and laws based on their stance on abortion? Remember, we don't have a democracy, we have a republic.

Why can't "radicals" have a different version of democracy? Anarchism is a socialism without jails, a society without dictators. It is based on incorporating democracy into daily life. Democracy needs to be embodied in the factory, in the grocery store, in the school, so that individuals make the choices affecting their daily lives, not rich individuals.

But participatory democracy is dangerous to the way of life of political elites. Anarchism is not about right or left, it's about just being, it's apolitical. But those elites have portrayed it as anything from terrorism to totalitarian.

Why do you think the Alien and Sedition Acts were enacted? Your high school history didn't teach you this, but it was to deport or jail Italian anarchists. Haymarket square, workers asking for an 8-hour work day were massacred by police, and anarchist leaders were executed. Sacco and Vanzetti, also executed for their political beliefs. Anarchists are the forgotten of US history, as better-dead-than-red politicians sanitized textbooks. These people were not inciting violence, their leaders were not ladder-climbing (i.e. they didn't chair the ACLU at their colleges and write for a student paper), they only wanted dignity and democracy for those huddled masses and working poor.

But ultimately, I must ask, is Anarchism really any more radical or extreme than Capitalism? We can save the inevitable debate on the merits of either for later, but honestly, Capitalism isn't the moderate utopia that Americans are taught to appreciate. So Robert, tell me what's so radical and inherently wrong about Anarchism?

- Not Bill

Anonymous (November 20, 2006 @ 2:51am):

Bill is a jackass.
And will attack you relentlessly.
GOOD WORK!!!

Anonymous (November 20, 2006 @ 7:09am):

Anderson's views are radical, obviously, but we have to understand what he sees in the system that is so corrupt. You, Mr. Phansalkar, are taking the position of the status quo. Most Americans, based on voter participation, feel that the system is deeply flawed, so it seems that the status quo is almost as radical as the anarchist's views. Most Americans would like to see change; neither the status quo or radical change that Anderson puts forth.

Anonymous (November 20, 2006 @ 10:04am):

"Most Americans would like to see change."

Consider this a challenge to write a sentence that carries less meaning.

Anonymous (November 20, 2006 @ 3:23pm):

"Consider this a challenge to write a sentence that carries less meaning."

Consider this a challenge to the guy who didn't finish reading the sentence: Americans want change, but not as much change as Anderson proposes or as little as Phansalkar is content with.

Sorry I had to spell it out for those readers with middle school-level comprehension.