The Dilemma of America in the Defense of Democracy

The fundamental dilemma of American democracy in the present national and world crisis lies in the character of the social process itself-the continuity of means and ends. The immediate situation always appears to demand the use of means which, in the end, reproduce the present inadequacies. To obtain improved results, we feel we must use superior means; but these better means appear inadequate to cope with the coarser immediate situation. Yet, always and every time, the processes determine the results. The end never justifies the means: the means define and describe the ends. Indeed, in democracy, more than in any other form of social organization, the process itself is the important thing. This is true because democracy is not a status once for all achieved, but a process to be pushed ahead. Democracy is not static but dynamic in character. It has to be created anew every generation, every decade; and this continuous re-creation is possible only when a people are relatively successful in the struggle against decline and decay within the nation, and also when they are not unduly inhibited by disruptive anti-democratic forces from without. And the point is that for the democratic process to function, it must function democratically-both within the nation and in its international dealings. The use of non-democratic processes either at home or in the world scene defeats the democratic process itself by producing other than democratic results. To some persons, this point of view is a dogma to be defended. To others, it is a general principle to be followed as closely as wisdom and experience suggest. But both purists and compromisers are faced with the dilemma that democracy can be built and defended only through democratic processes. The purist, in his prefectionism, prefers to struggle for democracy through the use of devices appropriate to it, and to run the risk of failure rather than achieve something less than democratic results. The compromiser, in his relativism, believes it to be the better part of valor to use discretion, accepting half a loaf rather than to lose all. Yet both groups are faced with the same dilemma-the knowledge that democracy can be had only by those who practice it. Democracy at home cannot be built by undemocratic means-yet there is strong doubt in the minds of many thinking men as to whether democratic means of defense will be adequate to preserve even that measure of democracy now possessed. They point out that while we must practice democracy at home to prevent losing it by default, we dare not practice it in our dealings with foreign non-democratic states lest we lose it by defeat. And on the other hand, if we decide

Democracy · Dilemma · Epistemology · Law and economics · Political science · Politics · Sociology · American Constitutional Law and Politics · Law · Philosophy · Political theory and Gramsci

• Le concept de « démocratie raciale » dans l'histoire intellectuelle brésilienne

  Open Access•Christophe Brochier•Revue de Synthèse•2014

  Add to list