Carl Schmitt, a German political theorist and Jean Jacques Rousseau, a French political philosopher, both give their views on democracy and its inner workings. Schmitt show great disdain for democracy. He believes it is corrupt and “seems fated [then] to destroy itself…” Rousseau clearly believes in democracy; where the citizens have duties to the nation and enter into a social contract with the sovereign.
Rousseau’s ideas seem more gear to the way democracy is supposed to be, where as Schmitt’s seem more based upon his observations of democracy. Together their opinions combine to illustrate the current state of American politics. American government is built upon the election of men and women to represent the greater good of the nation. Decisions are made based upon what the general will of the society wants and needs. According to Schmitt this isn’t always the case. We often get law passed or people elected into office that large sections of the country don’t want in office because of conflict of interest.
Schmitt argues that “it is no longer a question of persuading one’s opponent of the truth or justice but rather of the majority in order to govern with it. ” This has happened many times in the history of the United States, for example take the 2004 presidential election. President Bush was elected into office by a few thousand votes. Yet many people today can’t stand Bush and think he’s an awful president. If Bush was truly elected into office by a general consensus more people wouldn’t have a problem with him like they currently do.
A large component of American Democracy is equality for all of its citizens, because we are “the land of the free. ” This is a large reason many people immigrate to the US, they hope to gain a better life through their freedoms acquired by entering the country. One back draw of this is, do these people really gain the freedom they think they are getting? Rousseau’s Social Contract says that a man looses his natural freedom and unlimited rights but gains proprietorship over his belongings and gains civil freedom. The concept of ownership is very important in American society.
What you own, in a sense, defines who you are and what you are able to do with your life. In the US if a person showed up to a job interview in a sweatshirt and sweatpants there’s almost a guarantee they won’t get that job. The civil freedom, according to Schmitt, only extends to the citizens that fit the “norm” of the society. This creates insiders and outsiders, where the homogenous (insiders) are equal but the heterogeneous (outsiders) are unequal and sometimes people attempt to eradicate them. The immigrants are considered to be heterogeneous and they are not treated equally.
Most don’t have good jobs, make a good living or get many of the things that the homogeneous get. Rousseau would agree to a certain extent because for his social contract to exist the people of the nation need to share similar ideas. In the current American society there exists many different groups of people and one would then expect there to be many different types of political groups to represent all them. This is not the case. The two main political groups are the Republicans and the Democrats, and one person from either party has been elected into office every year since the start of American democracy.
Rousseau also states that a sovereign has the duty to protect its citizens from internal and external harm. This is a great part of American society. We have Hospitals, the Police, firemen and many other institutions to protect Americans from diseases and bodily harm. Without this protection the citizens would have no reason to be apart of the society and would be better off governing themselves. That way they get exactly what they want and they can better protect themselves. But what happens when the sovereign does harm its citizens?
There are many forms to this like police violence and genocide. These go against what the homogeneity of the society wants and according to Schmitt, the wishes of the homogeneity must be respected to have a successful democratic society. There is no one way to correctly describe the current state of American politics. Rousseau and Schmitt both point out parts of democracy but neglect to look at the bigger picture. The American democracy is a complicated assortment of ideas passed down and newly created that allow us to live the way we do.
Homogeneity describes the regular people in society that the laws are geared to, but what happens to the heterogeneous when the new laws are unfavorable to them? This is one of many questions one can draw up from the current democracy and it is impossible to please everyone because no two people have the same views on every topic. Creating a middle ground, like is currently done, is the only way to make a democracy work and be as fair as possible to the 200+ million people currently in the United States.