Wojo. This is nuts. The U.S. is about as anti-majoritarian as it is possible to be without being a dicatorship. Aside from capitalist control of the press, our constitution is anti-majoritarian. We have the horrible anti-democractic Sentate - with Montana electing the same number of Sentators as California. We have the undemocractic electoral college to elect the President. We have the lifetime apppointment of the Supreme court by the Senate and the President. The only part of the U.S. Federal government elected in a majoritarian fashion at all is the U.S. house of representatives - and lack of proportional representation has often meant we have a Republican majorirty there in a lot of cases where Democrats won the majority of votes.
Yes, in the face of overwhelming propanda, people often adapt reactionary views. But in case after case if there had been real majority rule, the U.S. would be much less reactionary than at present. The latest round of tax cuts would not have passed a popular vote. I suspect even the invasion of Iraq would not. (I know there was popular support in th4e last month before the invasion - but that was when it was inevitable. There is both a tendency of people to rally around in the face of common danger, and to support what seems inevitable and unstoppable. If there actually had been a chance to prevent it I suspect popular opinion would have been different -as it was until that last month)
And in general, I suspect popular opinion is as reactionary as it is in response to reactionary circumstances. There is a tendency of people to believe in , well the divine right of things as they are.
You will note that capitalism never relies totally in the shaping of popular opinion - it alsways incorporates some means or another of thwarting popular will. Reactionaries fear democracy.
We will never have direct democracy - either face to face or electronic - because there is not world enough and time for everydody to be involved in every decision that affects them, let alone to be involved intelligently and thoughtfully. But you don't want a "Roberts Rules of Order" shell of democracy either where political decisions are constantly being made contrary to the wish of the majority. I'd say that if are looking for structural democratic prinicples - I would say direct democracy to estent practical, delegatory democracy to extent direct democracy is not practical, and representative democracy ultimately answereable to direct democracy and to delegates where neiher is practical.
For those who find this too abstract: I have been involved in groups that used consensus. In most cases it was the most oppresive form of dictatorship I have directly experienced. The Quakers have used consensus to govenr meetings for centuries; and I've been told that while the Friends do great progressive work in politics, I know a great many ex-quakers who found the consensus governed meetins unbearably oppressive. I will note that when Maoist China adapted consensus for a time it did not make China any more democratic.
And there is something Doug said I want to deal with:
> There's a strange conception of democracy you often hear among direct
> action types. We need more of it - less mediated, less blunted, more
> spontaneous. But it seems to apply only to a small, preselected
> population. Democracy in the U.S. could mean more theocracy and fewer
> civil liberties. But surely the direct democrats don't want that. So
> how can this direct democracy or consensus model apply to any
> population with significantly divergent interests or beliefs?
OK - there are two sepearte isuses here. One is whether consensus or direct democracy is the way to make politics more democratic. The second is whether more democratic politics are desirable. I disagree with the direct action types that consensus is more democratic than majority rule, and that direct democracy is only or even best way to implement majority rule.
But I disagee with you if you think that our current situation was produced democratically, and that more democracy would make it worse. Even in the face of a reactionary media, we would not have nearly as reactionary public policy if there was more democratic control of our govenrment. And yes there is a self-reinforing cycle. The more reactioary policy gets the more TINA becomes embedded in public consciousness and the more reactionary public opinion becomes. But there are almost no issues on which public opinion is more reactionary than the views of those actually in charge.
Even on issues on which is most popular to be reactioary, public opinion is to the left of current public policy. Anti-gay prejudice (this really isn't a strong enough term but I don't know a word equivalent to "racism" to describe the oppression of gays - Isherwoods's "Hetorsexual Dicatorship" perhaps?) is perhaps the most socially acceptable type of oppression in our society. But still the majority in every state in the Union are against laws outlawing gay sex - whereas they still exist in a heck of a lot of states. In general - if laws needed support by the majority of the population to pass, our society would be much less reactionary than it currently is. Democracy damn well could work in NY city. Consensus could not. Direct Democray could not. But a mixture of Delagatory and representative democracy - that would work, and work better than what you have now.