The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.
We asked Luke Harris, a Fall Intern with the Fulcrum Fellowship, to share his thoughts on what democracy means to him and his perspective on its current health.
Representative Democracy is a form of self-governing; our Constitution delineates a set of values and principles that evolve and materialize as Americans exercise their rights to challenge societal norms and create legal and social change. The Democratic state produces the circumstances that provide the greatest freedoms, such that they are consistent with equality under the law: the liberties to freely express one’s ideas, vote in open elections to decide the politicians who will represent our diverse interests, and defend against leaders or citizens who endanger these freedoms. The current hyperpolarization, apathy, and extremism are incompatible with the preservation of these freedoms and the protection of our country. This is the deleterious effect of the failure of our educational and scientific institutions.
Liberalism is curring the flamer, sniffy, childhood-enduring preconceptions, and unthoughtful, or unchallenged beliefs—the ideas and attitudes that provide the easiest answers, but often perpetuate in collective thinking, and social pressure; the accountability of schools—in K-12, and higher education—to teach students how to think critically; preparing citizens of a democracy, with any level of education, to synthesize information and form their opinions independent of group identity or ideology. However, my teachers taught critical thinking as an intellectual skill and did not properly acknowledge or instill its value. The consequence of learning to think independently and reexamine yourself, your thoughts, and your beliefs should be uncomfortable; it can be linked to losing your social/self-identity, questioning your faith or secular-moral values, and often facing disapproval from your parents and friends. The issue is exacerbated in higher education, where there is social pressure to think in a certain way, and professors continue to teach students what to think, rather than how to think.
Furthermore, the conversation needs to include everyone. Someone with a thought disorder, people who are prone to emotional outbursts, have social or communication challenges, or have lower intelligence, or learning disabilities, are being excluded from these conversations. If someone does not have the words to express their ideas, whatever they can say could direct the group to new ways of thinking; if someone is mentally disabled, they may change how people talk with each other, and bring a different emotional attitude. However, if the person is not intelligent or they are harder to speak with, we are denying them entry into these types of discussions where they can provide value. Personally, in early elementary school, I had many of these problems. My experience is different; I make connections more fluidly, I have less linear thinking, but I can present as neurotypical and intelligent. People will listen and consider what I have to say, but someone who cannot communicate as clearly or is harder to talk with does not receive the same respect. The consequence is reinforcing the same ideas and providing only one way to think.
The scientific community is responsible for engaging in public discourse, making their discoveries and ideas accessible to the public, and honestly discussing criticisms and challenges to their work, which includes spotlighting different public figures in their field. If topics or theories are backed by strong empirical evidence, then scientists should denounce and criticize the merits, character, and fitness of those people presenting unbacked science or dangerous assertions. However, consistent appeals to authority and consensus are a strong indication that members of the scientific community are succumbing to social pressure or represent a homogenous intellectual class. The contributions of science are essential for the functioning of a healthy democracy. For this reason, classicist-collectivist behavior across various fields of research is concerning and also symptomatic of educational institutions that have failed to effectively instill the values and skills discussed above—those most essential for serious inquiry.
Democracy is unsustainable and short-lasting when there are severe restrictions on freedom of expression. The highest form of expression is holding your representatives accountable to your interests, both by speaking loudly and voting out incumbents when they are dishonest, unresponsive, and unrepresentative of their constituents. In any democracy where the party convention suppresses contest and does not put forth any alternative options, it is necessary to vote against party lines, because elected officials who are assured of their reelection are no longer accountable to represent the interests of their constituents. There is contention in democracies about the extent of acceptable speech. The line for the strongest advocates is often hate speech, and the debate about the function and benefits of hate speech should remain lively. However, there is a strong argument that protecting hate is necessary for remaining vigilant and aware of the dangerous fringes and movements within a democracy.
The excursions into democratic governing have not proven to be sustainable in the long term. This form of government is the freest and rests on the maintenance and continuance of the freedoms it provides—these freedoms and the institutions, such as schools, and the scientific establishment, serve specific purposes that both represent what democracy is, why democracy is the most befitting to the protection of human dignity, and justice, and the factors that determine how well and how long any democracy will function. The first step forward is understanding that polarization is the consequence, not the cause. The extreme polarization tearing our country apart is the consequence of our failing educational and scientific institutions.
Luke Harris is an op-ed author who writes about the US, UK, and international politics, policy, and culture. He has been published in outlets such as The North American Anglican and The Conservative Woman.
