Democracy has a breaking point. It is the point at which the voting population, uneducated in democratic principles, willingly and through democratic processes, gives power to those whose actions and attitudes are antithetical to democratic principles. 

It is a mistake to believe that elections and majority vote are sufficient to guarantee that democracy remains intact. Majority vote is a necessary aspect of democracy, but only as voting is informed by a perspective that knows and cares how to pass on democratic values. If, instead, people vote to give power to a tyrant, that is the end of democracy. "The end" might be said to occur earlier than that, though, in that the population doing such voting has already ceased to inwardly understand and cherish the democratic ideal. 

For this reason, historically, democracy has been conceived of as possible only in situations where there is an informed, educated public. Also, for this reason, in democratic republics such as the United States, it was understood that governmental action can't be tied, in an automatic, instantaneous way, to the popular vote. Instead, the power that originates in popular vote is distributed amongst three branches of government, each of which has its own processes of action and deliberation. 

Democracy has always involved what could be called healthy self-doubt: the guarding of space for the voice of the minority--not the crushing of those who dissent. Democracy maintains space in which divergent opinions can remain alive, even if public need dictates that only one policy direction be pursued at any given time. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech pertain primarily to those perspectives that are in the minority, and only secondarily to the majority culture. (The rights of the majority group are a given, ensured by their sheer power and number.) 

The current election cycle raises concern about the health of the democratic ideal amongst the voting public. As always, many candidates are bad. Now especially, though, some may truly be dangerous. Donald Trump, for example, is a candidate who belittles those who dare to disagree with him. He has not denounced the sentiments of the man who yelled "white power!" during a recent speech. He advocates for policies concerning  immigrants that ignore the things that made it possible for his own ancestors to take up residence in the U.S. He appeals to the idea of greatness and strength, while not specifying what the values are that strength is to be in service of. The most that can be inferred from his statements is that strength is its own justification. The fact that one has power to put someone else "in his place" is evidence enough, for Trump, that the strong one is right. He embodies the amorality of the "Übermensch" foretold by Nietzsche. Democratic values, to the extent that they protect the minority voice, are portrayed by Trump as pathetic weakness. Dissent is to be removed from the public square, like Jorge Ramos was ejected from a press conference, when he asked a question that Trump did not want to respond to.

The scary thing is that our own democratic system provides the means by which we might give our democratic system away. It is a brilliant system, but it assumes that those who use it are educated in its values and interested in preserving them. In this upcoming election, I hope we can steer past this scary precipice, where feeling and passion seem to outweigh thoughtful consideration. Beyond that, it is time to be concerned about the fact that democratic ideals are spurned and belittled by a portion of the voting public. If the idea of democracy is obliterated within the consciousness of the voting populace, whether by disinformation or by strategic withholding of information and education, there is no safeguard left to ensure that democracy will continue. Democracy is not just a procedure (voting); it is a culture. 

I just watched a program, narrated by George Clooney, on news coverage of JFK's assassination. It is well worth watching, if you can find it. It brought me to reflect on a tragic aspect of our existence as we currently experience it. Within this society we share--which is the cumulative product of our individual attitudes and behaviors, and, simultaneously, the setting in which we explore who we are and what we might be--we harbor the capacity for the hatred that makes assassination possible, and the structures of thought that provide the rationale and justification for such acts. In psychological language, such feeling-charged structures of thought can be called "complexes," and "pathological." In the old days, they no doubt would have been associated with ideas about demonic influence and possession. 

Whatever we name them, it is frightening that we live in a world where there seems to be less and less concern about how to notice when our brains are being hijacked by such ideas and impulses, and about what the results may be if we act upon them. Careful, nuanced thought is criticized as a sign of weakness. Heroes are made of people who advocate for action without discussion or reflection beforehand. Adding to our danger is the fact we seem to be losing our ability to think critically about information and stories that present themselves as factual news. Small groups and subcultures buy into versions of reality that would not stand the test of careful thought. Based on untested and errant pictures of what is real, they sometimes make decisions that affect things adversely for many more than just themselves.

All of these thoughts arose for me as I watched this program about how history was radically changed in 1963, by the ending of JFK's life. It is frightening that we remain subject to the same forces that, time and time again, have set back the clock on social progress, and our growth towards humane ways of being. Even this post, which, I dare to say (whatever else may be said about it) is thought out quite carefully, will evoke anger and judgment from someone, because ... well, that's just what we do, these days. We get mad. We get rageful. We get indignant. It's a sign to us of our strength. It's a confirmation to us of the rightness of our cause. It's a sign that tells us we are not responsible for what we might do next.