What Marco Rubio Does Not Understand

We all know what democracy is. Or do we? Every generation debates how to play the democracy game and how to determine who will benefit by the strategy adopted. Our founding generation experienced a unity in the “spirit of ’76,” but underneath lay a social and psychological divergence between the “common folk” and the “well positioned.” This dichotomy is not eliminated simply by replacing a king’s divine right with a document of willing affirmation. The ubiquity of this natural divergence in society was displayed markedly in the televised State of the Union Address and the opposition party’s rebuttal.

In the Republican Party response last week to President Obama’s Address, Senator Marco Rubio made it clear that to him democracy is not the birthright of all Americans. A “big government” patronizing the middle class is not the American way. Rubio announced the secret that our country has grown strong without any help from the government, that only the unimpeded energy of individuals accounts for our national economic vitality. Individuals are on their own. This Rubio doctrine of democracy does not admit to any syncretism. (An unacknowledged corollary to this doctrine is the conclusion that government is too “big” only when someone other than yourself gets a turn at the benefits.)

Certainly a democratic society prospers by the energy and cleverness of its ambitious citizenry, but this mantra of Republican partisans assumes that the government has not been a key boost to our national environment of prosperity. Rubio allowed that government “plays a crucial part in keeping us safe, enforcing rules, and providing some security against the risks of modern life.” And that’s it? Does he not know about the role government has played in land grants to colleges and transcontinental railroad lines? Has he not heard of the Homestead Act, the New Deal job programs? Does he personally hand deliver all his mail? Was he not awake when Amtrak saved the railroad industry? Who does he think has made it possible for satellite communication and the other technology benefits from the space program? Does any of this, and more, fit in the narrow confines of his vision of America? His reluctant allowance for “some” help against the “risks of modern life” sounds cheesy. Does Rubio really think the Constitution is a “straight jacket” that America donned to allow only acts of “safety” and “enforcing rules”? This is either ignorance or ingratitude.

Our corporate leaders, financial wizards, and individual billionaires profit handsomely from the backdrop of an interactive government and highly developed national infrastructure. This “rising star” in the Republican Party’s search for a leader calls Obama’s misconception of America a recipe for failure. Other Republican spokespersons, hailing with new vigor from the fringe, insinuate that the current President is “the enemy” and a disrespector of the Constitution. This is from whence the seepage of racism, bigotry and misogyny has become part of this generation’s variety of opposition rhetoric.

Don’t be surprised, though. All of this is but a replay of the first appearance of this natural cleavage. One will not work up a sweat seeking precedents equally caustic in our past. Within the first ten years of government under our new Constitution, the contrast between the “elite” operatives, by then known as the Federalists (guided by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton) and the commoners (spoken for by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison) took on sharp clarity. When the Adams administration arrested and jailed public critics, those in Jefferson’s corner took this monarchic style of leadership as evidence of a conspiracy against democracy. In contrast the Federalists thought Jefferson was the one betraying the Spirit of ’76 in his infatuation with the French Revolution which had since descended into mob rule. Jefferson in turn called the Federalist administration a “reign of witches.” Two states, Virginia and Kentucky even officially promoted the idea of refusing to comply with federal law. But the country was simply groping its way into a stable two party system, the two parties tending to reflect the “elitist” versus “commoner” distinction.

Not understanding the “two party” mechanism, the “out” party today (Republicans) paint the Democrats as imposters threatening America’s values. Obama’s Muslim-sounding name and his dark skin is subtly used by the more radical voices to scare the unthinking party sheep into believing Obama’s interest in championing the Middle Class is a way to sneak socialism into our system. Rubio’s rebuttal theme focused on the “socialism” threat, but he instinctively pressed the right buttons to excite his less restrained constituents who envision the President deploying Federal troops to take over the cities—fuel behind the notion that we need to stock our closets with assault weapons to protect ourselves from an aggressive and corrupt government that has turned on us--1776 déjà vu.

Another immediate reflex to the State of the Union Address was the complaint that the President is inappropriately and obnoxiously continuing in the “campaigning mode” instead of staying in D.C. to parlay with Congress, the implication being that it is the responsibility of the “representative elected Houses” to pass the laws; the President is to carry out the will of Congress. Many Republicans find comfort in the notion that Obama’s reelection must only be an aberration that he is unfortunately trying to take advantage of. This is kindergarten understanding of the Constitutional balance of powers. If the Rand Pauls, Marco Rubios, etc., are our teachers about democracy, it will only be as players in the game of jousting, which always proves to be such fun. As Tocqueville noticed back in the 1830s, democracy is a messy business, but its mistakes are retrievable. The exercise is invigorating; we just need to stay standing until the voices of reason can find their footing and pierce through the clamor.

The strident voices from the “right” are displaying a raw lack of understanding of what the word “democracy” means. According to the Constitution, the President answers to the people. Elections are mandates, and Obama explained in his Address how he felt strengthening the middle class was a strategy for economic recovery. As follow up, he then began making select public appearances, taking his ideas “to the people.”

The division of our country into red and blue pockets raises the same fears for the future of America’s great experiment in democracy as the divisive Adams/Jefferson election campaign of 1800 aroused. The hopes of the lowly and the triumphalism of the lofty will always be latent in a true democracy. This is what Senator Rubio does not understand.

Historical perspective can be a great comfort. American politics is in a fever right now, but a cold, damp cloth and some passage of time should have palliative effect. Out of the spotlight, in their retirement years, Adams and Jefferson restored their friendship and personal regard. The picture of Barack Obama and John Boehner doffing their hats to each other someday is no more surreal than the valid report that John Adams, on his death bed, expressed satisfaction that his friend Jefferson still lived. (Interestingly, Jefferson had died a few hours earlier the same day.)

Jefferson spoke for the ages twice: philosophically with the Declaration of Independence and pragmatically by running for President after the first twelve years of leadership by the “elite.” In the end it is not a question of which group is “right”—commoners or elitists—but how each makes a necessary contribution to the miraculous vitality of democracy-turned-loose. This is what Marco Rubio does not understand.

Democracy is everyone--all are equal; each is on par with any other. Government in America is the sound of people at work and play. The rich need (co-enable?) the poor. Through cleverness they may accumulate more goods, but someone else actually makes and consumes the goods. The less educated may not be employed so comfortably, but they put in as many, if not more, hours. Those favored with talent and connections still need a team of role players to stage them. In a democracy a few may star, but the strength of the performance gains energy from those who are exhilarated by the open prospects and mutual benefits of involvement in the success of the team projects.

Mud wrestling in politics is part of the democratic package. Oppositionism serves to give ballast to the democratic skiff. The two-layered undercurrent gives the boat its lift, but a jaundiced reading of the Constitution combined with a lack of appreciation for the dual base ingredients of true democracy makes for a scary ride.

Doug Good