It has become very fashionable in the U.S. in recent years to criticize capitalism as an economic system - the endemic greed and self-interest. I think such criticism can be useful to a certain degree, as a counterbalance to the many folks on the right who have held capitalism so sacrosanct that NONE of its weaknesses or abuses can even be acknowledged, much less addressed.
I say let's hear the criticism. It will help keep capitalism's excesses in check.
I've been wondering lately, though, with all the harsh judgment of capitalism as an economic system, why democracy as a governing system gets a free pass - on both sides of the aisle. Why is capitalism fair game for condemnation while democracy seems entirely off limits?
Why in the world do we seem to believe that if you can get a big enough group of people to agree on something that they will always necessarily come to a conclusion which is good and right and just?
Even more curious is this: how is this high regard for democracy maintained when the common current perception for most people on any given controversial topic is that half the population is misinformed, stupid and/or evil?
It is good to keep in mind that democracy has been defined as "two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch" (but not by Benjamin Franklin, as the internet would have it).
Just like with capitalism, I am not saying there's a better option than democracy, just that we should not pretend like it's infallible.
Good point. I think Winston Churchill who said it's the worst form of government in the world...with the exception of all the others.
ReplyDelete