Hooks v. Zinn in the Matter of the State of Democracy in America
This is not a Critical Analysis of the “famous” debates on Democracy, carried on over the years between the two great American Thinkers-Howard Zinn & Sidney Hooks. It is a Summary of their “back and forth” posted here for those Citizens who may not be aware of their stimulating views on America.
Howard Zinn is noteworthy for his progressive views and perhaps even his relationship with my boy Noam Chomsky, still, he makes some powerful arguments that are in the main very critical of the state of our Democracy….and in my opinion are right on.
Although I am an unabashed Progressive, I have to hand it to Sidney Hooks. His argument against Zinn’s notion that the current state of our Democracy is in deep shite is very good on a point-point basis and must be considered.
I’ll post my summary of the argument between these American’s and let you decide who is right!
“How Democratic Is America?”
By Howard Zinn
with Sidney Hook’s Counter Arguments
A Summary
By Mike Ryan
Howard Zinn’s article, “How Democratic Is America?” has as its core point the idea that American government in the form of a representative democracy is in fact, not Democratic. Representative government, according to Zinn, may be closer to democracy than a monarchy, but as it is currently practiced, falls far short of the ideal of democracy. Zinn’s maintains this contention throughout his piece and offers 10 criteria to support his argument.
Zinn begins with three clarifying preliminary statements. Firstly, he defines democracy not conclusively but operationally. Secondly, he proposes to state the 10 criteria to be used for measuring the “how” in the question, “How Democratic is America?” And finally, Zinn feels it is necessary to issue a warning about the sources of bias that likely distort our judgments.
Zinn’s first preliminary statement is meant to clarify and to define democracy for his use. He stresses the notion or idea that democracy is a: “country that is representative in government, has universal suffrage, a Bill of Rights, and party competition for office” (Notes, 149). Zinn feels this definition will make the “how” question easier to answer.
The author spends a good deal of his argument laying out a 10 point set of criteria or qualities that he uses to gauge the efficacy of our current political culture. Each of these points is in effect questions: just how equal are we and to what extent do we truly enjoy liberty and freedom?
For this summary, I will not list all 10 criteria points in detail, but will give a brief description of a few of the more “representative” ones.
Zinn’s 10 Criteria:
The first two points of Zinn’s list, decision-making and access to information can be termed procedural. The next six points are substantive, dealing with the consequences of such procedures on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. His 9th point shows how the money motive in society corrupts both the procedures and their consequences. And finally, the 10th point which focuses on the necessity of Civil Disobedience.
Zinn’s criteria points 1 through 6 deal directly with the degree of equality as he sees it practiced in American democracy. Zinn begins by asking: to what extent can the people in the society participate in the decisions that affect their lives? How much access to information, do they really have if they need to make important decisions? As to specific examples of equality, Zinn asks: is there truly equality before the law? Is there equality in the distribution of available resources, e.g. economic equality? Are members of society equally protected on matters of life and death? And finally, the author asks if there is equal access to education, knowledge and training.
Points 7 through 10, question the level of freedom American citizens actually have. He asks: is there freedom of expression on all matters? Is there freedom for individuals in their private life and to what extent are regulations minimized to allow for the maximum cooperation in effect, liberty. And point 10: to what extent do citizens have the opportunity to protest, to disobey the laws as in civil disobedience?
Zinn’s replies to each of these questions or are in the main, negative.
The author answers his first point on the level of participation in decisions, thus: “that no representative can adequately represent another’s needs: the representative tends to become a member of a special elite; he has privileges which weakens his sense of concern at others grievances; the passions of the troubled lose force…. as they are filtered through the representative system” (Notes, 152).
Next, Zinn talks about the limitations of the voting system in the United States. Citing from Robert Dahl’s work, A Preface to Democratic Theory, Zinn makes the claim that political activity at least in United States, is associated to a large extent with variables such as income, socioeconomic status and education. He goes on to say that even if democracy were to be superficially defined as “majority rule,” the United States would not fulfill that. Quoting Dahl, Zinn remarks, “It is important to notice how little a national election tells us about the preferences of the majority. Strictly speaking, while an election reveals the first purposes of some citizens among the candidates standing for office” (Notes, 153). Furthermore, Zinn cites examples of low voter turnout: less than 50% for national elections and around 40% for state and local elections. He continues, again from Dahl: “Dahl tells us the election process is one of, ‘two fundamental methods of social control, which, operating together, make governmental leaders so responsive to non-leaders that the distinction between democracy and dictatorship still makes sense’” (Notes,153).
Zinn argues in his 2nd point, access to information, that although adequate information for the electorate is a precondition for any kind of action, he believes that the public is not particularly well-informed about the issues of the day and maintains the popular notion that people are basically lied to by their government regarding foreign-policy and many other issues in which the people cannot make an informed decision because their information is based on lies.
Zinn in his 3rd point, equal protection, targets the draft and the inequities therein which seemingly target the poor and the uneducated. He feels that the draft violates the principle of equal protection, in fact, if not in spirit, because it compels young people to sacrifice their lives for any cause which the leaders of government deem just.
Zinn’s 4th criteria, equality before the law asks a simple question: “is there equality before the law?” Every stage of the judicial process, facing a policeman, appearing in court, being freed on bond, being sentenced by the judge, the poor persons treated worse than the rich, black treated worse than the white, the politically or personally odd character is treated worse than the Orthodox.
In the 5th and 6th criteria, distribution of resources and access to education, respectively, Zinn maintains that Americans do not indeed have economic equality and educational resources in our society and are not equitably distributed.
Criteria 7 and 8, freedom of expression and freedom for individuality, respectively, Zinn makes the argument that the common man does not have the same voice or the resources to be heard as someone say who owns a television station or several television stations. It follows then, that the common man in the street will not be heard. As for freedom for individuality, Zinn makes the basic claim that there are literally hundreds of laws from state to state and some joined by federal laws, which in his opinion over-regulate the personal lives of the people in this country. Furthermore, he believes that laws and court decisions protect lawmakers who seek to peer into private conduct.
In point number 9, the spirit of cooperation, the author believes that as long as there is a drive for money and power with apparently no ceiling on either, (in other words competition gone mad), there can be no cooperation and no understanding. Zinn states: “if there is one crucial cause and the failure of American democracy — not the only one, of course, but a fundamental one — it is the drive for corporate profit, and the overwhelming influence of money in every aspect of our daily lives” (Notes, 160).
The last point, number 10, the opportunity to protest, Zinn maintains that it is the right of citizens to break the impasse of legal and cultural structure through civil disobedience which he believes is an essential safeguard even in a successful society.
Next we will take a look at the counter argument offered by Sidney Hooks to Howard Zinn’s arguably negative view of the state of the American democracy.
A Response to Howard Zinn
By Sidney Hooks.
Sidney Hooks in his response to Howard Zinn, immediately takes issue with Zinn’s apparently unacceptable redefining of ordinary terms, the use of these terms in an unusual context, and the use of these new terms to justify his arguments, also Hooks points to the error that Zinn makes when defining democracy as a process instead of a product; democracy as a free society with democracy as a good society. Hooks makes the claim that one of the reasons that we choose to live in a democracy is the core belief that it is possible to create a better society. Once again to Hooks, democracy is a process.
Hooks also points to another error that Zinn makes while attempting to measure the democracy against an ideal without first defining a standard. From Hooks: “His [Zinn] criteria admittedly are neither necessary nor sufficient for determining the presence of democracy since he himself admits that they are applicable to societies that are not democratic” (Notes, 164).
Hooks maintains that the equality which is relevant to democracy as a political process is, in a first instance, political equality with respect to the rights of citizenship. Theoretically, Hooks continues, a politically democratic community could vote, wisely or unwisely (for that matter), to abolish, retain, or establish certain economic inequalities. Hooks is making the claim against Zinn’s contention that there is no true equality in democracy by noting that people could vote essentially to change perceived inequalities underscoring the contention that a democracy is a political process.
Next, Hooks targets Zinn’s use of historical comparison as a criteria to determine the nature or extent of current Democratic equality. Hooks seemingly dismisses Zinn’s argument with a simple question: “is there more access today for more people than yesterday and how can we increase the access tomorrow” (Notes, 165). The author here makes several comparisons himself as a counter-argument noting that one could look at Russia of 1910, with progress they made in 1985 and pointing to their post Stalin progress away from the Gulag: just as Americans could point to 1939 to show how far they had come solving the problems of economic equality.
Taking exception with Zinn’s claim that “representation is by its very nature undemocratic,” Hooks makes the claim that by the very definition of our democracy, that is, the citizens elect officials and representatives to represent them in their government to claim otherwise is contradictory. Also in response to Zinn’s claim that representatives constitute an elite class and may not reflect the interests of the common man, Hooks points out that it is by the very mechanism that the majority rules, the so-called elite class would exist. Interestingly enough, Hooks does concede that: “the existence of representative assemblies makes democracy difficult, but not impossible” (Notes, 168).
Arguing that Mr. Zinn is essentially a proponent of anarchy with his belief that the majority never has an authority a minority is making a critical error by fundamentally confusing the meaning or definition of democracy. And as justification, Hooks restates the accepted definition: the democratic political system governs by the freely given consent of the majority of the adults governed, (popular sovereignty).
Referring to Zinn’s 2nd point, Hooks seemingly accedes to Zinn’s assertion that it is of paramount importance that citizens have equal and free access to information. This freedom of access to information is a necessary condition for citizen’s to be able to judge what is in their best interest. Hooks offers no counter argument to this and makes no supportive claim that citizens do not always have access to quality information, i.e. truthful information. He does state that Zinn is perhaps confused when making seemingly contradictory claims that on the one hand: “the American political process is not democratic because the electorate hasn’t got enough information…It is also undemocratic because it receives too much information” (Notes, 171). Hooks then asks if it would be better if the government somehow controlled the press so that the citizen would get the right amount of information or restrict propaganda entirely…a tactic used by totalitarian regimes.
Again observing that Zinn is mistaking the procedural process with substantive issues, Hooks answer to Zinn’s question, “how democratic is America,” is “Not democratic enough,” however this is not evidence of the failure of the democratic process, but merely a case of Zinn “abusing language.”
(This point of difference on language does appear to be the fulcrum that Hooks consistently uses to dismiss Zinn’s claims throughout his article).
Hooks continues to target Zinn’s so-called “exaggerations.” American public opinion today is marked by a greater scope and sense of dissent than any other time history, despite Zinn’s claim that the media is controlled by the corporate monoliths adding that it is the voices of the people that carry more weight in the political process than Wall Street.
Addressing Zinn’s point about equal distribution of the right of freedom of expression, Hooks argues that there are those that will have more access to media outlets and may at times even dominate the “conversation” but this fact alone does not guarantee the quality of the message; in essence the better message will reach more people.
As to the issue of equality, Hooks maintains that the meaning of equality is in its moral context if not actual “natural” equality: “Its philosophy does not presuppose that all citizens are physically or intellectually equal or that all are equally gifted…It holds that all are morally equal” (Notes, 172).
Hooks makes a distinction between equal access to education and services and receiving the same type of education and services; a distinction and a difference from Zinn’s claim that all citizens be treated equally.
Interestingly, Hooks argues that democracy is better off if fewer people live in poverty, however does add the proviso that reducing poverty can be achieved by rigorous application of the current democratic process and even makes the claim that: “Political democracy can exist without a welfare state, but it is stronger and better with it” (Notes, 174).
Regarding, civil disobedience as a right in democracy, Hooks also seemingly agrees with Zinn but makes the distinction as to what can be considered proper forms of protest where the danger comes from the escalation of dissent and threats of violence to actual rebellion which ultimately backfires and will not cause real social reform. To Hooks, “violence is more likely to produce reaction than reform” (Notes, 176).
Finally, Hooks address the issue of global intervention by a democracy that in his view is necessary and warranted when threatened by totalitarian regimes. He also takes exception with Hooks’ rendition of the conflict in Grenada citing his own sources that supports the government’s claim that Communist terrorists had indeed invaded and the island was to be used as a base of operations.
Works Cited:
Eskandari, M.M. Notes on American Government. 2nd edition. Iowa: Kendall/Hunt, 2004.
