A “president of hope” has been elected, returning us (and himself) to the high road. The sense of hope is palpable approaching these first days. I’m told of big smiles and friendly hellos in the stores, in the cabs, on the streets of Manhattan. Once-disaffected liberal friends tell of glimpsing Old Glory and feeling really proud for the first time. We celebrate a victory for democracy shown by long lines at the voting booths and new voter turnouts. Testimonials abound of the new day before us.
That such  electoral “victories”— such electoral spectacles—are not also recognized for the tragedies they are shows how low true democracy has fallen in our eyes. (Did any candidate offer a democratic policy, a plan to increase the People’s self-government and the accountability of their public servants? Is that what greater political “transparency” brings—a window to look in on how we are being ruled?)
 On Election Day 2008, 51 percent of voting citizens strove mightily to win the privilege to have their preferences imposed on 49 percent of their fellow Americans, and make them pay for the service as well, despite their opposition to it. That’s the exciting, “affirmative” ritual we excitedly conspire in every four years as a nation. That is the tyranny that passes for “democratic process,” providing us “a more perfect union,” as some commented on the upshot of election night. That is what “coming together” now means in America.
Remember, my liberal friends, how it has felt to live under neo-con and President George W. Bush’s rule? The torture of it? This is the lovely experience you and your comrades are now inflicting on your fellow Americans. Think not? Listen to conservative radio. And why? Because “their side” is a couple of percentage points less numerous at polling stations. Call that mutual consent? Democratic self-determination? Your democratic sensibilities are happy with that?
Perhaps this democratic nightmare, masked as triumph, is what comes of thinking that having a say is democracy. It’s not. Being heeded is democracy, not spouting opinions, not having a fighting chance to be heeded or dismissed. Government—of, by, and for the people—means all the people. Or are conservatives now, like liberals were, not really people, but just “fascists” or “loonies?”
Having the right to shout, then being shouted down, isn’t democracy. Alternating each decade between one side excluding the other, then vice versa, is not “democracy.” It’s not the way a democratic society “unites to stand,” in mutually respecting, voluntary cooperation.
Proportional representation of the social will—the social wills—gets much closer. Its election results would be reported in degrees of red-white and blue (that’s red-white-black and blue, with Latino, Asian, and ever other diversity thrown in).  “The people have spoken. U.S. policy will now shift four percent left of extreme right.” That’s the democratic outcome of a 53 percent to 46 percent shift, from a 49 percent to 51 percent split last time. And the chief advocate or champion of the majority platform will be chief administrator.
Notice that this could render national disgraces like the Obama-McCain rivalry minor. The champions of each rival faction would both win, in effect, because both their platforms would be put into effect. One would merely “dominate” the other only slightly.  Actually, they wouldn’t win, we could. Democracy depends much more on the “what” of policy—what the social will wills, conveying our interests and aims—than on the “who” that carries it out. In fact, it’s the policy platforms we should vote on each four years and ongoingly. Their chief administrator is a side matter. The president is a CEO after all, a mere chief executive servant of the people.
A true bright spot of the election was not that so many new and young voters participated in becoming co-tyrants toward the vast minority of their American comrades. It was that they cared. They care about democracy; they care about influencing how society runs, and how our too-influential society impacts the world. And they’re willing to work hard to better that influence. Hopefully their participation in the political system will not blind them to the reality that democracy is a social process and form of organization, not a political one. The government is there to protect, secure, administer for democracy, not constitute it. (Or so the U.S. Constitution says, right up front.)
The government administers and carries out our democratic will, the social will—that’s it. Government can do no more since it is undemocratic by nature. It is a police mechanism that enforces law and regulation and the collection of hefty fees for its aggressive services. (“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”—George Washington) A mechanism of coercion can not constitute a system of voluntary cooperation.
Obama promised, “I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation … And to Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president, too.” This is the brightest spot of the election. This is democracy talking. May these words know actions.
He asked Americans not to return to partisan affiliations and animosities, terming these “immaturity.” What a perfect and aptly condescending word. “Hypocritical immaturity” would have been even “more perfect,” as Americans say. E pluribus unum means recognizing the merits of each other’s competing viewpoints and interests—thus, being merely liberal or conservative means being wrong. E pluribus unum means not being selective (discriminative, exclusionary) about who constitutes a true or Pro-American.
 Bill Puka
Professor of Cognitive Science
