Samuel P. Huntington\'s Democratic Distemper

Democratic Distemper, Samuel P. Huntington offers a deft and in-depth analysis of American political culture. The crux of Huntington's argument is that the 1960s witnessed a "dramatic upsurge of democratic fervor in America," that this upsurge has led to the titular "distemper." Political distemper has in turn created a series of unfortunate paradoxes that are creating ineffective social, political, and economic institutions. One of those paradoxes is that increased political protest against government (such as the anti-war efforts during the Vietnam era) has ironically led to a more emboldened federal budget, greater bureaucracy, and more excessive governmental expenditures. The second paradox is that in spite of a "bigger government," the executive office of the presidency has been weakened to the extent that the country no longer boasts a strong political leader.

Although the bulk of Huntington's argument is objective and descriptive in tone, the author does insinuate by the end of the essay that greater participation in whatever forms of direct democracy exist in America is detrimental to the overall health of the union. The forms of direct democracy that American citizens have access to are beyond the ballot box, and include association with political action groups, civil rights organizations, and various other special interest groups. Participation in these groups is what Huntington calls "democracy," as opposed to actually participating in the political process by voting. Americans have become disillusioned by their government, and are divesting power from the executive toward more plebian authorities.

Huntington's perspective, although astute and well argued, can be criticized on several key points, the most notable of which is his seeming sympathy for elitism, oligarchy, and possibly also plutocracy. The author seems to believe that left unchecked by the masses, that a strong government will be benevolent and effective. Huntington also uses terms like "equality" with a suspicious sort of disdain, as he develops an argument that ultimately blames the civil rights movement for the ills of America. It would be crucial to ask Huntington what he felt women, African-Americans, and gays should have done, besides take to the streets. Would he have preferred Martin Luther King to write a conciliatory letter from the Birmingham jail, apologizing for "distempering" the democracy? Huntington also alarmingly supports the draft, even after the disastrous war in Vietnam.

In response to a liberal critique, Huntington would have difficulty responding reasonably to the notion that direct democracy in the form of political protest is the only means by which meaningful structural changes can be made. When sexism and racism are institutionalized, the only way to create a more perfect union is to weaken the culprit institutions. Special interest groups might have too much power at times, but they also give a voice to those who would otherwise never be heard by an elite power structure in Washington.