Democracy: Confusion and Agreement

• Published date: 01 September 1951
• Author: Willmoore Kendall,Austin Ranney
• Date: 01 September 1951
• DOI: 10.1177/106591295100400303
• Subject Matter: Articles

430

DEMOCRACY:

CONFUSION

AND

AGREEMENT

AUSTIN

RANNEY

University

of Illinois

and

WILLMOORE

KENDALL

Yale

University

There

must

be

as

many

different

kinds

of

democracy

in

this

country

as

there

are

of

Baptists,

or

even

more....

Press-agencies

must

keep

half

a

hun-

dred

assorted

encomiums

on

democracy

in

standing

type,

like

Western

Union’s

canned

messages

for

Mother’s

Day....

Every

time

one

of

our

first-string

publicists

opens

his

mouth,

a

"democracy"

falls

out;

and

every

time

he

shuts

it,

he

bites

one

in

two

that

was

trying

to

get

out.

1

OST

Americans

&dquo;believe

in&dquo;

democracy.

We

can

pay

a

social

institution

we

like

no

higher

compliment

than

to

call

it

&dquo;demo-

cratic.&dquo;

We

can

cast

upon

an

attitude

or

an

institution

we

dislike

no

greater

slur

than

to

brand

it

&dquo;undemocratic.&dquo;

This

must

not,

however,

be

mistaken

for

proof

of

democracy’s

triumph

in

the

United

States.

We

Americans

do

not

even

have

a

clearly

understood

and

generally

accepted

conception

of

what

democracy

is.

Our

apparent

agreement

upon

the de-

sirability

of

&dquo;democracy&dquo;

must

therefore

be

set

over

against

our

con-

siderable

disagreement

about

what

the

word

means.

As

Carl

Becker

wrote,

democracy

has

become

&dquo;a

kind

of

conceptual

Gladstone

bag

which,

with

a

little

manipulation,

can

be

made

to

accommodate

almost

any

collection

of

social

facts

we

may

wish

to

carry

about

in

it.&dquo;

2

To

take

just

one

example:

Almost

everyone

who

writes

about

our

economic

system

seems

to

agree

that

it,

no

less

than

our

political

sys-

tem,

should

be

&dquo;democratic.&dquo;

Men

like

Eric

Johnston

and

Edwin

G.

Nourse,

however,

understand

by

the

phrase

&dquo;democratic

economic

sys-

tem&dquo;

one

in

which

there

is

a

minimum

of

government

planning

and

government

interference

with

private

industry.

Men

like

Upton

Sinclair

and

Frederick

L.

Schuman,

by

contrast,

equate

&dquo;democracy&dquo;

in

the

econ-

omy

with

large-scale

government

ownership

and

operation

of

the

basic

industries.3

Thus

here

are

four

writers

who

say

(and

we

have

no

reason

to

doubt

their

sincerity)

they

believe

in

a

&dquo;democratic&dquo;

economic

system.

But

this

does

not

prevent

them

from

holding

sharply

divergent

positions

about

the

kind

of

economic

system

we

ought

to

have,

nor

(because

so

1

Albert

Jay

Nock,

"What

is

Democracy?"

American

Mercury,

Vol.

XLI

(January,

1939),

p.

85.

2

Modern

Democracy

(New

Haven:

Yale

University

Press,

1941),

p.

4.

3

Cf.

Eric

Johnston,

"America

Unlimited,"

Vital

Speeches,

Vol.

IX

(June

15,

1943),

pp.

521-525;

Edwin

G.

Nourse,

"Democracy

as

a

Principle

of

Business,"

Yale

Review,

Vol.

XXXI

(March,

1942),

pp.

454-475;

Upton

Sinclair,

"America’s

False

Democracy,"

American

Mercury,

Vol.

XLIV

(June,

1938),

pp.

208-210;

and

Frederick

L.

Schuman,

"Designs

for

Democracy,"

Current

History,

Vol.

IX

(December,

1945),

pp.

497-502.