IF YOU RUN FOR SENATE, I DEMAND IMPECCABLE GRAMMAR FROM YOU : THE SENATE IS NO ARISTOCRACY

AN ESSAY

New York prepares for an extremely nasty Senate race. For the second time in a decade, an out-of-Stater has taken residence in New York in order to run for Federal office. Eleven years ago, Illinois-born Arkansasan Hillary Clinton bought a house in Westchester County so she could run for Senate. Now, Tennessee native Harold Ford, Jr. has moved to Manhattan in order to battle Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand for her Senate seat.

Technically, there is nothing wrong with out-of-State people moving to New York to run for Senate. It's not like everyone can run for Senate. After all, the American constitutional system is no democracy; as a practical matter, you need to be "part of the club" to run for Senate--the most hallowed clique in the United States. You can't be a plumber from Queens to run for Senate. You can't be a drug dealer or even a university professor with modest savings. No, you need to be in the political elite. You don't need to be an "elite person" from an ethical or moral perspective. You just need to be bred for the job. Generally, that means coming from an extremely wealthy, well-connected family. That's what "elite" means in American political discourse.

Harold Ford meets the criteria. He comes from money. He has served five terms in the United States House of Representatives as a Tennessee delegate. He has sufficient political and economic connections to qualify for Senate membership. In essence, he is "elite." He has the backing and pedigree to join the club.

But unlike Hillary Clinton, Harold Ford's political philosophy does not find an easy home in New York. New York is a famously liberal State. That is why few people had a problem with Hillary Clinton when she waltzed into Westchester to run for Senate. Her political views matched most New Yorkers' views. They elected her by a wide majority, even though some Republicans squawked about "carpetbagging." They thought New York offices should be for New Yorkers, not transplanted former First Ladies from Arkansas.

Harold Ford votes like a southern Republican. New Yorkers like to think that they are nothing like southern Republicans. Yet the same Republicans who complained about Hillary Clinton "carpetbagging" to New York in 2000 now say nothing about Mr. Tennessee.

Who is Harold Ford? New Yorkers should ask that question. They did not have to ask the same question about Hillary Clinton. She was a household name long before her election to the Senate. Everyone knew where she stood on major political issues. Most New Yorkers liked her long before she moved to New York. But what about Ford? Most New Yorkers know nothing about him. He's not even 40. He served ten years in the House. What's so special about that? Unlike Hillary Clinton, he is nothing close to an internationally-recognized celebrity politician.

Ford wrote a brief article yesterday in the New York Post to inform New Yorkers about his candidacy for the Senate. He struggled to deflect early Democratic criticism that he is a "right-wing nut" who opposes abortion and gun control. After all, according to the critics, New Yorkers strongly support both abortion rights and gun control; it would be anomalous if their Senator opposed these things.

I do not know what to think about Ford. I can only speculate based on experience and intuition. Applying my experience, I can say that most representatives from Tennessee would not have their jobs if they supported abortion rights or gun control. Folks from Tennessee don't care much for abortion, and they certainly don't tolerate no Yankees taking away their guns for no thang, no how. Despite Ford's contention that he supports both abortion rights and gun control, I have trouble believing that he could have won five terms in Tennessee with that position. I mean no disrespect to Tennessee when I say that the State is not known for its grand liberalism. That reputation informs my intuition about any politician who serves there.

I know the Civil War has been over for a long time. But former Confederate States are still former Confederate States. Some things survive the generations. Just talk to a drunk Southerner to find out what I mean.

Ford wrote in his article: "I am pro-choice--have always been since I entered politics almost 15 years ago." N.Y. Post, Ford: I'm gearing up for Senate race, Jan. 12, 2010 at 5. But immediately below his article, another blurb disclosed that in 2006 he said to MSNBC's Tucker Carlson: "I'm pro-life, Tucker…I don't run from that." N.Y. Post, Obama elects to stick with Gillibrand, Jan. 12, 2010 at 5.

In lawyer-talk, this is called "impeachment." You're the jury. You decide which statement you want to believe.

No matter what Harold Ford actually thinks about political issues, I insist that he write clear, grammatical English. If someone wants to join America's most elite legislative club, he or she had better know how to write well. Unfortunately, Ford's article reveals that he does not.

First, Ford does not grasp the magical rhetorical art of the semicolon. On terrorism, he says: "Defeating terror isn't a talking point in New York, (sic) it's a way of life." N.Y. Post, Ford: I'm gearing up for Senate Race, Jan. 12, 2010 at 5. Whenever two sentences can stand on their own and they depend on each other for rhetorical effect, commas do not suffice to connect them. Only a semicolon can achieve the desired impact. First-year law students learn this very quickly under pain of academic chastisement. Ford apparently never learned his grammar lesson. He proves it in the next paragraph when he writes: "Rebuilding an economy isn't an item on an issue checklist, (sic) it is what New York does--and must do." Id.

Oops. Same boo boo. Aren't Senators supposed to be rhetorical wizards? This guy doesn't even get his grammar right.

But Ford's grammatical woes do not end with semicolons. He also has a problem with run-on sentences. Try this one on for size: "And New Yorkers want an honest and serious debate about how to grow our economy, create new jobs downstate and upstate and keep New York state (sic) and our country safe." Id.

Whew! Talk about trying to cram too many ideas into a single breath. Let's try to unpack this linguistic crate: Ford thinks that New Yorkers want honest debate about the economy, jobs and safety. He also thinks they want serious debate on the same subjects. He further thinks New Yorkers want both "honest and serious" debate about those issues from an upstate/downstate perspective, not to mention a State/Federal perspective. That 's a lot of debate from a lot of perspectives. It took me a good four sentences to mention all the ideas he squeezed into one. Needless to say, you can't effectively communicate so many things in one line. Multiple adjectives and conjunctions do not make the reader's job any easier.

Some will inevitably label me petty for criticizing Ford's grammar. After all, we all make grammatical blunders from time to time. But I respond that anyone who wants to be a United States Senator must adhere to a higher linguistic standard. I could forgive a college freshman's incessant run-ons and semicolon misuse. But I can't forgive the same foibles in a man who wants to join America's most elite legislative club.

On the other hand, perhaps I demand too much. Ford fits the bill for membership in the Senate. He's wealthy, he comes from a political family, he has connections and he has powerful friends. He comes from the right social class to get in the door. Sadly, that's all you really need to hold high office in the United States. If you happen to be intelligent and eloquent, that's great; but it's not required. In this sense, we see once again that America is neither a democracy nor an aristocracy.

In the original constitutional understanding, the Senate was supposed to be America's "aristocrats' club." It was supposed to comprise the "excellent" people from across the land. Yet as Ford's case shows, Senators need not be intellectually "excellent." They need only fit the property and pedigree requirements for membership. Quality is irrelevant.

I wish quality were more relevant in American government. The word "aristocracy" has a dirty meaning in American discourse because Americans allegedly believe that everyone is equal. They also associate "aristocracy" with the arrogant British nobility that led the colonies to revolt from England.

But in the Aristotelean sense, it is no insult to call someone an "aristocrat." To the contrary, it is the best thing a politician can be. A true "aristocrat" is a person with naturally excellent moral, intellectual and ethical characteristics. Aristocracy implies inequality; not everyone can be "excellent." Yet this is not a bad thing, because it is only prudent that "naturally excellent, unselfish" people rule the State.

Ford's case shows that American Senators are not aristocrats. They are oligarchs. Oligarchy means rule by a few, irrespective of personal excellence. To be a Senator, you don't need to be excellent. You just need to be part of the "few" who are eligible for the job. In that sense, it is incorrect to call Senators "aristocrats." If they were truly aristocrats, there would never be any scandal, corruption or acrimony in the Senate. But a quick glance at congressional history reveals that scandal is the rule, not the exception.

Instead, we have an oligarchy. Oligarchs don't need to be excellent. Far from it: They don't even need to know how to use semicolons.

DEMOCRACY : AN AMERICAN MYTH

AN ESSAY

Americans learn to revere the word "democracy." In public school, they learn that the American government is "democratic." They take pride in "democracy" because "democracy" is a "free" form of government that is "better" than other governments. After all, when students learn about the American Revolution, they inevitably hear that our Framers established a "democracy." And "democracy" is "better" than the unjust "monarchy" that led them to revolt. Applying these indoctrinated ideals, Americans claim that they never believe in "family distinctions," "aristocracy" or other "elitism" based on inherited titles.

I venture that this is all nonsense. The United States is not--and certainly never was--a democracy. And Americans believe in aristocracy far more than they like to publicly admit: The truth is that both democracy and equality are American myths.

I first doubted the rhetoric about American democracy when I read history books about ancient Greece. In those books, I learned that pure "democracy" imposed no limitation on a person's participation in government. Every voice was equal. Everyone could vote and every decision required majority approval by all. There was no "representative body" that made decisions "in the people's name." No, in pure democracy, the people rule--literally. Everyone has an equal say in policy, from the richest landowner to the lowliest beggar.

Democracy sounds like a wonderful idea. After all, don't we all want to be equal to one another? Should we not all have an equal right to decide on important public questions? Isn't it somehow reassuring to know that the government works for you, and that you have a real chance to influence it? Of course it sounds great. Democracy is idealistic. It lends itself to myths. And like all myths, it does not really exist.

Lately, I've been re-reading Aristotle's Politics. As the world's first real political scientist, he presaged almost every significant political debate that came after him. By categorizing governmental forms, he created the vocabulary of modern political discussion. And Aristotle's text gives me immense support for my contention that the United States is no democracy--not even close. Rather, the United States is an oligarchy.

In criticizing Plato's Laws, Aristotle makes some cogent observations about voting. Americans learn that "democracy" is all about voting. They learn that "going to the polls" proves that "everybody means something" in our political system. There is a theme in American voting rhetoric about equality and dignity. Because we all can supposedly vote, that makes us all equally powerful and worthy. But Aristotle says: "The practice of selection by lot from a number chosen by election is common to both oligarchy and democracy; but to impose upon the richer citizens, and upon them only, the obligation to be members of the Assembly, to vote for office-bearers and do any other duty that falls upon a citizen--that is oligarchical." The Politics, Book II, ch. vi, § 1266a5.

In early America, only white men with sufficient landholdings could vote for representatives. In other words, the "obligation to be members of the Assembly" and "vote for office-bearers" fell solely upon the "richer citizens." Women, slaves and the vast majority of white men had no say whatsoever in government. They could not even go to the polls. Although voting restrictions have certainly diminished over time, it is still no easy thing to vote in the United States. State laws impose numerous handicaps on citizens' right to vote. And in a good year, we're lucky if 50% of the eligible voters actually show up to cast their ballots. Other State laws completely disable people from voting. For example, if you commit a felony--even a relatively minor one, like writing a bad check--you might lose the right to vote for the rest of your life.

In this light, America has historically been far more "oligarchical" than "democratic." If this were a true democracy, everyone would have been able to actively participate in government from the outset. We know this is not the case. Americans have never actively participated in their government. Rather, they elect "particularly distinguished people" from "particular social strata" to rule for them. This, too, is oligarchical. Think about where the Representatives and Senators come from. They are all generally wealthy, white and well-educated. They do not represent a fair cross-section of American society. If anything, they resemble the "richer citizens" Aristotle mentions in The Politics. Just look at Congress. These are not typical Americans: They are 535 people who are far more powerful and wealthy than the people who elected them. And for over a century in this country, they were exclusively landed white males.

Aristotle provides further support for the conclusion that the United States has been--and in many ways, still is--an oligarchy. Concerning oligarchy, he writes: "So also is the attempt to secure that a majority of the office-holders should come from among the wealthy, and that highest offices should be filled by those from the highest property-classes." The Politics, Book II, ch. vi § 1266a5.

What a striking insight. It is as if Aristotle predicted what the United States government would look like 2000 years later. Think about the "majority of the office-holders" in American government. What social class do they represent? You guessed it: They largely come from the "highest property-classes," or at least act like they do. Even President Obama made quite a bit of money as a lawyer and law professor before diving into politics. The fact that there are only two political parties reinforces the oligarchical nature of American government. Unlike European parliamentary systems, Americans have only two choices: Liberal rich guy #1 (the Democrat) or Conservative rich guy #2 (the Republican). There are no "Greens," "Socialists," "Labor Men," "Women for Animals' Rights" or "Christian Theologues." In the American system, every "high office holder" is basically the same: A wealthy believer in free market capitalism who owns significant amounts of property. That is oligarchy.

In the final analysis, it is clear that people from the "highest property-classes" run the American government. They always have, and they always will. Let's just be honest about our terminology: This is an oligarchy, not a democracy. It is simply false to call our system a "democracy," no matter how many people can technically vote. Despite this, it works in the government's favor to identify itself as a "democracy." After all, "democracy" has a magical ring to it. It conjures all kinds of hopeful ideals. It also fools the people into believing that they actually have a say in policy. History shows that people revolt when they feel they are powerless. But when they think their government actually speaks for them, they refrain from revolution. In that sense, calling America a "democracy" maintains social control, even if it is untrue. Calling America a "democracy" keeps things quiet. And that's just how oligarchs like it: It lets them continue to hold all the power.

Oligarchy proceeds on the premise that only a few hold political power. It implies inequality. Democracy, on the other hand, proceeds on the premise that everyone holds political power. It implies equality. Yet a quick look at inequalities in the American political system beginning in 1787 reveals just how absurd it is to call the United States a "democracy." And a quick look at the "kind of people" who have held high office in the United States over the years--Presidents, Senators, Supreme Court justices--merely confirms Aristotle's analysis: These guys (well, almost all guys) all came from the "highest property-classes."

In this light, it is simply disingenuous to delude our children into thinking that they live in a democracy. If they do not come from "high property-classes," they stand a much lower chance to ever influence government. That does not mean that they cannot rise into a "high property-class." It simply means that they must first obtain wealth before even thinking about politics. After all, it wouldn't be an oligarchy if poor folks suddenly held all the high government jobs.

In truth, no country can ever be fully democratic. Could a country in good faith entrust its most pressing concerns to half-fed beggars, idiots and wage laborers? Certainly not. It is reasonable to put political power into "competent" hands. And generally the wealthy are those most competent to administer the State. I simply believe we must be honest in the way we think about our government. That means dropping all aspirations to "equality" and "dignity." The sad fact is that perfect equality is a very bad idea when it comes to government. It would be better if we simply acknowledged that and stopped perpetuating myths that "everyone is equal" in American society. That is not the goal, nor can it ever be. Yet even the oligarchs in power circulate meaningless rhetoric about democratic opportunity and equality for all in America.

We are oligarchs; why not just admit it? Let's at least stop lying to our children about democracy.