Politesse and politics are two sides of the same coin: how we all get along.
So it’s not surprising that the last two weeks have been dominated by a story of politesse. We’ve been talking about whether or not a Latina can enrich the juridical system. But this is politesse – a way of getting around the more provocative question that we dare not ask.
The real question on the tip of everyone’s tongue is pointed in a different direction. Are White Anglo-Saxon Protestants and/or their subsidiaries the only ones who can enrich the juridical system?
(If you’re wondering what the “crazy uncle” of the lot, the one who lacks tact, is saying, here’s Pat Buchanan’s answer: White men built this country.)
The patriotic answer to this question, the underlying debate, is “no.” WASPs are just one of the ingredients in the all-American apple pie. They’re very tasty, for sure, but you can’t make an apple pie out of just apples. (For the record, apple pie is an exotic dish: “In the English colonies the apple pie had to wait for carefully planted pips, brought in barrels across the Atlantic, to become fruit-bearing apple trees.”)
In a democracy, the more voices are heard, the freer the republic. This is true at every level: the juridical, legislative, bureaucratic, theological, commercial, artistic etc.
(There are so many examples, but I’ll choose just one: the recently elected controller of the City of Los Angeles did a very good think to leak the cost of the MJ funeral to the press. This is why we need diversity in every office and a wide array of pulpits, etc.)
Diversity is not easy to manage. (Neither is liberty, duh.) We surely don’t want a sclerotic parliamentary system like that of Italy, which, frozen, lends favor to a craven strongman like Berlusconi.
but we also don’t have to be a one-party state to survive. that’s just silly. and any one who advances this claim, however politely or indirectly, is willfully ignorant of our nation’s history. we were founded, quite simply, to provide equal representation to citizens with diverging points of view – titles, religious beliefs, assets, etc.
some might argue (or imply, indirectly) that the wealthy, because they pay higher taxes, should have greater representation (see WASP and subsidiaries above). perhaps, they should also have more advocates and thus more rights in our courts? how about guaranteed seats at the front of bus?
alas, the public space is not for sale. we’ve abolished the sale of votes and our legal system stipulates a jury of peers – not lords. remember our most basic credo: all men are created equal. no matter how pure the silver spoon in their mouths.
speaking pragmatically, the richest have the most to gain from a thriving democracy. the 19th century oligarchs came to understand this the hard way. it’s a lesson that was lost on some of their heirs.
or, perhaps, these heirs and their would-be vassals mistook the history of contemporary Latin America, with its banana republics, stratified societies and democraduras, as a road map for the future. god help them. but not in my country.