Might 2009 be the start of the post-democracy era, complements of the current financial catastrophy?

Francis Fukayama, at one point, stated that the ‘end of history,’ that is to wit, the Great Questions of History have been answered, and that the consensus was that the best course for mankind was economic capitalism combined with a democratic government. There would be no more need for conflict; the case was closed in favor of modern Western values. The winning representation included human rights, free and fair elections, and free markets.

Then came 9-11, which left no doubt that conflict remains, and that the consensus was not so consensual. There are people who object to modern notions of economics and government, and some become violent.

Asia appears to be a case study establishing that democracy and capitalism do not need each other. Post-World War II Japan was democratic on paper, but a one-party state in reality. Singapore and South Korea followed appropriately. All three grew to be wealthy. President Lee, the previous leader of Singapore declared that personal freedoms, which we cherish as key to our democracy, will lead to the downfall of the US. Such independence unleashes individualism, which leads to decadence and instability. In the meantime ‘soft authoritarian’ countries on the Pacific Rim are showing off growing economies; their cost is personal freedom, which Confucian societies value less than conformity and stability. China is following the same lead as the other ‘tiger economies,’ and this formerly-communist economy is increasing its GDP faster than any other nation, while its currently communist government swats away the flies of dissent. This archetype says that government will offer a stable environment for business; people are liberated to do as they wish, within the limits of this ordered society, and everyone profits. Except perhaps artists, oddballs, wierdos, innovators, non-conformists, rebelling teenagers, and all others not in line with the grand scheme of things. And why endorse them, at the sacrifice of a growing prosperity?

So perhaps we are too liberated, and our depraved lifestyles will cost us our place atop the pecking order of nations. But the financial disaster of 2008-2009 brought about another likelihood: that the utter complexity of economic life in the modern world is in the process of making democracy as we know it obsolete.

When the effects of the largest financial crisis in ¾ of a century were becoming felt, who took the lead in addressing the issue? Not elected officials, but appointed bureaucrats. The Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, and the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, presented the national response, leading our representatives in Congress to at first hinder and then rubberstamp President Bush’s economic team’s strategy. Meanwhile, we regular citizens tried to grasp both the causes and the enormity of the situation. Seven-hundred billion tax dollars to embark on fixing this? Maybe a trillion-and-a-half when it is all over? To paraphrase the late Senator Dirksen, a trillion here and a trillion there and now we’re talking real money.

The Chinese grasp a political system run by unelected bureaucrats. That is not America’s expectation of government. But we have to deal with the complexities of re-regulating investment banks, controlling complex investment instruments, manipulating our $13 trillion economy, not to mention coordinating with central banks around the globe. It is plausible that the local politician we elected (anywhere in the US we may dwell) as our congressperson because he, or she, did such a great job on the school board is not up to this?

If truth be told, the elected leader of the executive branch had little visability at the forefront of the crisis, which contributed to the proclivity of the nation to elect the opposition political party to the presidency. What bold actions are in store from our new elected officials? Well, the new president brought in veteran bureaucrats to fill his economic team. Other essential changes? No. There is a stimulus plan, pretty much like the one pushed by President Bush, only bigger.

Is this abrogation of the policy limelight by elected officials in favor of insiders a good thing or a bad thing? If the central bankers believe it necessary to rescue big corporations, raise unemployment benefits, and create jobs, why should we raise any objections? If the interests of big business means the wellbeing of most of us, what is the problem? If we need rapid success, why put our trust in the slow, political process of democracy?

Maybe we shouldn’t worry about the rights of those on the political and social fringe, because our idea of the fringe has changed over time. In his book Supercapitalism, Robert Reich, who is more optimistic than I am about the state of democracy today, looked back at the ‘50s as the Golden Years, saying that America offered high-paying blue collar jobs, corporate statesmanship, and a government-industry-labor partnership that maintained stability and prosperity; he noted that the cost was a rigid and stifling conformity. Peter Beinart recently wrote in Time that “The public mood on economics today is a lot like the public mood on culture 40 years ago: Americans want government to impose law and order — to keep their 401(k)s from going down, to keep their health-care premiums from going up, to keep their jobs from going overseas…”

Maybe people need only the appearance of control over their own lives. We can debate personal rights, complain over the internet a military action we differ with, and decide local issues. Are we all set to leave the essence of national/global policy-making, the piece that controls how people earn a living, to the experts? That is how China does it and they are growing at 8% a year.