James Fenimore Cooper was America’s first literary star, known not just throughout America (small as it may have been, comparatively) but also throughout the world. Before he died in 1851, he would write about 32 novels (depending on how you count). But he also wrote nonfiction, including, in the 1830s, a book called “The American Democrat.” It is not as well-known as another book about American democracy, written in the same period by a French traveler, but it is worthy and interesting all the same, and has much to say to us today.
This book is the subject of a piece of mine on the homepage: here. The American Democrat, say I, is “like a textbook or primer — an America 101.” I further say the following:
About The American Democrat, you and I could talk and argue for hours. There is something to praise, or condemn, or question, or quote, on every page.
True. In my piece, I touch on a number of issues, but, here on the Corner, I would like to touch on one more. You may be amused.
In a chapter called “On Station,” Cooper writes,
They who have reasoned ignorantly, or who have aimed at effecting their personal ends by flattering the popular feeling, have boldly affirmed that “one man is as good as another;” a maxim that is true in neither nature, revealed morals, nor political theory.
Huh. The man may have been a best-selling novelist, but, in The American Democrat, he is the farthest thing from an ingratiator.
Cooper continues,
That one man is not as good as another in natural qualities, is proved on the testimony of our senses. One man is stronger than another; he is handsomer, taller, swifter, wiser, or braver, than all his fellows. In short, the physical and moral qualities are unequally distributed, and, as a necessary consequence, in none of them, can one man be justly said to be as good as another.
Well, JFC (James Fenimore Cooper) was one great American. Let me quote another — Aunt Eller, from Oklahoma!: “I don’t say I’m no better than anybody else, but I’ll be danged if I ain’t just as good!”
Back to Cooper:
The absolute moral and physical equality that are inferred by the maxim, that “one man is as good as another,” would at once do away with the elections, since a lottery would be both simpler, easier and cheaper than the present mode of selecting representatives. Men, in such a case, would draw lots for office, as they are now drawn for juries. Choice supposes a preference, and preference inequality of merit, or of fitness.
Did you happen to see this piece in the New York Times? It was published last month, and I quoted it in a column. The piece is by Adam Grant, a professor at the Wharton School. Interesting. His piece is headed “The Worst People Run for Office. It’s Time for a Better Way.”
Says Grant, “. . . if we want public office to have integrity, we might be better off eliminating elections altogether.” Huh. He goes on to say,
If you think that sounds anti-democratic, think again. The ancient Greeks invented democracy, and in Athens many government officials were selected through sortition — a random lottery from a pool of candidates. In the United States, we already use a version of a lottery to select jurors. What if we did the same with mayors, governors, legislators, justices and even presidents?
More from Professor Grant:
A lottery would also improve our odds of avoiding the worst candidates in the first place. When it comes to character, our elected officials aren’t exactly crushing it. To paraphrase William F. Buckley Jr., I’d rather be governed by the first 535 people in the phone book. That’s because the people most drawn to power are usually the least fit to wield it.
I myself am not ready for a lottery — by a long shot. But the arguments and ideas are interesting, just for mental exercise.
By the way, when you were a kid, or a youth, did you read “The Lottery,” Shirley Jackson’s famous short story? Creeped the hell out of me (to use slang that would come later).