Democratic deficit depends on your line of sight

Why do we embrace democracy? Americans got behind it because they didn't want a regime controlled by the clergy or monarchy. But a counter-offensive wasn't sufficient. Progress requires conviction in positive concepts, something real and deliverable, not Jeffersonian ironies regarding self-evident truth and inalienable human rights. Like the rest of us, America has been pursuing its dreams of liberty, justice and happiness on the deluded proviso the supporting system would eventually bring them to fruition.

Instead of disabusing the nation of its two-hundred-year obsession with go-all-the-way politics, the President succumbed to the political power of the Washington Star Chamber he promised to make self-deprecating. Rather than elevating the political discourse from juvenile they're-worse-than-me narratives, Obama pandered to his polarised base with the fatuous "you didn't build that" meme and a commitment to save Big Bird.

Thus the lies, strife and disunity go on.

In secular society, diversity of opinion and free speech are cherished liberties – provided they don't blaspheme received orthodoxy relating to the welfare state, religious pluralism, sexual preference or unfettered immigration. Dim-witted conservatives are ridiculed for being social Darwinists, hateful and intolerant of Muslims and gays, while the likes of Bittman, honest and informed, are lionised as crusaders of truth and justice.

Of course, remote, angry Republicans are equally culpable, clinging to their guns and religion, bending the truth in the service of any agenda. But there's one vital difference, the quality that allows them to excuse their arrogance and ruthlessness. Self-centeredness is at least on the right side of the either-or choice. Something worth defending at any cost, including life itself.

In the absence of a courageous Democratic president, the right, somewhat ironically, becomes a much-need buffer preventing morally and intellectually confused liberals from using democracy to subjugate personal responsibility.

After the Aurora shootings in July, Mitt Romney claimed "changing the heart of the American people may well be what's essential", not introducing new gun laws. The New York Times slammedthe Republican nominee for not providing "a clue on how he plans to reach that heart", while other self-regarding experts mocked it as nonsense and a "word salad", a random syntax designed to give the impression of meaningfulness.

It would seem it's too much to expect smug political journalists to appreciate the unconditional and metaphysical goal towards which democracy tends. The society we all long for is one that has faith in its individuals to see the blinding good sense of working together, rather than resorting to the machine and its grand plans to reform the human heart.

The real disappointment is knowing that Barack Obama does get it. He is unique, the embodiment of personal triumph, the closest thing to evidence of the dream becoming real, Americans can expect.

I suppose we'll now just have to wait and see if the window has closed.