The Undemocratic Ideal

Reading Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational has gotten me thinking about popular opinion of the role of government in relation to social norms. Ariely advances the position that the government may have some power or responsibility to create or uphold social norms because social norms are are essential to personal happiness and welfare and are endangered by being replaced by market norms.

My own opinion on the matter aside, this strikes me as antithetical to democracy. In a democracy, the role of government is to reflect the will of the people--that is, to reflect the social norms. An attempt in a democracy to shape cultural norms means that the will of a minority is being exercised. (If it were the will of the majority, it would already be the prevailing norm.) Yet, it is an attractive and inspiring position: a lot of good might be created by manipulating social norms to promote helping, for example.

Democracy, of course, is a deeply-rooted American value. It is spoken of with reverance by politicians on the right and the left, and it is honored in civics classrooms.

Given this, I wonder what percentages of people would agree with each of the following two statements:

1. A government has a responsibility to enact the will of its people;
2. A government has a responsibility to promote social norms that will benefit its people.

And what percentage of people would agree with both statements? After all, the former represents government of the people and by the people. The latter is government for the people.

Which do you agree with? Or am I wrong about the antithetical nature of these statements?