By Michael LaForest
Is democracy a good idea? It may be, but I have some reservations about the way democracy plays out in American society and specifically in American politics. For now, let’s assume that democracy is a good idea, at least in theory, but we must also consider that the failings of American democracy are rooted in a bipartisan political arena, political ineptitude, corporate-controlled mass media, and a largely apathetic and/or ignorant population.
Entrenched Two-Party System
The primary problem with democracy is that a minority of citizens still control the agenda of our national, state, and/or local governments. This problem is the basis for all of the other failings of a democracy. If we take, for example, the current two-party system of government that comprises our federal and state governments, we don’t have to go back very far in history to get some very good illustrations of how the tyranny of the minority (Democrats or Republicans) can and will, if given the chance, enforce their myopic agenda on the whole of society.
The Bush White House is probably the most blatant example of self-righteous politics that I can think of in modern times. The paranoid, narrow-minded agenda that was unleashed on America between 2000 and 2006 eclipsed the McCarthy debacle. But I would be remiss in my essay if I didn’t also draw attention to the current state of our country that has been orchestrated by the Democratic Party. The Democrats currently control the White House, both houses in our federal and state legislatures, the Wisconsin Governor’s Mansion, and the Milwaukee and Madison mayoral seats. Yet, with all these “progressive” Democrats at the helm of every level of government, our country, our state, and our state’s two largest cities stand at the brink of economic catastrophe.
If democracy worked, one can assume that political leaders—currently in charge of directing, enforcing, and correcting every facet of our society—would, by virtue of their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution, repeal laws that don’t work, direct their subordinates to enforce existing laws that do work, and pass legislation in the best interest of the whole of society. But, the current state of democracy in America seems just the opposite.
Our American political infrastructure is entrenched in a two-party system, presumably because through the democratic process, a two-party political system is what the majority of Americans want. We can just as easily presume, too, that if a bipartisan, democratically-elected government really works, then all the pervasive and persistent problems we have would be corrected by the people elected to correct them. But the problems aren’t being corrected, and they seem to worsen every day.
I submit that the problems we have in this country are deeply rooted in our current two-party system. In fact, the problems are so deeply grounded in a bipartisan political arena that nothing short of a political paradigm shift will fix the fundamental problem that pervades every facet of American politics. That problem is our current election process. If we are ever going to fix all of America’s social, economic, and international problems, the only way that it will ever happen is if our federal, state, and local elections are reformed to the extent that third parties have an equal political field upon which to run their respective campaigns. Equal, that is, to the Republicans and Democrats.
As things are today, the Republican and Democratic parties have so much money and power at every level of our federal, state, and local governments, combined with a dedicated “team” following, that third-party candidates have almost no chance whatsoever of being elected. Additionally, each state has its own ballot access rules, which generally do an excellent job of keeping third-party candidates at bay.* One all-encompassing change that should be instituted on behalf of a more democratic American government is to standardize ballot access rules and procedures for every state. This would provide an avenue through which any person who wanted to be on any ballot for any position could do so with minimal obstruction.**
Entrenched Incumbents & Political Polarization
Wisconsin is no exception to the false ideal of a level political playing field. Having run three partisan campaigns, I can state with absolute conviction that the ballot access requirements give the incumbent an unfair advantage over all of their opponents and the two major parties hold an unfair advantage over every third-party candidate. The incumbent has the power of incumbency and with that, name recognition, and subsequently, DNC or GOP funding. Unless they are complete imbeciles, incumbents almost always get reelected. It is not uncommon to hear of an incumbent getting reelected even after they died or went to prison.
As long as incumbents continue to get reelected, they have no vested interest in change; in fact, they have an implicit mandate to continue doing exactly what they have been doing, since getting reelected is presumably evidence that they are doing exactly what their constituents want.
Democracy can set the stage for career politicians to populate the political landscape for generations. Here in Wisconsin, two of the longest serving politicians in American history have dominated the state and federal legislatures. They really should have left the political stage three decades ago, to let other civic-minded Wisconsin citizens test their political prowess. But just like the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans who get elected and reelected, they have maintained a strict vigil over their own personal political fiefdoms for generations for personal as well as partisan gain.
Who really benefits from having one person legislate for several decades? The real answer is nobody. Democracy is predicated on the premise that everybody has a voice in our government. When so many people maintain positions of power in our legislatures for so long, few people have an opportunity to lead our government. Our legislatures should change consistently to allow for new and fresh political perspectives that would allow for new and better legislation.
In fact, we don’t actually have a “democracy” in America. Our government is a constitutional republic. The difference is that the former mandates that all citizens have an actual voice in our government, while the latter gives way to a representative democracy. This would actually work if our congressional representatives actually listened to all of their constituents, rather than just the loud and obnoxious fringes—polarized zealots with individual and special-interest aspirations. Appeals to single-issue voter fundamentalists now dominate our political discourse. Democracy is very adept at polarizing the citizenry along “anti” lines, i.e. anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-gun, etc.
Voter Apathy & Incumbent Bias
Voting is the most powerful act we have in a true democracy but about half of Americans ignore, or worse yet, blatantly and deliberately forfeit, their right to vote. A vast number of Americans don’t vote, and most who do vote like it was a team sport or a civics exam for which they are relying on rote memorization to pass the test of how many incumbents they remember. Even though only about half of Americans who can vote actually do vote, we still had about 130 million voters cast ballots during the 2008 presidential election, which attracted significantly more interest that past presidential elections. Almost 57 percent of the voting-age population voted in 2008. Mid-term elections have fewer voters, but still a sizable number, hovering around 80 million. Only 37 percent of eligible voters voted in the 2006 mid-term.
When there are so many voters, individual votes are meaningless: Democracy dilutes the will of the individual, for the benefit of the whole and rightfully so. But a lot of people vote from a team perspective—like complacent lemmings. Straight-ticket voters want to win and will vote for their team just like they support their favorite football or baseball team. Living vicariously through a sports team is one thing, but voting for people who make incredibly important decisions based on what “team” they belong to is, to me, just plain stupid.
Ask yourself, “Do I really want anybody making decisions that directly affect my personal wellbeing, who is a coward, self-serving, or stupid?” Why then do we continue to elect and reelect people who make decisions that directly affect our personal and collective wellbeing who so obviously make those decisions based on what is either politically or financially advantageous for themselves or one of the two major political parties?
There are many rules and regulations that could govern a fair and equal electoral process, if those in positions of authority had the wherewithal and/or courage to implement them. But incumbents won’t change because in our system there is no reason for them to change. When a person gets elected to public office, regardless of how well meaning they might be, the first decision they tend to make is how to get reelected. The next decision is how to tow the party line. The next decision after that is how to keep their base happy and then, and only then, the last decision is how to satisfy the constituency. So go the priorities for every Democrat and Republican.
To me, the first priority for every elected official should be [italic] to make decisions that benefit the whole of their constituency regardless of how difficult those decisions are and whether or not they are good for their respective parties and whether or not they will get reelected.
Remedy in Reform, Action
We the people have to accept responsibility for our monumental governmental failures. The people elected by the citizenry are a direct reflection of the apathy and ignorance that define the general populace. If we want change to happen in our government—in our democracy—then, we have to change not only the people who are elected to our legislatures, but also the way we elect them.
I submit that one of the answers to correcting the glaring errors of our current democratic government is to institute Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) in every state and for every election. This isn’t perfect either, but at the very least it ensures that those people getting voted into office directly reflect the will of at least 51 percent of the people who vote. This would help to legitimize our democracy. My hypothesis is that IRV would encourage more voter participation as well, if people actually learned how it worked.
In our current “democracy” most people won’t lift a finger to educate themselves about the issues or candidates. Their only political education stems from who and what they see most on TV commercials.***
American democracy will not change until the people change it. And that will only happen if and when every American citizen starts exercising their constitutional right and responsibility to educate themselves about the candidates and issues, and then vote accordingly. Corporate media fear-mongering must stop and the gates to an equal, open, and honest political arena must open. Democracy can work for America, but only if Americans start working for and by the guiding principles of fairness and equality that define a true democratic nation.
Michael LaForest is a political novice who has campaigned for partisan office three times in Wisconsin and has been involved in third-party politics for over 20 years. He is running a write-in campaign for U.S. Senate and is a registered write-in candidate. He is a licensed counselor and works for a nonprofit program helping homeless veterans obtain permanent housing. He lives in Milwaukee with his partner, their foster children, and their little dog, Pinto.
Notes
*Keep in mind that the U.S. House of Representatives can circumvent any state election law and it doesn’t take much of an imagination to discern the real reasons that election laws seldom change. They don’t change unless they are advantageous for the Republicans or Democrats. This is most likely the only political ideology that the two major parties really agree on.
**Again, the U.S. House of Representatives has the authority to do this, but gives absolutely no consideration to this very simple democratic concept and instead consistently caves to the false notion that all Americans have the same opportunities to run for political office.
***This then leads to another failing of American democracy—the dumbing down of our population. There really is no incentive for Americans to learn who the candidates are or what the issues are, especially when the mass media force-feeds them with useless, political rhetoric on every channel for most of every hour of programming for months prior to any major election. Our democracy is nothing more or less than what corporate media institutions and powerful political parties want us to hear and believe.
*Keep in mind that the U.S. House of Representatives can circumvent any state election law and it doesn’t take much of an imagination to discern the real reasons that election laws seldom change. They don’t change unless they are advantageous for the Republicans or Democrats. This is most likely the only political ideology that the two major parties really agree on.
**Again, the U.S. House of Representatives has the authority to do this, but gives absolutely no consideration to this very simple democratic concept and instead consistently caves to the false notion that all Americans have the same opportunities to run for political office.
***This then leads to another failing of American democracy—the dumbing down of our population. There really is no incentive for Americans to learn who the candidates are or what the issues are, especially when the mass media force-feeds them with useless, political rhetoric on every channel for most of every hour of programming for months prior to any major election. Our democracy is nothing more or less than what corporate media institutions and powerful political parties want us to hear and believe.
No comments:
Post a Comment