Given the low esteem which Americans in general seem to have of politicians (most recent polling data suggests an approval rating of ~27%), it is tempting to jump on the bandwagon and bash politicians, and I will certainly do that.
However, it is more appropriate to expand the topic to include not only politicians, but also political parties and political institutions, for all of these are partially responsible for the death of democracy in America.
The current hot topic in the media involves a lot of babble about the “tone” of political discourse in America. Although I agree that the lack of even the most basic civility among politicians is deplorable, I am much more concerned about the lack of “substance” in politics today.
As discussed in the chapters on Media and Lobbying, political discussion is controlled and shaped almost exclusively by corporate media and managed by lobbies and PAC’s. Politicians, as a rule, do not speak for themselves anymore, but are guided at every step by “political strategists”. Typical of the advise given by these strategists is that of Frank Luntz
and his “11 for 11”, the 11 most powerful words and phrases for 2011. These phrases are completely devoid of substance, and appeal only and exclusively to the emotional and irrational in voters.
When politicians are interviewed one always detects a palpable fear that they might say anything for which they might be held accountable. For example, in a number of interviews of Rep. John Boehner after the GOP won the 2010 midterm elections, he was asked for examples of specific programs he would cut or eliminate, after having campaigned on the need to dramatically gut the federal budget for the prior two years. In both cases his response was “nothing specific comes to mind”.
The impression is also pervasive that politicians will completely reverse their “convictions” and policies, if advised to do so by their ever-present political strategists and by their interpretation of current polling results. For example, as the 2012 presidential campaign gets into gear and Republicans are positioning themselves, Mitt Romney, a successful and respected former governor of Massachusetts, is disavowing his own state-level health care reform policies, which during the previous presidential campaign he had offered as a model for federal health care reform.
I have always been amazed at how former politicians, when interviewed after leaving office, actually sound like intelligent human beings. They then feel free to make substantive statements which contain specific (and often quite reasonable and useful) policy proposals. While active in politics, however, politicians of all political persuasions will generally restrict themselves to uttering political slogans and platitudes.
In a recent CNN special by Fareed Zakaria
(“Restoring the American Dream: Getting back to #1”), the following exchange was very much on point:
ZAKARIA: The economist Dambisa Moyo says for the country to get back to number one, politicians in Washington need to stop worrying about -- number one -- themselves and their reelection, and look long-term.
MOYO: My perspective is that governments and policymakers are very rational. And they are basically myopic. And that -- by that I mean, they're driven by political cycles. And political cycles, by their very nature, in the United States every two years if you include midterms, force or encourage or even reward policymakers for focusing on short-term factors, what we would call tactical short-term factors.
Things like debts and deficits which are important, they absolutely are. But a lot of what I'm talking about, these things about capital investment, labor investments and education and investing in innovative technologies are things that are, many would argue, intractable longer term issues that need to be dealt with.
Things like debts and deficits which are important, they absolutely are. But a lot of what I'm talking about, these things about capital investment, labor investments and education and investing in innovative technologies are things that are, many would argue, intractable longer term issues that need to be dealt with.
Given that today’s politicians hide behind their advisors, strategists and image makers (even when in office between elections, as they are already positioning themselves for the next election) it is virtually impossible for the public, the electorate, to determine what their convictions are and what their policies might be. One can merely determine the useless right/left, liberal/conservative positions because of all the tired, worn-out and meaningless political clichés they all spout.
To be fair, there are a number of active politicians who can mostly be relied upon to speak honestly and consistently and express their true convictions and policy proposals. Barney Frank, Democrat from New York, is one of the Representatives that I always enjoy listening to. I’m sure if I tried really hard I could come up with someone on the Republican side also. But for the most part Ms. Mayo’s assessment (and she is certainly not alone in that regard) that politicians are caught up in a two-year election cycle, focusing on “tactical short-term factors”, with no interest or incentive to discuss long term issues.
This leads into the larger issues of America’s political institutions and political parties.
In an excellent short and concise summary of the American political institutions by L. Sandy Maisel
, he describes the effects of the Constitution, its interpretation and modifications (via Amendments) on elections at all levels, political parties and their role in implementing democracy in America.
Although most of us assume that the way we elect or government today, and the role of political parties in that process, has been fixed since the beginning of the Republic, and indeed is anchored in the Constitution, in fact this process as evolved dramatically over time. This steady evolution of our electoral process and the two-party system should tell us that, although not a simple matter, it is certainly possible to contemplate changes, should that be desirable, or even vital, for the survival of democracy in America.
There are certain elements which indeed are embedded in the Constitution, most importantly the separation of powers into three distinct branches. Especially the separation of legislative (Congress) and administrative (President) branches, and the explicit specification of the length of terms for members of Congress and President, has a very profound effect on elections, political parties and politicians, most importantly that a “parliamentary” system is not possible in America.
One could make a plausible argument that a parliamentary form of government offers advantages over the US presidential system. For example, in the rapidly changing world we live in today, if the electorate becomes dissatisfied with the programs and policies of their “government”, early elections can be forced via a vote of “no-confidence”, thus allowing a different combination of political parties to take over and quickly change directions. In the US, however, such a change in direction can at best be implemented within the two-year cycle, and then only partially, depending on whose term is up at that time.
Note that under “normal” circumstances parliamentary election cycles are quite long; in the UK for example, new elections must be held within five years of the last one; in Germany that period is four years. To be sure there are some parliamentary systems, such as Italy, which suffers from political instability due to rapidly changing governments, but today these are the exception rather than the rule.
Although, as Dahl points out (see Chapter 2), frequent elections are an integral requirement for a well functioning representative democracy, this two year election cycle leads to very short-range tactical thinking and policies, and does not seem to be able to successfully solve America’s multitude of long range structural problems. Furthermore, Maiser points to additional negative side effects, such as voter exhaustion and apathy, leading to very low (in comparison to most other democracies) participation rates.
We generally think of our democracy as facilitating majority rule, that is, the people we elect are supposedly a reflection of what the majority of citizens want. This, however, is far from the truth, as highlighted by Maisel.
- The creation of the Electoral College reflected a deep seated distrust among the founding fathers of pure democracy, and an elitist attitude which feared that the “uneducated masses” could be roused to allow a despot or dictator to assume the role of President. This has led to a number of presidents being elected who did not receive the majority of votes, most recently the Resident George W. Bush.
- Senators until relatively recently (1913, Seventeenth Amendment) were not popularly elected, but rather appointed by the various State legislatures. The fact that each state was given two Senators, regardless of size, was a compromise between the small and the large states, one of the most persistent sticking points during the formulation of the Constitution.
- Even though, after long and hard battles, we have “universal suffrage” today (every citizen 18 or older has the right to vote), the fact that a simple plurality (most of the votes, not necessarily more than half), determines the winner of elections of Senators and Representatives, further amplifies the fact that often times our political representatives do not reflect the majority.
- The low voter turnout typical of American elections further exacerbates this “minority rule”.
- Finally, although universal suffrage is the law of the land, data shows that the people who actually do go to the polls are heavily skewed towards the better off and better educated, as well as the “white” (non-minority) populations.
The huge cost of elections today contributes enormously to skewing the electoral process to corporate interests (who finance the elections) and/or to a small elite of the very wealthy who can and do use their own resources to win (not to say buy) elections. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, of the newcomers in the new (2010) Congress, 60 percent in the Senate and 40 percent in the House are worth $1 million or more, whereas only about 1 percent of the total population are millionaires.
Finally, the Supreme Court rulings regarding the 2000 Florida recounts and the striking down of campaign finance restrictions call into question the separation of powers mandated by the Constitution. The impression is very strong that the Florida ruling was driven by the political leanings of the majority of the Court. And who can deny that the campaign finance ruling has a huge influence on the electoral process in favor of special interest control of that process.
Taken together, all of the above combine to effectively put a relatively small privileged minority in charge of who governs this country, far from the egalitarian one-person-one-vote “democratic” ideals. Whether by design or accident, this actually reflects the deeply elitist attitudes of most of the founding fathers.
In addition to the basic mechanisms of how we elect our government, the way in which the Senate has and is choosing to organize itself is increasingly un-democratic. There are many voices who decry the virtual paralysis of the Senate as a legislative body and the effective 60 vote requirement to pass any legislation. Add to that the archaic rules that a single Senator can torpedo any legislation without cause, and you have an institution which defies common sense definitions of democracy.
The electoral process and institutions described above are in many ways determined by explicit element of the Constitution and subsequent Amendments; although these can be modified by further Amendments, as they have in the past, that process is not a simple one. Political parties, on the other hand, are not a defined component of the American Constitutional system. The political parties which exist today have evolved over time and have taken on a life of their own, but there is nothing in the Constitution to mandate their existence or to define or constrain their activities.
Sidney Milkis
describes how political parties initially formed as decentralized political associations, often initiated by presidential candidates, that engaged the attention of ordinary citizens and held presidents accountable to local constituencies. But as the power of the presidency and the federal government grew, parties shifted their attention from building political support in the states and localities to vying for control over national administration and, in the process, lost their vital connection to the electorate.
There are two features of the American electoral process which favor, if not mandate, a two-party system: winner-take-all presidential selection and single-seat congressional districts with plurality voting. Furthermore, the two dominant political parties have taken additional steps to reenforce their dominance. For example, presidential debates are controlled and organized by “bi-partisan” committees, rather than “non-partisan” ones.
Political parties today, meaning the Republican and Democratic Parties, are large and powerful self-sustaining organizations, which use the “power of the purse string” (money) to control who runs for political office. No longer do candidates for political office evolve from discussion about issues, as they engage the general public, and highlight a “natural” leader, but political candidates are selected by the party leaderships primarily for reasons of “electability” in a party’s effort to maintain and increase its political power. “Issues” and “the public” good” take a back seat to this unrestrained desire for political power.
Although “third parties” have at times played a role in American politics, sometimes colourful, sometimes significant in raising evolving issues, no third party candidate has been elect President in the past 100 years. Some Senators and state and local positions have been elected from third parties, but no Representative has been elected who did not run under the banner of one of the two major parties.
The two-party system restricts the diversity of issues and possible solutions which will be discussed in an election to those which the two parties choose, which may be, and often are, very different for the issues which actually face the country and should be discussed. Although, in their effort to attract the independent or undecided voters, the major parties will sometimes include other issues in their official “planks”, they are free to ignore these issues, depending on what their “strategists” and “campaign advisors” recommend.
In presidential elections, the political parties use a system of “primaries” and “caucuses” to identify “electable” (which is very different from “competent”) presidential candidates. In this process two small states, Iowa and New Hampshire, have a hugely disproportionate impact on this selection process, primarily because they are first and are subject to huge media attention, which gives the winning candidates tremendous advantages in the money-raising circus.
The electorate’s disenchantment with the two major political parties is also evidenced by the fact that between 35-40% of the electorate (according to Gallup) consider themselves “Independents”. In this climate political parties have an incentive to court this large reservoir of “undecided” voters. This is euphemistically called “moving to the center”, but in practice this means trying to “capture” voters by obfuscating the substantive issues and “motivating” voters with emotional, slogan-based and often negative, misleading or outright false campaigning (among the more disgusting examples of this are the “Swift Boat” ads against Senator Kerry).
All of these individual elements combine to make American democracy very “undemocratic”:
- The electoral process, as defined by the the Constitution and as it has evolved, strongly favors rule by a privileged minority, both in terms of who participates in the voting process and who runs for political office.
- The stranglehold which the two major parties have on the process of who runs for political office and how the campaigns are financed and managed, constrains both the candidates who participate and the issues which are aired during campaigns.
Rather than use my (limited) experience with electoral processes and political parties in other countries, I will take the liberty of quoting from the final chapter, “Far from the perfect democracy”, of the previously cited book by Maisal. There he highlights issues which are worthy of being addressed in order to make democracy in America “more perfect”.
Level of Participation
- Registration Laws: Should registration laws be relaxed or abolished to encourage greater participation?
- Frequency of elections: Should all elections, national, state and local, be held on one day, once per year?
- Election day: Should election day be made into a holiday or moved to a weekend?
- Voting as an obligation, not a right: Should voting be made into a civic obligation, as in many other democracies?
- How to count votes: Should there be a requirement for a runoff elections among the two top candidates to ensure true majority rule?
The presidential nominating and election process
- Level of influence of Iowa and New Hampshire: Should there be a single national primary to give everyone equal influence in the candidate selection process?
- Front-loading of the process: The current primary process favors those candidates who have existing organizations, have name recognition, and campaign well on a one-on-one basis, and not necessarily those who have a good grasp of issues and proven ability to lead.
- Qualifications for governing: see above.
- Electoral College: Should this be replaced by direct popular election of the president?
The cost of democracy
- Political campaigns cost too much, primarily because of their strong reliance on paid campaign ads: What limits can be applied without violating “free speech”?
- Who gives money to campaigns: Should money be allowed to buy undemocratic influence over the electoral process?
- Disclosure: Is there an appropriate tradeoff between disclosing campaign contributions and violating peoples’ privacy?
- Regulating campaigns: What are the limits of “free speech” when it involves misleading and even false campaign ads?
Conclusions:
The major points I hope the reader will take way from this chapter are:
- The American democratic institutions are, even in the best of times, skewed heavily towards a privileged minority, both in terms of the electorate and the politicians vying for office. This is undemocratic at best, and becomes deadly for a democracy when this privileged class (traditionally the middle class) shrinks dramatically in size, as it has over the past 30 years.
- The two-party system tends to constrain the breadth and depth of political discussion, which is anti-democratic and counter-productive to actually solving problems.
- The huge cost of the electoral process and the unconstrained nature in which money can flow into and control this process further accentuates the unequal influence of the privileged few at the expense of “We the people”.
- The degree to which the Judiciary as assumed a direct (Florida 2010) and indirect (campaign finance) role in this electoral process calls into question the separation of powers so central to the Constitution.
Footnotes:
(32) see Huffington Post, March 1, 2011; The 11 Words for 2011, by Frank Luntz
(34) L. Sandy Maisel, American Political Parties and Elections, Oxford University Press, 2007
(35) Sidney Milkis, Political Parties and Constitutional Government, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment