This is my own response to my previous opinion piece, A Simple Choice.
Of course, there is not another choice in this election, other than getting out and voting. It seems that voter apathy is the real determinate of who wins. There are several factors driving voter apathy:
If both parties had platforms to lead governments at all levels to become more efficient, more responsive, and less expensive, then both parties might find that they can find some common ground for programs that grow the economy, cost less, be responsive to business and the public, and provide robust social services. And with growth in a cooperative spirit, everyone will have time and energy to tackle the really big issues such as climate change. Seems that growth in a cooperative spirit is needed in all countries. How can this happen? Perhaps while we ask our politicians to start talking with and listening to each other, everyone else should also work at finding a way to talk with and listen to each other. I don't have any real answers but I believe this is key. I heard about an experiment where a dozen Democrats and an equal number of Republicans agreed to the following experiment. The researchers questioned each individual privately about their beliefs, especially what they thought about Republicans and Democrats. Then, they all got together and sat in two concentric circles. They flipped a coin as which group would go into the inner circle first. The other group sat in a larger circle around them and were instructed to listen only. Then the inner circle group were asked to describe the life experiences that lead them to have the beliefs they have. They were asked to focus on their life experiences, not their beliefs. After everyone had their turn, they switched inner and outer circles. Finally, they sat in one big circle with alternating Democrat Republican Democrat Republican etc. and were asked to talk with one another. The researchers found that virtually everyone moderated their view of the others and that they were able to talk about various political issues and find at least some common areas of agreement. Perhaps a movement of small groups around the country listening to and sharing life experiences in this format would help us relearn the skill of talking with each other in a civil manner.
0 Comments
Americans actually have a simple choice. Sadly, this simple choice gets lost with the focus on personalities - much of which is not civil rhetoric.
Choice #1 - Republicans They stand for a capitalist free market with much less regulation. History shows us that this approach does create winners (the American dream), but it also creates many more losers. Republicans believe that lower taxes for corporations and the wealthy will help create a strong economy which will benefit all. Wealth inequality is the highest in modern history. They also want less government support for the losers. They believe that if they create a strong economy, people can fend for themselves. This includes people buying their own medical insurance. History also shows that less regulation results in more environmental damage. In one term during the Trump administration, the Republicans rolled back more than 100 environmental rules. Climate change is rapidly becoming an existential threat to humanity. Choice #2 - Democrats They stand for a capitalist free market with some regulation. They believe in reasonable support for those struggling the most. Wealth inequality should be less than it is now. This means that there could be higher taxes for wealthy individuals and corporations, and lower taxes for the average American. There should be fewer losers. Then everyone can contribute to the economy, and the economy will be even stronger. The Democrats are working to protect the environment and lessen the existential threat of climate change - for Americans and all of humanity. The choice: Republicans - winners take all philosophy Democrats - we can all win philosophy See my next blog for further discussion on this subject. https://thoughtsbyjuliansale.weebly.com/blog/american-election-8-nov-22-another-choice We are witnessing the slow (and sometimes not so slow) disintegration of American democracy. Indeed, there is an erosion of democracy all around the world.
First some background. The United States is a constitutional federal republic, in which the President (the head of state and head of government), Congress, and Judiciary share powers reserved to the national government, and the federal government shares sovereignty with the state governments. There are two chambers of Congress - the Senate and the House of Representatives. Since the civil war, there have been only two parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party (referred to as the GOP - Grand Old Party). The Democratic Party has a philosophy of modern liberalism blending notions of civil liberty and social equality with support for a mixed economy (a blend of a market economy and a planned economy). The Republican Party's 21st-century ideology is American conservatism, which incorporates both social conservatism (focus on traditional values and beliefs) and fiscal conservatism (fiscal responsibility with an ideological basis in capitalism, individualism, and limited government). The GOP supports lower taxes, free-market capitalism, restrictions on immigration, increased military spending, gun rights, restrictions on abortion, deregulation, and restrictions on labor unions. This system is unique among democracies of the world. For this system to work, the President and the two parties must negotiate and compromise to reach a consensus. This process worked quite well for at least 225 years since Independence on 4 July 1776. This process has totally broken down. Today, there are no meaningful negotiations and no meaningful compromises. It is "us" against "them" and what's good for the public is entirely lost. To compound these issues, the Judiciary has become politicized. The role of the Supreme Court is not to make law but to interpret laws relative to the constitution. Some justices interpret the law applying literal wording of the constitution and some apply some degree of intent. But as we have seen recently, these interpretations can be conjured according to political ideologies. Recent rulings limit the Federal government's ability to make laws and this is aligned with Republican ideology of limited government. Today, the majority of the Supreme Court judiciary unabashedly support the Republican Party. This gives individual States incredible power, and as we have seen, they can pass very restrictive abortion laws (when a significant majority of the American public supports some level of legal abortion), and alarmingly, they can pass voter suppression laws to suit their purposes. So how did we get to where we are today? For the past 20 years or so, public confidence in government has dropped significantly from about 60% in 2001 to a low of 17% in 2019. Since then, it has recovered a bit to the low 20's%. Still historically low confidence in government. And why is that? One contributing factor is an appallingly poor understanding by the public of how government works. But even more significant is the public's visceral feeling that something is wrong. It is this feeling that Trump tapped into so successfully. The more radical elements on the right and the left and many others are correct. Something is wrong. "Big money" now controls politics in the USA. This is especially true since 2014 when the Supreme Court ruled that corporate funding of independent election ads could not be limited under the First Amendment. Big money now controls much of what happens and what does not happen in US politics. This is described in startling detail in Jane Mayer's book, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right. The other key factor impacting public distrust of big government (big anything for that matter) is the rise of the Internet and social media. Compounding this issue was governments' and big business's inability or unwillingness to limit or control the spread of untruths and hate. Freedom of speech laws, especially in the USA and to some degree in many other countries did not anticipate the Internet. Now a small number of more radical players can disproportionately influence the public. The Senate consists of 100 members, two from each state. The US continues to become less rural as people migrate to large urban centres. The 10 least populated states are largely rural states and rural states historically vote Republican. There is no guarantee that all these states will vote for all Republican Senators but the majority do. A clear advantage the Republicans want to protect at all costs. These 10 states account for 2.5 % of the US population but still get 20 senators or 20% of all senators. Whereas the 10 most populated states account for 50% of the population and they too get 20 Senators. U.S. Senate representation is deeply undemocratic — and cannot be changed without a fundamental change in the constitution requiring 2/3 majority vote, which will never happen in today's environment. For more info on how undemocratic the US Senate is, check the following articles.: https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2021/02/u-s-senate-representation-is-deeply-undemocratic-and-cannot-be-changed/ and https://www.vox.com/2020/11/6/21550979/senate-malapportionment-20-million-democrats-republicans-supreme-courtwww.vox.com/2020/11/6/21550979/senate-malapportionment-20-million-democrats-republicans-supreme-court The Republican House of Representatives benefit from Gerrymandering In representative democracies, Gerrymandering refers to political manipulation of electoral district boundaries with the intent of creating undue advantage for a party, group, or socio-economic class within the constituency. In 2019, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Courts cannot stop partisan gerrymandering. Another blow to democracy. Yet another key factor that has arisen in the USA and around the world is the distrust of science. Once again, there is an appalling lack of understand about how science works. The rise of anti-vaxxers is the most dramatic example of that today. People are dying and governments are racking up billions in debt to no small degree because of this distrust in science. And the USA always seems to be the epicentre of this distrust. In Jan 2022, the US Supreme Court blocked the Biden administration’s mandate, which compelled companies with more than 100 employees to require their workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or tested regularly. The anti-vaxxers interpreted that as vindication of their anti-vax position. The politicized court is not helping democracy. Finally, technology is changing the world at an exponential rate. And people are frightened. The European Union, Australia, and others, even China, are trying to rein in Big Tech. However, the USA with its very capitalist and "survival of the fittest" mindset, not so much. This is adding to the "distrust" malaise in the USA. Today, there are concerning tends all of which threaten democracy:
The USA has always been the most individualistic society in the world - me comes before we. Don't get me wrong. Historically the USA has been the most generous nation on earth. Interestingly, recent historical works are showing that that generosity was not always altruistic. Political and capitalist gain often drove it. The capitalist system is by far the greatest engine for ingenuity and growth the world has known. And no country has pushed capitalism more than the USA. But capitalism is inherently "extractive and predatory" and while Americans love the idea of the American Dream that anyone can become fabulously successful and wealthy, they are starting to realize the "extractive and predatory" nature of capitalism. For example, the majority of Americans want government to do more about climate change - the result, in part, of poorly regulated capitalism. Even here however, the divide is evident. Twice as many Democrats support climate change action vs Republicans. The disfunction of government and the right-wing bias of the courts is hampering the kind of action that is required. Counter to intuition, the fear and stress of climate disasters is further deteriorating democracy. The US has been the economic and military leader in the world for a long time. The growth of China, India, and someday maybe even Africa threatens that leadership. Ironically, the US has educated many of the engineers and scientists that are now leading these other countries who will eventually surpass the US. The US has not come to grips with that reality. And that fear will push the US to become even more authoritarian and less democratic. Steve Bannon and many like him want to "Deconstruct the Administrative State" in order to build a new state with less regulation and more emphasis on unrestricted capitalism. There are many forces pushing the US to become less democratic. Currently, many predict that the Democrats will lose both the Senate and the House of Representatives in the upcoming mid-term elections in Nov. What amazes me is that few seem to realize that the "house of democracy is on fire". Either that, or they just don't know what to do about it. The old adage "The Voter Is Always Right" is no longer true, or Why Democracy is in Trouble ...7/20/2019 In the past, it was said that "the voter is always right". Indeed, until fairly recently, even when elections produced surprising results, a logical explanation could always be found. Indeed, there did appear to be a deeper wisdom in the collective vote.
That is no longer the case and as a result, democracies all around the world are in trouble. Why is that? We think of democracy as dating back to the ancient Greeks but modern democracy where everyone has a vote is barely 100 years old. Over that 100 years, the number and type of "Influencers" who determine how people decide to vote has changed dramatically. "Influencers" are people, organizations, or information sources that impact your voting decisions. In 1900, the large majority of the population lived in rural communities and their literacy rates were significantly lower than today so their "influencers" were local and limited. This did not change much until after WWII when there was a prolonged economic boom. Increasing access to education (primary and secondary), newspapers, radio, TV, plus work and social groups in urban communities broadened the "influencers". With all this increased access to information and opinions, one might expect that voter decision making would become less of an emotional response it had typically been in the past, to a somewhat more reasoned response. Until the end of the 20th century, there did indeed appear to be a deeper wisdom in the collective vote, however, evidence suggests that voting was still largely an emotional affair. By the beginning of the 21st century, things started to change dramatically. In the year 2000, less than 50% of households in many advanced democracies had access to computers and the Internet. Facebook was not founded until 2004, the year that Google went public. Today with widespread access to computers, smartphones, the Internet and social media, things have changed dramatically. The number of "Influencers" on your voting decision making has gone up exponentially, "Influencers" are no longer local and limited, they are now global and extensive. Interestingly, at a time when we need voters to use more reason and intellect, there is little evidence they are doing so. In fact, voter decisions are even more "emotionally based" than ever before. And as we have also seen, an Influencer can now be someone from another country, even a non-democratic country. There are many reasons democracy is faltering, "emotionally based" voting being just one, albeit a very important reason. Another issue is that many voters, perhaps the majority of voters, do not really understand how democracy works. Democratic governments have a Legislative Branch which makes the laws, an Executive Branch which implements the laws, and an independent Judiciary Branch which is tasked with judging people based on the laws written by the Legislative branch, and the Constitution. Behind all this is a bureaucratic machinery which does the work. Individual elected representatives as part of the Legislative Branch sit on various working committees and communicate with their constituents. This is a much simplified description but provides the essence of a modern democracy. Running a country with a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars, even trillions of dollars, is a very complex endeavor. To make changes to current laws or introduce new laws takes an enormous amount of work, including, in many cases, mandatory consultations with the public and outside experts. Also new or changed laws have to comply with a whole host of existing regulatory requirements (environmental, etc) and of course the constitution. Then things can get challenged in the courts, as we saw recently with the Trans Mountain Pipeline where the Supreme Court ruled that the consultation process with Native Canadians was not sufficiently rigorous. The net result is that things do not get done quickly. Many voters are expressing frustration at how long it takes to get things done, in part because they do not understand how democracy works. Also, the bipartisan nature of politics today does not help in getting things done in a timely manner. Democracy has worked in the past because parties have found effective ways of achieving sort of consensus. Perhaps one can understand the appeal of a strong charismatic "populist" leader who promises to cut through all the crap and get things done. For many, the more radical, the better. Of course, a dictator has much greater ability to cut through the crap and get things done. But that is not a democracy where individual freedoms are protected and individuals have some say in what gets done and how it gets done. Here in Ontario, Canada, we currently see the result of a government determined to ram through it's agenda with little or no outside consultation, and it seems that the voter does not like being left out of the democratic process after all. For sure, governments need to find ways of becoming much more efficient in running a democracy. But the voter also has a huge responsibility to become better educated on how government works and, perhaps even more importantly, to learn how to make rational sense of all the Influencers they are exposed to. A starting point would be a required educational course for prospective politicians ie: you cannot run for office without taking this course. Also required would be "civics" courses for the public, not just students in the educational systems but everyone. Educate both the voter and the politician. If we find that such education still does not work, then even more dramatic solutions will have to be considered. One possibility is that before every election, all voters have to take an exam on their understanding of the political system and current issues. This would include an assessment of where they get their information and the reliability of that information. Then the score they get on this exam would determine the weight of their vote in an election. If you score 20% on the exam, then your vote only accounts for 20%. How one would implement such a system in a fair and secure way is not at all clear, but something has to be considered if we want democracy to survive. What ideas do you have? Most people think that the USA has a two party political system - Democrats and Republicans. Well in name they do, but in reality they have a three party system. In 2009, a group of more right wing members of the Republican party were dubbed the Tea Party. While not an official party, they act like a separate party. They have split the Republicans so that they can no longer effectively govern. As seen in the graph below, Republicans have controlled the House since 2009, the Senate since 2013, and over 50% of the state legislatures since 2012. And since Jan 2017, the Presidency. With all that power, one would think that the Republicans could pass any legislation they wanted. And yet they cannot. In fact, they are having a great deal of difficulty enacting any significant legislation. It is effectively a three party system but nobody wants to acknowledge this and govern accordingly.
If Americans are unhappy with politics, they should be unhappy with the Republicans. Their fingerprints are all over the steering wheel. Like many, I have been concerned that Democracy is not working very well these days. After a considerable amount of reading, discussion, and quite contemplation on the subject, I have concluded that “democracy may not be broken after all”.
Democracy works between the two extremes of Dictatorship or Theocracy and Extreme Socialism or Communism. Democracy is the swing of the pendulum between these extremes. Usually quite small movements back and forth around the centre, but sometimes more substantial movements left or right of centre. But never reaching the extremes. When democracy is functioning well, there is a fairly peaceful transition of power during these movements. Another analogy could be the movement of tides in and out - very cleansing. A defining feature of the extremes is that they will do anything to maintain power. They will not allow the pendulum to swing away from their position of power. Corruption is present in all forms of government, even in the best democracies. Typically corruption is lower in democracies but these lower levels only occur with the help of robust systems of justice and law with many checks and balances built in. Transparency is a key element of checks and balances. Some of us are feeling a bit nervous about the more dramatic swings of the pendulum we have seen recently with Brexit, the US Presidential election, and other populist movements around the world. But we need to remind ourselves that these swings are still within the definition of democracy. The tidal swings are rather high these days, and although high tides can be damaging in some respects, they also cause other forms of renewal. While we have to build defences against the ravages of high tides, we also have to embrace the renewal and change that they can bring. Likewise, with more dramatic swings of the political pendulum, we have to guard against distortions in the system. One such distortion occurred when Republicans refused to hold hearings for the appointment of a new Supreme Court judge during the last year of President Obama’s term. They wanted to entrench their power by such a move. Actions by any political party aimed at entrenching their power long beyond their term are distortions of the democratic system of government, and we have to continually remind our politicians that we the voters do not want this. It is enticing to support one’s favoured political party when they engage in such actions, but we must remind ourselves that a healthy democracy depends on swings in the pendulum. A democracy caught in ever escalating distortions will hurt everyone in the end. The role that social media, and even traditional media, has played in recent political changes in the world is new. It has caused distortions with things like manipulative algorithms, “echo chambers”, and “false news”. But this is not a failure of democracy. It is a failure of media and our educational and social systems. We have not taught ourselves or our children how to be smart consumers of media and importantly to be smart and respectful contributors to media. So at the end of the day, I have to conclude that democracy may not be broken after all, even though I don’t like some of the things are happening. It does reinforce the need for everyone to become better consumers of and contributors to the media which includes learning how to be respectful. And equally important, everyone should become more engaged in political processes. Only then will we be able to keep democracy from becoming broken. |
If you already have a feed reader set up, choose that reader and add this blog. Otherwise I suggest you select FeedBlitz to get email notifications of new blog posts.
AuthorRetired and loving life. Archives
February 2024
Categories
All
Link to my Climate Change blog: |