Most Popular
Job Board
Consider What You Won't Be Voting on in November
Elections bring an enormous sense of excitement in the United States, especially in D.C. I’m going to devote three columns to the topic of democracy (and its shadow, voting) because I feel that one of the most important political lies that has been sold to people over the last hundred years or so is that voting for representatives is democracy. In this column, I introduce some obvious limitations of the current system. In the next, I’ll look at what real democracy might be like. And in the third, I’ll discuss the way that U.S. history has seen people genuinely taking control of their own lives.
Don’t get me wrong. It is far better that one gets to vote for one’s rulers than it is to have this decision made in any other way. But for all that, the gap between the election of representatives and genuine democracy — rule of the people, self-government, everyone making together any decisions that affect them — is enormous.
It pretty much goes without saying that elections are only as good as the range of choices one has. In some of the authoritarian communist states of the past, they would hold “elections” in which the party would nominate a couple people who were essentially indistinguishable. No one took it that the right to choose between them amounted to real self-determination. Or consider the current situation in Russia in which lots of people are free to run, but the structure is set up in such a way that the result is a foregone conclusion. Again, this is clearly not democracy. So just how different is the two-party system? How wide are the choices we have and how do candidates gain meaningful access to the ballot?
Here are some issues that might seem worth debating and might seem significant enough to be contested in a democratic election.
On foreign policy: The United States spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined; the United States stations troops in well over 100 foreign countries; and the United States is responsible for nearly half the world’s international arms trade.
On economic policy: It is illegal for unions to organize internationally; it is illegal for unions to strike in support of a strike in another industry; the vast majority of people do not own their own businesses, but work for others; there is no guarantee that a person who is willing and able to work will be given a job; and companies are allowed to move production from one country to another, but workers are legally tied to their country of citizenship.
On social policy: Married people are given numerous legal benefits over others; working people are not guaranteed a home or a living wage; homeowners are subsidized by the state in ways that renters are not; drug use (other than alcohol) by adults is illegal, resulting in the largest prison population in the world; and no candidate can mount a meaningful run for national office without the ability to raise tens of millions of dollars.
On environmental policy: Cars are the primary form of transportation in the United States, funded by massive state investment in roads, bridges, etc.; most U.S. food is produced in one region and consumed in another; most U.S. food is produced by enormous multinational agro-business that employs a chemical intensive form of agriculture; and investment in genuinely renewable, non-polluting energy sources is miniscule.
These are just a few random examples from the hundreds I might have mentioned. My point is not to argue for any particular view on any of these. (I think most should be changed). My point is that no candidate will campaign either for or against any of these policies. None will even be mentioned as an issue. All simply “go without saying” as if they are natural facts like gravity. Your democracy gives you no right even to discuss such matters in the context of an election.
This should worry you. It should make you wonder just how much democracy is guaranteed by a two-party electoral system. It should make you wonder just what is determining who can actually run for national office and what is setting the agenda that they run on. It should make you wonder what part of your political life should be devoted to voting and what other avenues you might have for genuine political participation.
Mark Lance is a professor and associate director of graduate studies in the philosophy department and a professor and program director in the Program on Justice and Peace. He can be reached at lance@thehoya.com. COGNITIVE DISSIDENT appears every other Friday.
Prof. Lance,
I applaud your efforts to encourage people to ask questions of politicians and about the voting process itself. I also agree that there are some real issues with the two-party system and the manner in which politicians are nominated. However, I think you're confusing what topics interest you with what the American people as a whole are interested in hearing. Frankly (and I recognize it's just a random, non-exhaustive, list you posted), I don't think Americans care so much about hearing from candidates who value the things you've mentioned (as we enter the fifth year of war in Iraq and sit on the precipice of recession, do you really think most people want to spend time listening to politicians debate over whether unions should be able to join forces internationally?).
Further, some of the issues to which you allude HAVE been discussed. Ron Paul made it a very big point in debates to discuss American interventionism. Dennis Kucinich, another equally as radical candidate, participated in several nationally televised debates, and he too hit on several points on your list. And, of course, the people have spoken: Kucinich and Paul have been heard, and the American people have sent them back to their cocoons to wait another 4 years for the next election cycle.
I respectfully suggest what you're saying is that no one is paying attention to the socialist agenda. No doubt, those with fringe ideas have a right to voice their opinion (as I have to remind myself whenever I pass one of those 9/11 Truth idiots on the street), but we shouldn't mistake the idea that no one takes most radicals seriously with the claim that they are somehow being excluded from the process.
There's more than simply a Presidential election taking place in November, in case you have forgotten. Americans will also be voting on Representatives in the House (all districts), and Senators (35 of 100). Because of the United States' electoral system of direct representation using first-past-the-post voting, it actively discourages small parties and encourages focus on large coalitions which are able to attract a majority of votes. Lets look at a hypothetical election: if 50% support party A, 40% support party B, and 10% support party C, then party A will win the election. If we assume a fairly normal distribution of voters, it is highly unlikely that party C will be able to carry any electoral districts. Thus, while party C represents the interests of at least 10% of the population (not counting those who may not want to vote for party C due to the near-certainty that it will lose), it will not put any individuals into office.
Now, if we had the same proportion of voters 50% for A, 40% for B, and 10% for C, but a proportional electoral system (as in certain European parliaments), party C, which represents 10% of the population, would have approximately 10% of the representation in the legislature. Moreover, because this system allows smaller parties to get elected on a national level, it's possible that parties A and B would split into different factions, thus leading to even more choices.
Our political system actively discourages a broad range of political opinions from finding space in public discourse. How do you know, that given the opportunity, many Americans would want to make a choice on any of the issues which Mark wrote about? The fact is that realistically there isn't one right now. If you don't have a choice, you never have to think about what you want, but if given one, then you do. It might turn out that Americans prefer the situation we have now to one which is radically different, but you won't know unless we have the chance to think about it and make a real decision which is not weighted in favor of what we have now.
La Raza:
I find it interesting that you think raising the question of whether the US should spend more on its military than the rest of the world combined is irrelevant to the Iraq war, not to mention socialist or fringe. Would the proposal that we merely spend double what anyone else does strike you as a crazy fringe position?
As for the idea that labor should be free to organize, or move between countries, this is actually a position of classical capitalism.
And how do you know that Americans don't support these views? Have you ever looked at polls on specific issues? In fact when asked how much we should spend on the military, or foreign aid, Americans consistently put numbers lower (military) and higher (aid) by enormous margins than what is actually spent. It is simply clear that the current policies are unknown to most people.
You mention Paul and Kucinich. Yes, they discussed some of the things other don't, but not those I listed. But they were dismissed from the outset by every major press organ because they didn't have enough money to be a serious candidate. That is why they were sent on their way -- because everyone has accepted the equation of fund-raising and seriousness in this electoral process.
Professor,
In response to your comment, I don't think most Americans want the presidential debate to be about how our military budget is more than the rest of the world combined. Rather, I believe only a small subset of disenfranchised Americans want presidential debates to be about topics like that. I think most folks would rather keep it simple: should we be in Iraq, should we raise taxes, should abortion remain legal, should gays be able to marry.
I think this is what people want to hear for several reasons: 1. it's easy to grasp, even for those who aren't particularly educated or sophisticated; 2. it's tangible; 3. it lends itself to sound-bites; 4. a politician's stance on these issues help voters understand where on the political spectrum the candidate stands.
And, of course, there's the ugly truth: I don't think people are all that interest in wisely spending their presidential vote. I don't think the average Joe wants to spend his very limited free time outside of the work week thinking/discussing/listening to the relatively obscure issues you reeled off instead of spending a half hour with his kid or spouse. Instead, watching an hour's worth of a presidential debate dog-and-pony show once a week is all that person can afford to spend on such issues.
In response, I think politicians give people EXACTLY what they want: for example, the campaign of Barak Obama has a near total absence of content, but a high degree of feel-good speeches. I have no doubt Sen. Obama could talk policy until he's blue in the face, but I think he doesn't because people don't have the time or inclination to hear it.
Ultimately, I suspect that you too think Americans are interested in hearing the "big issues," but you think there are different "big issues" than do I and other non-radicals.
La Raza:
First, note that you contradict most of your post at the end. You argue that it's the fault of Americans -- that they have no attention span and want not to address issues -- but then at the end conclude that they do want to hear about big issues, just different ones. Again, you label the issues I raise "radical" without any explanation as to why.
So let's deal with each argument. As for these not being issues that matter, you say that the Iraq war and taxes do matter. But how could the single largest spending item in the US budget not be relevant to taxes. The US millitary budget is an enormous part of what requires taxes. And how could the military budget, and our military strategy throughout the world, not be relevant to the Iraq war? Not only are these immediately and obviously relevant to the issues you raise, but you are just guessing. The point is that the current system doesn't give people a chance to decide if these issues matter, because no one -- not even fringe candidates -- so much as mention them.
So let's turn to the other argument -- the blame the people argument. People are inundated with election coverage that deals more in how much someone raises than in issues. Reporters never demand answers on issues that the candidates don't bring up -- unless it has to do with their sex lives. Those who have access to candidates are those who make big contributions. ANd then of course there is a multi-billion dollar industry -- advertising -- devoted to convincing people that they ought to want to spend all their time looking for skinnier girlfriends, hotter jeans, and newer gadgets.
So, in the face of this, I don't blame people as inevitably stupid and shallow. I don't think that the advertising industry -- and its arm the election -- are just responding to antecedent desires not to be bothered with substantive matters. I think these systems and others are actively pushing people in this direction.
Is this just a matter of faith? No. It is a matter of having paid attention to history, to seeing how people behave when they genuinely have the power to influence decisions that matter. Have a look at this book -- The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years 1868-1936, by Murray Bookchin. This careful historical study will give you an idea of what sorts of things people are interested in when they actually have a chance to influence real decisions.
Post new comment