Democracy Part Three

So, yesterday I came out and called people who do not embrace democracy as un-American.  It might seem odd to be a self-identified progressive and liberal and to use that term "un-American."  Isn't that the term that self-proclaimed patriotic blowhards use to condemn people who don't agree with their narrow interpretation of what it means to be an American?  Yes.  Isn't this a free country and shouldn't we refrain from creating a singular idea of what an American is?  Yes, but... the thing is that being a proponent of democracy won't in any way determine who you are as an individual.  You can be pro-life and a proponent of democracy, and you can be pro-choice and a proponent of democracy.  The principle of democracy is a bed-rock principle.  It is nothing more than the canvas on top of which we paint our identities.  

Our country is dysfunctional, and I think the reason for that is that we've lost our sense of democracy.  See, I've been racking my brains to find one thing that we can all agree on, because only then can we become the country that we want.  Whatever that is.  Of course, the second I say "abortion," you have a reflexive judgement, and nothing I can say will change that.  Can anybody tell me about the time they witnessed a pro-life proponent change the mind of a pro-choice proponent or vice versa?  No, you can't.  Can you get a person who favors gun-rights to accept gun control?  No again.  The battle-lines have been fixed for decades and this makes change impossible, but democracy changes that.  Democracy is really the only thing we should agree on.  It is what America is all about. 

But, wait, Dewey, you say, the history of America isn't all that democratic.  I mean, the extermination of Native Americans and slavery and the denial of equal rights to women and minorities... at what point where we ever truly democratic?  Okay, okay.  I teach U.S. History, so I don't need a history lesson, but I'd like to make a distinction between America-in-practice and America-as-an-ideal.  All the terrible things that America as a country has done like stealing one third of Mexico is an example of America-in-practice.  We are not now, nor should we ever be beholden to that America.  America-in-practice dies every generation.  Once upon a time America-in-practice allowed slavery, but that America died.  Once upon a time, America-in-practice banned gay marriage, but that America died.  What American wants to be defined by a dead America?  But here's the thing: America-as-an-ideal can never die, and that America has been around since the Declaration of Independence. 

When Thomas Jefferson wrote, "All men are created equal," he owned slaves, but whether he meant to or not, he gave birth to an ideal that ultimately abolished slavery.  Sure, the wording needed to be tweaked, but I think it's telling that in 1848 the Declaration of Sentiments promoting gender equality modeled itself on the Declaration of Independence.  They could have simply written a new document, but they didn't, because the American ideal is so powerful that it transcends momentary hypocrisy and short-sightedness.  

A cynical person might argue that the founding fathers were a bunch of rich people who wanted more money and power and they convinced poor people to fight and day so that they could have the country to themselves and they wouldn't have to share it with England.  These guys thought created a rhetoric of freedom that motivated a lot of colonists to join their cause.  There is a lot of truth to that, but regardless of their motives, the rhetoric- the ideal- continues to inspire.  And let's be fair.  While America was not all that progressive in the beginning, we didn't have much competition in that regard.  

But here's the thing about the American ideal: it's impossible.  We will never fully realize a totally democratic state. America-as-an-ideal is a straight line that America-in-practice veers closer and closer to, but will ultimately never touch.  That means that no matter what we achieve, there's more to achieve.  That means that American exceptionalism is a dangerous lie that makes you think you've done it, when you need to keep working.  And some people might be depressed by that notion, but we can certainly reach a point where the distance between America-as-an-ideal and America-in-practice doesn't really matter.  I don't think we're there, but we can get there. 

But the only way we can get there is by embracing democracy.  Teddy Roosevelt said, "The government is us; we are the government, you and I."  So if the government doesn't seem to reflect who we are, then we need to look at ourselves to see how we can change it.  Democracy isn't just about voting, but actively making the change you want to happen, happen. I'm trying to do my part, and I don't care what you believe in, I hope you do yours too.  But the only way we can succeed is if we we allow our country to be as democratic as possible. If our government can't reflect the will of the people, than it isn't our government. 

Democracy Part Two

In part one I basically presented an unimpeachable argument for why democracy is the best form of governance and why the United States Constitution is out of date.  I argued that democracy ought to be the value that is most enshrined in the United States.  Not only is democracy the best form of organizing people, it's also a reflection of how we view people in general.  In general, people who don't like democracy tend to not like people.  If all people are to be valued, then all interests of these same people ought to be equally valued.  Some people dislike democracy because they suspect that there are a lot of uninformed people out there who are negatively impacting the outcome of a particular vote.  Thus, people are secondary to "correct information."  It's not enough to be a person, you must labor to uncover the "truth."

As anybody who has studied history can tell you, the "truth" can be unstable, and subject to revision.  To some, the flatness of the world was true, or the idea that the sun revolved around the Earth.  Many a philosopher has come to the conclusion that stable truths are few and far between.   We must all accept that we've been wrong before and we'll be wrong again. For some of us, that's not too hard to accept, but there are those among us who have found their holy grail of truth, and they simply cannot accept that it is not true for all.

So, let's say you're someone who thinks that homosexuality is wrong.  Well, this is going to be a problem for you, because you're in the minority.  You can be a good loser, and decide that the burden of change is upon you.  You must change hearts and minds in order to create a majority (you might also want to consider the possibility that you're wrong, but you don't have to).  You could also be a bad loser, and decide that the majority decision reveals that there are a lot of dumb people out there, and you shouldn't be beholden to the rules created by these dumb people.

At this point, you will have become a renegade.  We tend to think of renegades as being cool, but those are usually just the ones they make movies about.  I mean, how pointless would it be to show a movie where the renegade bucks the moors of society only to be proven that he was wrong all along? And even in the movies the path of the renegade is hard, and it should be.  How can a democracy function if everyone thinks it's okay to bend the rules and that they are the ones who can truly see the truth?  And getting back to the movies, the ones that truly inspire us are about renegades who go to great lengths to show people the truth, rather than imposing their truth on others.

Another reason people don't like democracy is because they think that there are a lot of "bad" people out there.  This problem is similar to the correct information problem.  It's not enough to be a person, you have to be a "good" person.  Well, good can be just as ephemeral as truth, so there's that.  But it gets a little thornier.  We have courts, and they do pass judgement on people, and while most would argue that the courts do not deem people "bad," but that certain behaviors are bad, they also sentence people to death and life without parole.  But I'm going to table that discussion for another time, and focus on the notion of people being "basically bad."

When you say people are "basically bad," you're saying that they don't need to have demonstrated any bad behavior, they are certain to be as bad as their choices allow them.  This flies in the face of the notion of "innocent until proven guilty," but a lot of people don't actually subscribe to that notion.  They truly believe that people are one step removed from wild animals and that the role of society is to keep them in metaphorical cages so they don't go out raping and killing. Of course, this isn't a loudly trumpeted viewpoint.  While there are people who hold this view, they tend to not come out of the closet with it.  Clearly, if you were to hold this view, the idea of allowing "the people" access to the levers of governance, would seem like a terrible idea, but I've often wondered: do people holding these views also see themselves as basically bad?  That would seem likely, because what other insight would allow them to know the hearts of "the people" so well?  And if not, how did they escape their basically bad status?

While I would argue that both the "people are basically ignorant" view and the "people are basically bad view" have a significant impact on our democracy, the most dangerous view is the one that simply takes little notice of the nature of others.  It is difficult to articulate this view into an ideology of any kind, because the disregard for humanity is incidental to whatever it is these people truly believe in.  For example, if the most important thing to a person is acquiring money, then it isn't necessary to formulate a view on humanity.  You have no reason to give much thought to whether people are basically good or bad or whatever, unless it has some direct connection to your bottom line.  And this ideology doesn't have to be money. It could be a narrow religious interpretation, it could be a quest for fame.

The point is, that these people don't care about people.  They don't hate them or love them except on an individual level.  This shouldn't really matter in a free country.  As long as people aren't harming others, they can disregard them entirely.  What makes them so dangerous is that to these people democracy is irrelevant.  Rather than changing hearts and minds so that they align with their own particular beliefs, they would rather game the system.  If they're going to lose at the ballot box, then maybe they'll need to find a way to disenfranchise certain voters by making a big deal over "voter fraud."  If they can't win a majority in the Senate, they'll simply resort to the filibuster.  They will over-ride and democratic process as long as they can get their way.

Let's be clear here: if you don't trust the democratic process, then you don't trust people, and why should people trust you?  I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy is the most American value there is, and anyone who would try to finagle the system and thwart the democratic process, because whatever outcome they are trying to achieve is so important is un-American.  That's right, I said it.  If you don't like democracy you're not a patriot and you shouldn't call yourself an American.  Whatever idea you've been exalting as the most important thing in the world (God, money, Springsteen) must bow down before the altar of democracy.

Suck It Up

Are you tough enough? Have you been asked recently to suck it up?  Is America full of wimps who just don't have the intestinal fortitude to deal with reality?  Have I asked enough questions to begin with the actual analysis?  There are clearly times when we as people would probably benefit from thickening our skins, but there are also times when being asked to toughen up is really code for something else: accepting less than what we want.

Imagine you had ordered a steak at the restaurant, and it was overcooked.  If you bring this to the attention of your waiter and they respond, "Deal" I think we can all agree that you would rightfully be pissed off.  If you pick up your car from the mechanic and instead of fixing the AC, it's blowing hot air, and the mechanic says, "Toughen up," you would probably go ballistic.  Why would we blow a gasket?  Because in both instances what the purveyors of service are really telling us is: take less.

Now as much I strenuously try to avoid commercials, I see enough to know that maxims like, "You deserve less" and "Lower your expectations" will never be catch-phrases in the world of advertising.  Nobody will ever buy what a company that says something like that is selling.  That's because in order for any transaction to be successful, both parties should leave satisfied.  A little bit of deception might be involved.  Maybe that new phone isn't really all that awesome, but businesses have to deliver at least partially on their promise in order to succeed.

Of course, these transactions assume that both parties are on more or less equal footing.  Growing up, you probably were told at various times to accept less, because your expectations really were unrealistic.  No, you can't have a pony for your birthday.  No, you can't go to Disney World for every vacation.  As you got older, you probably heard this refrain more and more from your teachers.  No, your lame excuse does not excuse you from not turning in your paper.  You get a zero, now deal. And then you might hear that same argument from your boss.  This all makes sense.  Your parents, your teachers and your bosses might not have always been right, but they were in the position of power, and therefore you had to either accept their verdict or go through the effort of rebelling.

But what about when politicians act like American voters need to toughen up?  Is that kind of the same thing?  I happen to think it isn't.  See, in a Democracy, their job is contingent on our vote.  It's a transaction, and both sides need to walk away from the transaction with a feeling of satisfaction in order for the relationship to continue.  So, why are Republicans talking down to the American people?  Why is it okay to tell people to expect less from their government?

This might make sense in an aristocracy.  Aristocratic government is not designed to meet the needs of all its inhabitants.  Sure, you don't want the peasants revolting, so you might make the kingdom more livable, but you can never let the peasants think that they have power.  You need to be the boss, the parent who has every right to tell the people who depend on you that they should only expect to get the scraps that you give them.

Aristocracies don't need unions interfering with their iron-fisted rule.  They don't have time to listen to your jibber-jabber about how you require medical attention, and how you should be able to support yourself on a living wage.  They are too busy planning their next war.

Of course, even in a democracy you need people to tell you when you are being unrealistic.  So I've developed this handy-dandy method to determine if a politician asking you to tighten your belt has a legitimate argument: check and see what his plans are for the people in his income bracket.  If his plan is to lower their taxes significantly, then they are not serious about balancing the books.  If they can't "toughen up" themselves and do without their valet, their chauffeur and their Summer homes, then they are not being honest with you.  They are in effect asking you to do the heavy lifting, while their constituents (many in the same class) get to count the money.

Here's the thing: you're already taking less, while they take more.  Check out this handy dandy graphic:

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/01/22/377470959/how-much-more-or-less-would-you-make-if-we-rolled-back-inequality

In it, you can see how much money you would be making if we had the same level of inequality as they did in 1979.  At first glance, you might notice that you would only be making a couple of thousand dollars more.  That's not so bad, right?  But then multiply that by every year that you have been working.  That's between $60,000 and $300,000 if you (like me) are in your early 40s.  Imagine you had that money, instead of having it funneled into the back accounts of the already wealthy.  You probably wouldn't have the debt that you have.  You would probably not be stressing out over medical bills, and whether college is a viable option for your children.

That's money that wealthy people acquired by shifting the tax burden from them to you.  That's money they made by taking all the profits from innovations regardless of whether they were responsible for them. 99.9% of the companies are not responsible for the increased worker-productivity created by the personal computing and the Internet.  FedEx had nothing to do with it.  Coke had nothing to do with it.  Did they pass their ability to accrue higher profits on their workers?  No.  Straight to their shareholders and increased CEO pay.

When there is a group of people responsible for robbing the American people blind, their only way to prevent their inevitable day of reckoning is to take the authoritarian high road.  We are the masters and you must toughen up and take the scraps we give you.  Just remember: This country is still a democracy in name, if not in fact.  Use what voting power you have to make things right.

Electability Part 2

It's not easy being a Bernie Sanders supporter.  All the time I hear people say, "I agree with what he says, but..."  They tend to ignore the fact that Bernie Sanders is drawing bigger crowds than any candidate in either party.  The main reason is that most people agree with what he's saying.  When I go line by line and issue by issue in Sanders' platform I get total agreement not only from my liberal friends, but a lot of centrist friends as well.  His ideas are not all that radical, and most people agree with them.  So what's the knock?  He can't win.

It's hard to predict the future, but this attitude seems like an attempt to do so.  My first response is to say that, I disagree.  I think he can win.  He has consistently closed the gap between himself and Hillary Clinton.  He continues to draw bigger crowds than any candidate and he's raising money from more people. Not more money, mind you, but from more people.  Given that you already agree with his platform, why not take a positive view?

Now, let's assume that his likelihood of winning is slim, then I would make a different argument.  The issue ceases to be about "can vs. can't" and becomes about "must."  To illustrate the distinction, I want you to consider the life of the abolitionist, Frederick Douglas.  I'm sure that he concluded many times that any given moment a particular effort might fail, but at no point did he give up the fight?  Why?  Because it was never about whether the eradication of slavery could happen, and it was always about that it must happen.

When we turn the issue from can/can't to must, it changes the stakes considerably.  If you had asked me ten years ago whether marriage equality could happen, I would have probably said that I had no idea.  But I knew for certain that it must happen, and I'm sure that millions of others felt the same way, because that is how change is made. It doesn't come about because people get lucky and things go their way.  It comes about because people make it their mission to make it happen.

At what point in our democracy did it become okay to malign candidates for espousing views that we ourselves hold?  What is so wrong with the concept of truly representative democracy?  There is a large group of people who seem to think that we need candidates who treat us like children, who use coded language that only people in the know can crack, and who always seem to have a "superior" approach to what we, the people, want.  "Trust us," the candidates tell us, "We know best. There's a good reason you're not going to get what you want."  They're right. There is a good reason.  We've put our trust in candidates who do not reflect our convictions and our values, but instead have opted for candidates who simply wear the blue uniform.  Anything in blue is better than anything in red, right?

Here's the thing: there is a majority of people in this country who want what you want, and there are candidates who reflect those values to their very core, and they are not interested in placating powerful interests, because they genuinely believe that a politician's job is to safeguard our democracy against powerful private interests-  candidates like Bernie Sanders.  America used to be more liberal, so of course, it's possible.  But even if the possibility seems unlikely, it's not about can or can't it's about must.  We must elect a president who reflects we, the people.

The Anti-Democratic notion of Electability

            Democracy is a very simple concept.  Voters get together and they vote for the outcome that they most want.  You don’t need a degree in political science to understand that concept.  Unfortunately, there is a concept that has invaded our democracy in my lifetime, and over the years it has developed a strangle-hold on the very simple ideal of democracy, and that is: electability.  At first glance, the term seems self-evident.  Electability is a collection of traits that a candidate has that makes it possible for him or her to win an election.  That seems simple enough, right?  The longer I’ve peered at this idea of electability, the more I have come to the conclusion, that it is a pernicious means of thwarting the democratic process.

            In the 2004 election democrats who liked Howard Dean best were shepherded towards John Kerry because of his electability.  He lost.  More recently, most Republicans were resigned to having Mitt Romney as their candidate because of his electability.  He lost.  If a person were asked to define “electability” based on the outcome of elections, it seems that the term is most often applied to candidates who don’t win.  I never heard George W. Bush or Barack Obama described as electable.  They simply got elected.

            So, how is this a case of “thwarting the democratic process,” as I mentioned earlier?  Well, who determines electability?  I honestly have no means of doing so myself.  I can only pick the candidate who speaks to my principles the most.  In order to determine electability, you would need some insight into the collective thinking of the electorate.  I would argue that most people do not possess this insight, and therefore making “electability” an issue for a given candidate is essentially an effort to rob the people of their preference and put it in the hand of so-called experts who know best. 

            For a long time, party bosses nominated their candidates behind closed doors, and the people were simply expected to support them.  I’d like to think that we’ve moved on from those days, but I often feel as though the party bosses (who should be retired by now) are unhappy with the general public making decisions that they used to make.  Enter electability.  Electability is how pundits allow their “know-how” to influence elections. 

            I’ve picked a candidate this election: Bernie Sanders.  I’m told that he lacks “electability.”  I’m taking that as a promising sign.