January 30, 2013

  • The Most Dangerous War Being Waged

                First, there was the “war on poverty”. Then, the “war on drugs”; which can be connected in many ways to the supposed “war on crime”. At the turn of the century, BOOsh launched his “war on terror”. Finally, over the past two years there has been a “war on women”.

     

                Regardless of your opinion pertaining to any of the above-referenced “wars”, the most pressing one is the more subtle “war on democracy” that has been waged in high gear since the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court Ruling. The reason I say that this war is the most important is that the strength of our democracy is ultimately what determines who will make policy decisions on the other “wars”. This war is being waged by the few in an apparent attempt to reduce the influence of the many, and it has been weakening our system for quite some time now. Sadly, unless something is done soon, we are in danger of losing control of our system for a long time.

     

    Some Background Information…

                Democracy is a political system that has been controversial since the Greeks introduced it thousands of years ago. In fact, one famous Greek - Aristotle – once referred to democracy as being an illegitimate form of government “of the many”. To him, the proper balance in a society where the many wanted to have their views represented was a polity (also known as a representative democracy or a republic). The concern – as James Madison would later convey in the Federalist Paper Number 10 – was that the majority would oppress the minority in a pure/direct democracy; a phenomenon also referred to as “mob rule”.

     

                Aristotle’s suspicions about direct democracy were rebuffed when Thomas Hobbes expressed his contempt for humanity. Hobbes believed that humankind was naturally evil and that such required us to be controlled by a powerful tyrant. Needless to say, he was no fan of democracy. Equally troubling is the fact that he was admired by a number of the Founding Fathers. In fact, Hobbesian theories about society influenced the decision to create a polity instead of a pure democracy and to establish the Electoral College (since many of the Framers felt that the populace was not wise enough to directly elect the president).

     

                To be honest, any student of American history knows that the Constitution originally left the American people largely out of the loop as far as directly choosing our leaders was concerned. The only members of the federal government initially elected by the people were the members of the House of Representatives (a chamber with representatives of districts drawn by the States). Everyone else in federal elected office was chosen by the States. In this way, the status quo was guaranteed to be more easily maintained, because the masses were not empowered to control the direction of their country.

     

                With the rise of Andrew Jackson, all of this began to change. Jacksonian Democracy was a pro-democracy movement that transformed the American political system as well as the Democratic-Republican Party (now known, thanks to this era, as the Democratic Party). The movement was a populist one and championed a series of reforms that strengthened the people’s influence over our government – even developing the well-intentioned “spoils” system that was meant to permit the common man to serve his fellow citizens - by producing democratically-elected executives at the state and federal level; with the latter coming about partially as the electorate were finally empowered to vote for president by dictating how their states electors would vote.

     

                After the decline of the Jackson era, the next pro-democracy era emerged in the late-1800s – ending with the Great War (World War One) – with the Progressive movement. During that period, voters in states throughout the country were given the power to recall elected officials, elect judges (one of the few progressive reforms with which I disagree), initiate new laws by a vote, repeal laws by referendum, amend state constitutions by referendum, and even directly elect U.S. Senators. Additionally, women were given the right to vote! However, from this peak, the only additional gains made for democracy were produced by the civil rights and anti-war movements in the 1960s when poll taxes were banned, the right to vote was protected, and citizens between 18 and 20 years old were given the right to vote.

     

    The War on Democracy Begins…

                On January 20th, 1953, Dwight Eisenhower was inaugurated as president, thusly ending 20 years of Democratic control of the White House under Franklin D. Roosevelt (who served 12 years, and died at the beginning of his fourth term) and Harry Truman. Before the 1952 Election, though, there was a political backlash to this dominance that led to the 22nd Amendment which established a term limit for the presidency. If you ask me, this was a terribly undemocratic move, as it stripped the people of their right to choose whoever they desired for president…as often as they wanted. Had this limit not been imposed, I do not believe that any president other than Bill Clinton could have followed FDR’s footsteps; mostly because Reagan’s health would have hindered him from seeking a third term. To put it simply, this – and most other efforts to limit terms – was driven by political retaliation.

     

    The Recent Assault on the People’s Voice…

                In January 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that a long political attack ad against Hillary Clinton – called “Hillary” – could not be bound by laws limiting political spending. They justified this ruling by asserting that the expenditure of money was akin to the use of speech in our political discourse. By taking this stance, the Court paved the way for the new “Super PAC” phenomenon that now threatens to shift the balance of power back into the hands of the privileged few. Think of it this way, if money is speech, and if there can be no limit as to how much one can spend in support of or in opposition to any one candidate or cause, then it seems only likely that the wealthiest political activists will be given a tremendous advantage over the limited disposable resources that the rest of society possesses.

     

                To put it another way, the “money is speech” doctrine means that the voices of some will be “louder”/”clearer” than everyone else’s. As if the people didn’t have a hard enough time getting through to their government in competition with the lobbyists and special interests. “Citizens United” essentially threw American democracy into a chaotic state, and likely helped lead to the most expensive presidential election in history just last year. Yeah, that’s really what we needed.

     

                Then, in 2011, the Repugs in Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Maine, Florida (and elsewhere) launched an attack on unions. What does this have to do with democracy? Everything, because organized labor exists as “social democracy”. Basically, the people are empowered to steer their economic destiny by having a say in how they are treated in the workforce. Naturally, the same monied interests waging war against our political democracy desire the destruction – for the most part – of its economic cousin.

     

                Between “Citizens United” and the assault on the unions, I believe that 2011 became the year of the new pro-democracy era when Occupy Wall Street captured the nation’s imagination. The people were fighting back, because it was becoming obvious that a power-grab by the aspiring oligarchs was afoot. Which brings us to today…

     

                Since President Obama secured a second term in a landslide election (winning 332 Electoral Votes and beating Romney by almost 5 million votes), the Repugs are again trying to devise a scheme that will help them climb out of their current political abyss. In almost the same spirit that brought us presidential term limits, the new approach seems poised to make it almost impossible for anyone to crush the Repugs again. How could they possibly do this? Gerrymandering and by changing the rules to make such impact the Electoral College.

     

                Anyone who knows me is aware of my staunch opposition to the Electoral College. To be honest, I’m a big fan of the effort to abolish such in favor of direct election. Unfortunately, doing so would require a Constitutional amendment; no easy feat. In the meantime, we are stuck with the outdated institution, and the new grand plot to hijack such.

     

                In a handful of influential Obama 2012 states, Repugs are contemplating using their overwhelming majorities in those state governments to employ their constitutionally-granted power to rig the system to steer would be purple and blue states into solid red territory. They plan to do this by requiring that their state’s Electoral College votes are distributed by congressional district, instead of by the dominant statewide winner-take-all approach. Now, this system would be well and good if it weren’t for the fact that congressional districts are drawn by the party in power.

     

                Remember that the 2012 elections saw the Repugs crushed in the Presidential, Senate, and House votes. However, despite beating the Repugs by more than one million votes in the total vote for the House, the Repugs actually retained their majority with 233 seats. This was achieved by gerrymandering – or drawing district lines to favor one party over the other – the districts in a way that protected the majority status for the time being. If the electoral votes are tailored to the popular vote count in each congressional district – as opposed to say, a proportional count of the entire state -, then any state can ensure that one party or the other will have a lock on that state simply by drawing favorable congressional districts.

     

               This is the latest assault in the war being waged against our democracy. If anything, this – more than anything before – shows just how important EVERY election is. Should the Repugs proceed with this plan, then we are likely to see the election of 2016 – or 2020, if they wait until then - turn into one of the most tumultuous elections in American history. This must be stopped.

     

    Tonight’s Conclusion

               

                Our democracy is the most precious part of our society. Without the people having the guarantee that our voice will be heard and protected we have no way to ensure that our freedoms will be secure. In order to fight the fights that we care so passionately about (no matter the issue), we must stand up to protect the very system that allows us to fight in the first place.

     

    Until next time…

     

    TAKE CARE