I can’t help but wonder – what happened to representative democracy in the United States?
Watching the parade of legislators tell us that health care must be fixed because it’s the patriotic thing to do, juxtaposed with the storm of angry constituents declaring government doesn’t know what’s best for them and that the legislators should vote against health care reform in its present form, I couldn’t help but wonder: Where is representative democracy?
The American system has always been our elected leaders representing us, not deciding for us. Why do politicians believe (because we aren’t sure if they actually think) that we need them to decide what is in our best interest, instead of letting us tell them what we think is best and having them vote accordingly?
After the initial anger and disgust wore off, I started thinking about why this is the case and how this trend got started. Unfortunately, as much as I’d like to blame this one on the liberals, I’m pretty sure this is Our fault (and by Our in capitals, that means US, or, the U.S. public). We let them do this – we’re the ones who continue to elect poor leaders to office because “they’re better than the other guy” and “they bring a lot of pork to the state.”
Our (again, US – see above) election malaise is not confined to the voting booth. Ambivalence and lassitude pervades Our leadership choices. Too many of Us look for a freebie or a handout instead of dealing with Our problems ourselves. Our federal government has so much power because we give it more power every time we tell it to “do something” without stopping to think about the financial, social, and moral consequences of the “something.”
Furthermore, too many constituents are uninformed as to what their politicians are up to in Washington. Too many citizens are more concerned with their own lives and families than keeping a diligent watch over the government. As Winston Churchill said, “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”
We often forget that it’s Our job to do this – a democracy doesn’t come free. It comes with responsibility. Not until a huge power grab like Obamacare (insert any omnibus bill title here) comes to the forefront that the average voter stands up and takes notice of how immense a shadow our government casts. Can you blame politicians for assuming they need to decide what’s best for us when, election after election, constituents exercise the right to stupor by indolently signing over all decision-making responsibilities? Essentially, too many uninformed citizens continue to vote.
After watching a much more encouraging parade – a parade of ordinary folks marching to Tea Party protests and the Sept. 12 demonstration or ticker-tape-ering its way to town hall meetings – American citizens appear to have resumed the mantle of government watchdog. Hopefully, all that was needed was a wake-up call and a reminder to stop and ask two questions: (1) do you really want the government to “do something,” or is this something you should take care of yourself? and (2) are you going to vote for the guy who thinks he knows what’s best for you or are you going to vote for the guy who’s willing to put his own personal opinions aside to do what the constituents tell him is best for them?
So, follow the advice of Alexander Pope and prove Churchill wrong: “The learned is happy, nature to explore; The fool is happy, that he knows no more.” We can always speak with Our votes – that’s what a representative democracy is for. Let us speak with insight and passion.
Loading ...
September 17th, 2009 at 10:36 am
When someone writes something like this it makes me wonder where they went to school (if they did) and whose history it was that they learned from. Shauna says “The American system has always been our elected leaders representing us……”
Myths abound everywhere but the most casual examination of the legislative history of our country could not possibly yield this observation. Although we are called upon to vote for “representatives” to populate the legislative branch of our government and we vote for “electors” to select a Chief Executive and Vice-Chief Executive on our behalf – not by popular majority vote but by how those “electors” choose to vote, the structure of the system and the process of even selecting candidates for the system insulate both us and them from any real kind of “representative” role, at least in the sense of acting strictly as we (who is that anyway) want them to. The intent has always been that we (the electorate in total – not just one faction of it) will choose, through a democratic process, at least on the surface, individuals to serve in the legislature. Their actions and decisions within that body have always been meant to be a synthesis of thought and deliberation determined by their own intellect and sense of what they believe – not necessarily what even a portion of those who elected them desired and definitely not strictly a matter of what a majority want. The supposed wisdom and general qualifications of our chosen legislators is supposed to provide them with a broader and more informed and balanced perspective than those of us at-large.
How does the Sixteenth amendment to the original constitution possibly represent the sentiment and desires of the population in general? How was Government funded prior to that? How does the courts interpretation that this amendment does not conflict with the language of Article One section nine of the Constitution, which if it did would require a repeal of that specific language in Article One prior to the condition of said amendment being lawful and enforceable, represent the desire of the populace? There are unlimited other examples that clearly show that Shauna’s assertion is a matter of myth not fact.
Legislators make decisions and laws on behalf of all citizens but not by a vote of all citizens on whether or not they favor the legislators choice. It has been this way since the establishment of our Political Identity separate from that of our European colonial existence. That is our system which is known as a Democratic Republic – you know, “the Republic for which it stands” – James Madison’s idea of “representative democracy” as opposed to “direct democracy”…. Of course the only real distinction that defines a Republic is that it is a form of government without a monarch….
It is way too easy to criticize any figure in politics and government and that is true especially when they speak of programs that cost money. On the other hand, as a society, especially perhaps the richest overall on the face of the planet, it is totally appropriate that collectively we consider investing collectively in projects and programs that enhance and advance the society as a whole. Provisions for Basic healthcare for everyone is not a bad thing and can yield tremendous benefits for the entire society. We (our government) fund many endeavors which might well be deemed less desirable than the improved health of all of us.
If anyone truly has a problem with our Federal Democratic Republic Government it seems like the vast majority of those problems stem from the burden of cost. The only effective way to address that is to consider repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment and a re-examination of the Judicial position which held that it did not conflict with Article one section nine.
The other great disservice to real Democracy that has been done by our legislators and our judicial system is to allow fictitious persons to hold the rights of citizens and to even grant them, in some ways, greater rights than citizens themselves. Those decisions and choices do not represent the interests of sovereign citizens but rather the interests of an elite class. Those choices and decisions distort democracy and mock the very basis of it.
But to make the mistake of saying “The American system has always been our elected leaders representing us……” makes it all the harder to address the reality of what our system really is and what our range of choices in addressing anything we find less than satisfactory about it. Voting is only a very small part of effective participation in our society or in a Democracy. The power structures that have evolved within our own limited implementation of a Democracy are very powerful and entrenched so the institutions have unbelievable inertia. It is never as simple as the mythological characterizations would have one believe.
[Reply to this Comment]
September 17th, 2009 at 11:26 am
This is the type of comment that screams “I didn’t vote.”
For so many years, the Democrats couldn’t grab the full control they appear to have now because of voter apathy. How does one party have more registered voters than the other and still fail to win every seat? Because the voters were lazy/stuck in the mindset that one vote doesn’t count. So when the Democrats finally get excited about a candidate and get swept away by the tide of a cult of personality, what do they do? They exercise their right to make democratic decisions in a representative democracy and vote. And, while I cannot personally agree with the choice the Democrats made (and a fair share of independents and GOP voters), the choice was made – and done so through the power of the popular opinion – by voting.
In my own limited experience, those who did not/do not vote always seem to have the least constructive comments to offer to the political dialogue. What exactly does this last comment mean? “Voting is only a very small part of effective participation” – it was powerful enough to vote in a radical socialist…so what are some of our other choices, anonymous?
Certainly one option is to publicly rail against those “entrenched” institutions. Isn’t that what a blog is for? Isn’t that how the grass roots movement against the czars, Acorn and SEIU started? And yes, we have learned not to trust our mainstream media, or “fringe media” as Beck calls it. So we revert to democratic information sharing on the internet – why? Why do we do this – the reading, commenting and surfing in silent rage with faces lit by LCD screens and coffee cups gone cold from inattention? We do it because we know something is wrong with our country. We know that we are not being represented in any capacity. How do we effect change in a representative democracy that has lost the ability to represent? We share information and rally, we come together against a new opponent by message board and post, and we gather momentum. We do all of this so that when the opportunity arises to effect change, we make sure that change happens. By voting.
So when I read one of these comments to a column, one of these contrarian pieces that offers nothing more than counterarguments for the sake of counterarguing, I find some more of that silent rage and become even more entrenched in my resolve to vote. I say rail against those unrepresentatives that have been elected and cry out against their paternalism – no matter what anyone says, it flies in the face of our Constitution and the foundation of our country. We will be represented and we will tear down those walls of apathy in our party! Vote and be heard and believe again in our government and its ability to represent us.
[Reply to this Comment]
September 17th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
@Brandon Barnes,
Cogent thought and analysis is seldom served by rage.
You can swallow and become all the propaganda you want but it won’t change the reality that what you “believe” to be the essences of the US system of governance is anything but and has been anything but since its inception. Ideals are great, but what you must deal with is what is really there. The only way one can have an impact on that reality is by understanding it, understanding its true mechanisms and institutions, and understanding how they each function and what inputs or influence they really respond to. It doesn’t hurt to be familiar with the historical roots which are anything but the way things are depicted and explained by self-serving propaganda that serves as educational standards. Vilifying boogeymen isn’t useful. If what you vote for in an election has no solid basis in assured implementation, and it doesn’t no matter what partisan position you hold, then your act of voting at the ballot box has limited impact at best and serves more to create and cooperate with an illusion than anything else. Even individuals of great character succumb to the influence and methods of the institutions which they aspire to be a part of and which represent the consolidation of money, power and influence. The operational rules of those institutions are designed to perpetuate and insulate from change the institutions themselves as well as assure that the coercive effects and balance of power remain manageable for those who are truly “in power”. BTW none of those are elected.
In our society, as a citizen you have the right to vote; but who or what you vote for is determined by what you can be sold on, which is largely a matter of what fiction you can be convinced is going to serve you personally the best. Voting is important and exercising any and all rights of your citizenship is vitally important to maintaining those rights so, by all means vote, just don’t get the notion that it is more than what it is. And certainly the access to technology that provides for “grass roots” conversations and exchange of ideas outside the otherwise traditional channels is a plus. But do not mistake the ideals and propaganda about what makes America great and how we are a shinning example of its idealized virtues for what is really there.
For some reason you have the impression I don’t vote. Your wrong. I vote. I campaign. I volunteer. I engage in conversation. And I have since well before you were born. I have lived inside of Federal Government and seen up close the fact behind what I say. I also have been involved in “protests” and political “marches” and other tools of populist attempts to engage our government when it fails to respond to the ballot box. At this point I’m tired of it all. And currently it seems to me that any attempt to actually converse about politics, ideology, and policy and in turn understand points of view are drowned out by incivility and downright disrespect for one another unless it is perceived that the same beliefs and myths are held by the conversing parties. It is as if there is no conversation at all, just an attempt by each party to convince or “sell” the other that what they individually espouse is their idea (which it isn’t in most cases but rather just a restatement of something they have picked up and taken as theirs) and no other idea has any credence or usefulness. The usefulness of expression of ideas helps to clarify and solidify thought and understanding. It isn’t supposed to be a battle. Shouting out your ideas and beliefs don’t make them better or clearer or more valid and belittling the character of who you are addressing does little but create an atmosphere of antagonism.
When someone writes that “”The American system has always been our elected leaders representing us……” they either have no understanding of history or haven’t been exposed to any history but the idealized pap. If you want to make a difference then you have to avoid the myth and engage with reality. Just knowing that the system isn’t responsive in the manner which you perceive it should be, and railing against it isn’t sufficient. Even denigrating the questionable character of our elected representatives doesn’t serve to change it. Dig deeper if you expect things to change. Whether you are a supporter of Obama or not you should be able to learn. If you feel better by just the “rage”, the organizing, and the voting; great. Let me know how the System itself has changed after you try your methods for a generation or so. Good luck!
BTW this would be the first time I have attempted to use this internet/blog type interface to converse. Do you think you could make allowances for a tecno virgin dummy?
[Reply to this Comment]
September 17th, 2009 at 11:50 am
“Legislators make decisions and laws on behalf of all citizens but not by a vote of all citizens on whether or not they favor the legislators choice. It has been this way since the establishment of our Political Identity separate from that of our European colonial existence.”
Thank you for the civics lesson Commentator #1. While this sentence clearly shows that you aced your high school Citizenship class, I don’t recall the original article arguing that we live under a direct democracy. You clearly went to a great high school. Could you explain separation of powers to us now?
[Reply to this Comment]
September 17th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
@Lil’ Abner,
And how does sarcasm serve to facilitate a conversation? BTW, Anyone who states “The American system has always been our elected leaders representing us, not deciding for us” is immersed in the idea that we are a direct democracy.” Maybe you missed that part of the post? Regardless, the whole point is that buying into the myth makes it very difficult if possible at all to actually do anything about it.
[Reply to this Comment]
September 19th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
[Reply to this Comment]
September 17th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Er…the author DOES know that there’s no Constitutional right to vote, doesn’t she? It’s a privilege, and originally, it wasn’t extended universally. Also, for the love of God, take a look at some public choice economics. “Apathy” can sometimes be very rational indeed, and all the ills of the world won’t be solved by everyone going out and casting their statistically insignificant votes like Lemmings.
[Reply to this Comment]
September 17th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
@Anonymous2,
Actually there IS a constitutional right (are all rights actually privileges?) to vote, it just limits who is a “citizen” with that right. Pesky definitions! Whether apathy is rational or not might be great as a topic for argument, what is not is that to maintain rights they must be exercised and at this point in time natural born and naturalized citizens who do not suffer from felony conviction restrictions are granted by constitution and law the “right” to vote when they meet age restrictions. As a participant in our society it behooves all that are eligible to vote, even if the vote itself is limited in its current effectiveness, to actually engage. The alternative is to act like a victim of all or any outcomes and that has NO future; not to mention the fact that your presence becomes one of a “taker” without being a substantive “contributor”, at least in a political context.
[Reply to this Comment]