The Biggest Problem with Our Democracy
As I work up my answers for the Liberal/Conservative test I wanted to post something new, and that something is, far and away, the largest problem I see with our government. I’m going to pose a very simple question:
How does an average citizen get their ideas into the political debate?
There is currently no way. If someone had a good idea for a program for energy and infrastructure (which I do) how do they get it considered for actual implementation? Even senators and representatives use forms on their websites where you have to pre-select the issue you’re writing about. Here’s a great question: Why must one pre-select the issue if their email will be read by someone? Having emailed representatives and senators, submitted info on Change.gov, and having even tracked down the emails of the Obama team and emailed them during the campaign, I can say I have never received any indication that a human has ever seen anything I’ve written. Now, I can understand why conservatives might not see this as a problem–their supporters are more ideologically homogeneous: If it’s a regulation, defeat it. If it’s more of anything government does, defeat it. If it lowers taxes, champion it. If it’s consistent with Christianity, support it. Otherwise, just say the Federal government shouldn’t be involved with such things. Liberals, however, truly represent the disparate interests of all the non-pluralities. Liberals, above all, should be willing to take all ideas from their supporters because the interests of those same supporters are complex and, oftentimes, at odds with one another.
In fact, exactly the opposite of this sort of thing currently happens. Even Democrats, the party most in the liberal image, give celebrities and executives more access than average citizens. Now, I realize it’s a hard problem. Businesses are hierarchies and there are natural people to assume represent their point of view. Average Americans, as a point of contrast, number in the millions and politicians probably fancy themselves the natural representatives (not without reason) of their points of view. Even if politicians don’t presume to truly know the ideas or nuances positions of the people, then how do they actually find those out? Who should be consulted?
Some might claim, at this point, that the populace is too numerous to actually have a direct influence on policy. This is naive, at best. First, only about 45% of the populace votes, or roughly 130 million people. My guess is that a small percentage of the voting population has any desire to engage in actually giving ideas to their government. So, what kind of infrastructure would one need to ensure everyone’s suggestion was considered or point of view heard? To be honest, I think it would be the best call center job ever. Get ideas from your fellow citizens and forward them on to the people that make decisions–at a living wage, with government benefits. If the government hired full-time employees for this job then somewhere between one per thousand or one per ten-thousand is what I would suggest is the right number of people for this job. This is somewhere between 13,000 and 130,000 people, or, roughly, between a 0.7% and 7% increase in the 1.8 million federal government’s workforce (ex-Post Office). Obviously there are numerous other issues, but feasibility of something so ideological fundamental to a democracy seems to be off the table.
So, with feasibility off the table, what is the true problem? Why doesn’t the populace get to inject their ideas into the public debate? Why is it mostly career politicians who have no incentive to buck special interests whose money is important to running their campaigns, even less incentive to care about the points of view of the people that didn’t vote for them, and almost no expertise in any of the issues they are asked to vote on? I don’t think it’s all that controversial to say that most politicians view average citizens as photo ops before they consider them a source of solutions. Note, by the way, that this is very different from viewing their opinion on currently proposed solutions as valuable. Politicians, I’m sure, already do ask how citizens view proposed legislation, like the proposed auto-bailout, but that’s a false choice. Americans shouldn’t have to choose between supporting watered down solution A or watered down solution B.
A Test to See if You’re Left or Right
1. If you could solve the fundamental problems of an entire group of people (say up to about 1,000,000 people who share an ethnicity, social status, or other background, including combinations of these) would you solve the problems of a group of people in the U.S.? Note that this question’s slightly awkward wording is merely meant to be broad. Helping all of the poor of the world, for example, would be too general, but P.O.W.’s trapped in China would be acceptable (if there are any… are there?).
2. Do you believe corporations actions inherently have a positive impact on our society, with those actions’ impact getting more positive the less restricted they are?
3. Do you believe that, in the current state of the world, wealthy people, such as executives, are paid commensurate with their worth? A corollary is to ask whether or not things like executive pay can be “gamed” or artificially inflated purely to the benefit of the executives and the detriment of everyone else.
4. Do you believe practices that you view as morally wrong, but that others do not view this way, can justifiably be banned?
5. Do you agree with the premise that there is nothing the government can do that the private sector cannot do more efficiently and more effectively? Note the structural change that requires, including fund raising.
6. Do you believe that America is always intervening inappropriately in the global market when it restricts trade or subsidizes markets?
7. Do you believe that religious beliefs have a place in the public sphere or that there exists a civic religion?
8. Do you believe that people should take care of “their own” before others?
9. Do you believe that intervening on behalf of environmental causes, such as preservation and protection of endangered species, is inappropriate for economic/political/idealogical reasons?
10. Do you believe that there is a certain set of objective criteria, related to criminal statutes, that can be set where, once satisfied, a person should be penalized by death?
11. Do you believe that a criminal, who has served is or her prescribed debt to society, can totally reform themselves and become a truly good person that shouldn’t have their past acts held against them?
12. Do you believe that regulation hinders our society and/or economy? Note that this question doesn’t specify a degree of regulation, it addresses regulation in an all-or-none fashion.
13. Do you believe that a justice can rule in a way that takes into account more than the particular wording of specific statutes? Note that this doesn’t say they ignore statutes as written, just that a justice would take more than that into account in a ruling.
14. Do you believe that, in all instances, it is better for the government to allow an individual to keep more of their earnings, or are there circumstances that warrant individuals being required to pay more of their earnings? Note that this question is meant to measure the long run, not specific instances, such as war.
15. Do you believe that lawmakers should always promote actions and policies that ensure the letter of the law is enforced? Lawmakers, to my mind, is an important distinction.
16. Do you believe that there is a balance to be struck between the ability of individuals to exercise specific rights and the interests of the country?
17. Do you believe that health care should be provided to all?
18. Do you support one’s status or wealth determining, in a substantial way, the opportunities one has to advance in life?
19. Do you believe that minorities are, on average, not disadvantaged relative to the majority?
20. Do you believe that the U.S. has a sort of authority over the world and is justified in intervening in other nations’ affairs?
Like any test, I’ll be providing my answers to these questions.
Proof that Career Politicians are Bad
In a world where career politicians exist, a convicted felon can be given a standing ovation. He was corrupt! He corrupted the process the people of the United States rely on to ensure their tax dollars are working for them. Absolutely, positive unacceptable. The people should have ordered he be banned from the grounds of the capital. BarbinMD writing for the DailyKos makes a different point… Regardless, it’s a disgrace. An absolute disgrace. Also, look at the video below. Around 0:42 seconds in you see Robert Byrd being wheeled into the chamber. Honestly, how effective can he be as a senator? While I like some things about Sen. Byrd, and I’m not from West Virginia, I wonder why they keep sending him back to the Senate. Their interests cannot be well served by him representing them…
Welcome
Hi. This is a new blog where I intend to write more about the philosophy of the left and center-left–what I believe is the plurality of America right now. I have lots of ideas, but we’ll see how this evolves. Please bookmark the page, add my feed, or even get my posts via email.
Battlefield of Ideas 