Is This Really the Way Democracy Is Supposed to Work?

“Hey, Ace, what’s up?  I notice you don’t have a sign on your lawn for the governor’s race.  That’s a first.”

“Yeah, well, I hate to say it, Ralph, but I think I’m gonna sit that race out.  I notice you don’t have a sign in your yard either.”

He looked a little down.  “To tell the truth, Ace,” he said, “I’ve been the dutiful citizen and held my nose while I pulled the lever one too many times.  I’ve finally had enough.  I just can’t find it in me to vote for either one of these guys.”  

“Huh.  That’s funny, that’s about where I am too.  When it came right down to it, I couldn’t see putting a sign up for somebody I don’t respect, let alone have any reason to vote for.”

“That’s happening more and more.  When you find yourself  choosing the lesser of two evils time after time, you’re degrading the body politic almost every election cycle.”

“I hadn’t thought of it that way.  I’m not sure I want to.  It’s the reverse of the old ‘every-day-in-every-way-I’m-getting-better-and-better’ attitude.”

“Just answer me this, Ace,” he said.  “Do you find yourself wondering, ‘Is this really the way democracy is supposed to work?’  Seems to me that election after election, neither candidate will talk about the real issues.  It’s as if they drew up an agreement to stick major issues in the back of a giant ‘Ignore’ drawer.   And what do they campaign on?  Sex!”

“Sex?”

“Sex.  It’s all sex-related,” he said.  “Divorce.  Abortion.  Homosexuality.  I’m sure not saying those aren’t important in people’s lives. But the planet is heading toward a meltdown, the middle class is a threatened species, Wall Street owns Washington, and we go from one trillion dollar war to another like the national equivalent of a serial killer who just can’t stop.  The only arm of government listening to what the people say is the NSA.  Our schools are turning kids into right-answer machines, and those who graduate are getting priced out of college or saddled with lifelong debt.  And what actions do these candidates propose in response to such colossal problems?  Not a damned thing!  They spend 95% of their campaign tearing into the other guy’s views on hot-button sex topics.”

“Wow, you’re pretty worked up, Ralph.  But I have to agree on the negative campaigning.  I’ll bet I’ve received fifteen or twenty mailings from my party’s candidate, and all but one consisted of  nothing but an attack on your man.  I wasn’t supposed to vote for anybody; I was supposed to be scared into voting against someone.”

“I know what you mean, Ace, and I apologize for the rant.  Like I said, I don’t have a man in this race.  But I just don’t know what to do with politics anymore.  It feels as if our democracy has been driven to the end of a dead end street.  Some of the candidates for other state and local offices are people I can support.  But more and more the big races remind me of high school, where we only got to vote on things like class colors and the kids ‘most likely to succeed.’  It was a charade, you know, but we were supposed to be grateful for the chance to go through the motions of democracy in action.”

“I guess I understand where you’re coming from.  If the system is rigged so that lobbyists and corporate donations call the shots, the two major parties freeze others out of the process, only the rich or those who’ve sold their souls can afford to run for a major office, and voting districts are gerrymandered to give incumbents a 95% chance of success, it seems pointless to spend  much energy ‘working within the system.’  But what’s the alternative?”

“Well, I can tell you what the historical alternative has been.”

“What’s that?”

[Ralph pulls a piece of paper out of his pocket, unfolds it, and begins to read]  

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator  with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Live, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

“Hold on there!  Don’t you think you’re overreacting, Ralph?  What about some intervening steps?  You aren’t really suggesting what it sounds like you’re suggesting--are you?  That’s un-American!”

© Tony Russell, 2013

"Money As a Form of Speech"

One of the reasons why we get more pleasure from satire

than from a sermon, even when the satire is making exactly the same 

point as the sermon, is that we have an uncomfortable feeling that

the minister expects us to do something about it.

-- Leonard Feinberg

I had to get to the office early today to write up the local election report.  So I was surprised to see that my neighbor’s foreign exchange student, loaded with books, was already headed toward the university.  I pulled over and told him to hop in.

“We should probably introduce ourselves if we’re going to keep running into each other,” I said, sticking out my hand.  “I’m Ace.”

“My name is Aadil,” he said. “A-a-d-i-l.  I am pleased to formally make your acquaintance.”

“That’s an unusual name,” I said.  “Where are you from?”

“I am from Pakistan,” he replied.  “‘Aadil’ is a Muslim name meaning ‘just.’”

“Hope you’re not a terrorist,” I said, and then added, when he flinched, “Just joking.  What gets you out so early?  Got a big test coming up?

He shook his head.  “No,” he said.  “I stayed up late watching your election returns and had trouble sleeping afterwards, so I decided it would be more efficient to make use of the time and go study.”

“Well, what did you think of the election?” I asked.  “Watching democracy in action must have been an experience for you.  And now the people have spoken.”

He glanced at me.  “My country is a parliamentary democracy,” he said.  “But it is interesting that you phrase the results of your election in that manner.  Since your Supreme Court ruled in ‘Citizens United’ that money is a form of speech, I mean.”

“Why is that interesting?” I asked, curious.

He hesitated.  “This is your country,” he said.  “Please understand that I do not wish to offend.  I am simply trying to understand the way in which your electoral system functions.”

“Hey!  No skin off my ... nose,” I told him.  “Feel free.”

He looked baffled for an instant, and then said, “I am unable to follow the logic of the assertion that money is a form of speech, and that therefore people and corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money exercising their freedom to use this presumed form of speech.”

I glanced over at him.  “What’s your problem with the logic?” I asked.

“It’s simply an analogy, isn’t it?” he said.  “Money equals speech?  Dollars are the same as words and sentences?”

“Okay.”

“But if we pursue the analogy, it means that people who have no money have no speech, no voice,” he said.  “If one’s home is being foreclosed on, or if one has huge medical bills, or works for minimum wage, or is out of work, or any of a number of other possibilities, one is unable to ‘say’ anything, because one doesn’t have the money to ‘speak’ in the political arena.”

“Uh, I guess that makes sense,” I said.  “I hadn’t thought about that.”

“And if one is very wealthy, or a giant corporation, one can ‘speak’ loudly and almost endlessly,” he went on.  “In fact, one can speak so long and so loudly that it becomes difficult for anyone else to even be heard--or only another person or corporation that also has an enormous amount of money.”

“I’m afraid that’s true,” I said, after thinking about it for a minute.

“So your court’s ruling would seem to sweep away any possibility of equality in the electoral process,” he said.  “One citizen can ‘say’ nothing, while a billionaire can ‘speak’ on and on and on.  And your elections are very expensive.  One has almost no hope of competing successfully without having a huge treasury to buy television time, buy radio time, hire consultants and pollers and staff, print brochures and bumper stickers, rent offices and computers and phone banks.”

“That’s true too,” I admitted.

“People of ordinary means therefore have little voice, and also appear to be largely excluded as candidates for major offices in your country,” he said.  “Or they are sponsored by the rich and indebted to them.”

“Politics has become a playground for the wealthy,” I conceded.

“And both political parties are indebted to their wealthy sponsors, meaning that what they both ‘hear’ is likely to be the voice of the ruling elite, not the voice of common citizens.” 

“‘Ruling elite’ sounds like un-American phrasing,” I said, “but I get what you’re saying.

“Perhaps ‘dollars are a form of votes’ would be a more accurate analogy than ‘money is a form of speech,’” he mused.  “And it contradicts the “one person, one vote” rule, because some people get millions of votes, while others get none.”

“It doesn’t always work out that way,” I pointed out.  “Sometimes the winner has spent less than the person who lost.”

“That happens,” he concurred.  “The one who spends the most generally wins, though not always.  Actually, the level of spending required to even compete acts as a screening device.  People who can’t raise large levels of money are simply eliminated.  Usually they don’t even make it into your primaries, because they get discouraged.  Or they lose in the primaries.  That means that many ordinary people can back a candidate who doesn’t stand a chance, while a single wealthy backer or industry can propel another candidate forward in the race.  In effect, many people’s ‘speech’ may mean nothing, while one person’s speech may lead to victory.”

“That’s the way it works,” I said slowly.

“The ‘Citizens United’ ruling appears to be the capstone on your election funding process,” he said.  “Maintaining the form of a democracy while functioning as a plutocracy.”

“Now wait a minute,” I said. “You’ve gone too far.”

He looked out the window.  “Oh, no,” he said.  “This is where I get out.  And thank you for the dialogue.  I am most grateful for the ride.”

© Tony Russell, 2010