Democracy for the New American Century
It is high time for Rant & Growl as a formal, serialized platform upon which the host can address one trivial issue or another with a distinct lack of decorum.This edition of Rant & Growl departs upon a non-linear tangent from a comment made by the bright, outspoken, and astute blogger Dusty of It's My Right to Be Left of Center and The Sirens Chronicles. Dusty, by the way, is also a contributing writer at The UnCapitalist Journal, a Dark Wraith Publishing property. (And, yes, using the word "property" to describe something having to do with 'uncapitalism' does, indeed, smack of deliciously disingenuous intellectual irony even to your host, who happens to own Dark Wraith Publishing and, therefore, The UnCapitalist Journal. Just let it go; it's too complicated to explain, even to myself.)
Setting aside the trifling, and with sincere apology to Dusty for using her comment as the launching pad for a sub-orbital flight to Rantland, here is the fuel for the current high-octane blend of my personal fusion of progressivism, paleo-conservatism, and plain old insufferability. Dusty's comment is immediately followed by the rhetorical flatus of my opinions:
Voting should be more than a right, imho. [I]t should be something that everyone must take part in, or fear legal reprisals.
There are complications with the plan to make voting a legal requirement. First, in most parts of the country, registration to vote exposes the registrants to the prospect of being called to jury duty. Aside from what could be argued is a citizen's duty to serve on juries, many people have legitimate fears about jury service. I have known two people in my life who lost job opportunities because of protracted jury duty. Furthermore, at some point I plan to describe what I, myself, will do if called to jury duty. In summary, I shall be most fortunate if the presiding judge doesn't jail me for what I say during the voir dire conducted by some assistant DA twit. I most definitely will not be seated as a juror, that's for sure; and I strongly suspect that I will not even be thanked for showing up and sharing my opinions about the law.
More to the point of a law mandating that every citizen vote, though, the very last thing I want is for virtually all of the adult citizens of this country to exercise their franchise. We live in a nation where intelligence, education, and relatively simple reasoning skills are abysmal and declining rapidly from there.
You folks don't believe me? I've spent nearly three decades of my life doing reparative work on what the primary and secondary schools of this country pump out and call "graduates." Less generously, I've spent nearly three decades of my life doing reparative work on what the parents of this country pump out and proudly call their progeny, a ghastly litter of ragamuffins who have been at the hands of ill-trained, lazy, ignorant men and women who use a combination of brutish force and wretched negligence in the hopes of fostering something more morally, intellectually, and spiritually upright than they, themselves, ever were or ever could be.
It is bad enough that a lot of the howlingly, willfully stupid people vote as it is. Do you know how many people go to the polls and just pick names at random or because they saw a sign in someone's front yard?
This is the inconvenient truth of our "democracy": we are led by those who can get the most mainstream media face time and are the meanest and most aggressive in their campaigning. To put more incompetent voters into polling booths is to ensure that the disaster of the current White House resident will become more and more the rule.
Look at what we're going to elect as the next President of the United States of America. Not one of the major candidates of either party wants to be in the same galaxy with a conversation about bringing the rule of law to retributive, blind, unwavering justice on the cabal that has driven this country into ruin through the past seven years. Not one candidate would dare say to the American people, "We're going to have a Come-to-Jesus Meeting where every elected official, unelected bureaucrat, control-freak theocrat, radical Right-wing judge, rank-and-file torturer, and garden-variety parasitic cretin of this new American century will get hauled into court, exposed for exactly what he or she has done, and then get carted off to a nice, long prison term."
The American people don't want anything to do with that kind of examination that might very well expose the mean, cruel, ignorant beast within the American psyche. It's better to just walk away because that lets us all off the hook so we can MoveOn as if that same monster will not inevitably and swiftly come back and tear us even further asunder down the road in about one or two election cycles.
Trust me on this: giving democracy to the ignorant does not make the ignorant responsible; it makes the democracy nothing but an expression of mob rule. Now, here's a little nugget of wisdom to that effect:
That's right, they suck. Exhibit A: America, circa early 21st Century.
Life would be easier if the United States would simply follow the recommendation of Aristotle, who believed that democracy flourishes best when only the best are allowed to participate. In practical application for the new American century, let the way forward be thus: we the enlightened find the candidate with the most generous bribe money consistent with otherwise responsible policies and a reasonable expression of support for mythical American values, Israel, and whatever fads entertainment celebrities are hawking for the day. We then—with a completely straight face and furrowed brow of responsible confidence—announce to the American people that we have appointed to the Presidency a God-fearing person who likes the death penalty, hates terrorists, approves of the law, and has an opposite-sex marriage partner for penis/vagina sex exclusively for procreative purposes (except on rare occasions when the happily married couple can otherwise stomach the site of one another grunting in the nude).
We establish official guidelines for groups to be hated in rotating fashion so no single class of people should suffer too long. Furthermore, even though they're all fakes, we assure the citizenry that the cameras we're putting in every home in America are for each person's own good; and if anyone balks, we repeatedly say, "Think of the children." We should also promise to have law enforcement personnel be above the law so cops can continue to be the thuggish brutes most civilian Americans wish they, themselves, could be.
Real democracy? Of course that plan set forth above isn't real democracy; but, then again, how many people would actually notice? As long as the television and radio keep on pumping drivel, as long as the sports scores keep rolling, and as long as responsibility is the mantra for someone else's life, the majority can be allowed to live in an illusory crêche where private sloth miraculously has no mirror image in the public body.
The will of the People? I am certainly in favor of it; but only in moderation and most decidedly only by responsible committee.
The Dark Wraith has thus set forth his platform for election reform.
Comments
Wrote Cloud:
Wrote Dusty:
Well, I just woke up from my nights slumber(fell asleep at 6am)..so imagine my surprise to see my name in your post, and not, I might add..in a good way :P
Sorry to set you off Dark Wraith, but I still think adults should have to vote for those that represent them. I too am skeptical that the vast majority of individuals have enough brain cells to rub together that will enable them to make an informed choice. But, that said, the hopeless romantic in me thinks that individuals might actually learn to pay attention to an election cycle if they know they have to 'take part' in the process.
As for being called to jury duty, the pool of jurors would be so large that it would be easier to get out of participating would be my hope, not to mention it's fairly easy now to blow it off if you really do not wish to do your 'duty'. Since I am a very loud, opinionated female, I highly doubt most attorney's would want me on their jury, which I see as a plus of course.
Also, I do think that there would still be a large group of ignoramus's that would refuse to participate..thereby becoming part of the local prison 'chain gang' for a period of time..which would make the majority of the intelligent folk very happy, since we could make them pick our crops or wash our cars..or perhaps..perish the thought..mow our lawns or clean the nation's cat boxes.
Wrote Moody Blue:
Another good rant and grrrowl, Wraith.
Say, how about we should start requiring an intelligence test (and maybe a psychological test) before any politician can run for office?
If I could only hit the lotto as many times as I've been "randomly selected" for jury "doody"...
Wrote heatkernel:
The Founders clearly never intended Democracy to work at the Federal level. The only Democratic feature at all of the Federal government was the House, i.e. lower chamber of the bicameral legistlature. The main reason they even made that 1/2-of-a-branch Democratic is they believed that every spending bill should originate with Representatives, directly answerable to the people every 2 years, and that the people would be the most conservative about spending decisions (which they are, more or less, I suppose).
In addition, there was much discussion at the time of putting up controversial laws and issues to a direct popular vote, but it never got anywhere because the Southern states realized the rapidly growing Northern ones would use the procedure to outlaw slavery. So we are stuck with the worst of both worlds, in effect.
We have the Jacksonians to blame for making the Presidency popularly elected (by starting the trend of having state Electors popularly elected), and the Progressives to blame for making the Senate (and many State Judiciaries) popularly elected. The Jacksonians may have been sincere but misguided frontiersmen, but the Progressives were and are (e.g. H. Clinton), little more than a front for moneyed interests who realized they could manipulate an ignorant populace more easily through the media than they could manipulate the old moneyed Patrician class.
The only level at which Democracy can work is, at most, a community the size of one of the Federalist Era states. That would be, I suppose, something like a quarter of a million people. All Governments covering a territory and population larger than 1/4 million should be essentially consensus organizations like the EU or UN (as these bodies are in theory, according to their charter, not in practice). These larger governments should be restricted in their powers to co-ordinating those efforts of the smaller "Communes" that actually require pooling of resources, such as harbor and road building.
In addition, most powers should not even be held by the .25 million person Communes, but by smaller Communes with about 30k living contiguously. These ought to be ruled by direct democracy similar to the Town Meeting in New England, and major controversial issues decided by the People's own law-making power, with professional technocrats hired to carry out the details and make reports.
We are not going to see anything like this in our lifetime, of course. But it's good to recognize that our system of government is by its very nature not destined to work, so we will get a clear understanding of our situation and what we are up against.
Wrote oldwhitelady:
I like Moody Blue 's idea,
Say, how about we should start requiring an intelligence test (and maybe a psychological test) before any politician can run for office?
I wonder how many would have the proper score deemed appropriate? I wonder if we could get a good crop of worthwhile candidates? The ones who'd be good would not apply/run, for fear their test scores would come back abnormal.
As for voting rights, we've come a long way since only white males could vote. I wouldn't like to go back to the past.
Wrote Wild Clover:
Good Evening All:
While I hate the low participation rate of our electorate, I think we have enough things "required by law" that adding yet another rubs me wrong in a big way. Besides, the folk who don't give a shit don't deserve a voice, nor the right to complain when they get screwed. Now, making it mandatory that the poll records of who has participated be used to determine whether the angry letter to the politician is read and considered or trashed outright without being counted as a valid opinion seems to me to be fair and just. To cut the folks with an actual excuse a break(like 15 minutes to make the vote after work and getting a flat), make it something like "must have participated in an election in the past 2 years unless overseas in military or governmental service". Politicians by law will be required to read the communications of anyone who exercised their franchise. When statistics of pro and con on an issue are compiled, only the opinions of actual voters may be used. If desired, give a merit prize for voting lots-like the gallon club for blood donors...some silly honorific to go on the end of a formal signiture, like PhD, or MD. Let's see...A.V. for sometime voters(>=50%), C.V. for consistant voters(>=75%), V.C.V. (>=90%). Maintaining the C.V. or V.C.V. for 10 years or more and you become a member of the Order of the Electorate, entitled to wear some type of civilian medal-call it the Civilian Service Award. At 25 years, you get the American Service Award, with the permanent status of V.C.V. and become part of a pool of potential focus group/citizen advisors to be called upon by politicians for advice and opinion (yeah, you never have to vote again, but at that point, it's going to be a habit).
Carrot, not stick. And cut the one's who don't care enough to make a trip to the polls out of the discussion. Pollsters can poll and use these catagories, rather than "likely voters" or the such. Yeah, folks can still lie, but hey-I can use both Rev. and Phd. in my communications, legally and truly. Cost me something like $50 about 8 years ago.
We've run into the problem that people don't see a benefit to actually voting. What's in it for me? I was raised politically minded, and feel my vote gives me bitching rights whether or not my candidate wins. Most Americans aren't raised like that. The younger folks-gen Xers and younger-are used to getting instant scores from their video games, or whatever. Either we have to change the voting machines into something that rings bells and gives you a chance to rack up points, or make being a voter-not your party-as much a nice pad for your resume' as being an ex football hero in high school. Given two apps where one shows they bother to vote, and an equal one who doesn't bother, I'm going to pick the voter, even if they are a republican or a Nader fan.
I don't necessarily agree that an IQ test is a good weeder out of politicians. I think an honesty test/evaluation and a reality check should be instituted. There are psych tests that evaluate both ethics and whether or not a person can separate reality and fantasy. First step in filing for an elected office should be testing, the results to be made public. Under our system, a result that says you are a sociopath who believes you create your own reality would not be a barrier to running for office, but it would be required as part of every ad to put the results in-like the Surgeon General's warning on cigarettes. I'm not sure Bush Cheney would have been elected with this system in place. At least when we call them sociopaths and insane, we'd have proof the freepi souldn't poo-poo.
Wrote Minstrel Boy:
good morning dark wraith:
there was a measure, which failed in the last election, in arizona which was intending to establish a million dollar prize (like a lottery prize) to a random voter. to encourage participation. there is one side (the right wing) which has a clear and vested interest in low turnout. by holding fast to the rock solid 27% they get from the crazification factor (nearly one third of the people in our country are crazy enough to think that bush is doing a good job and that cheney is a patriot). which leaves them with the problem of the semi-sane 60%. starting a "war on drugs" to bring felony convictions disproportionately to people of color who then are disenfranchised, pulling purges like they did in florida and new mexico, doing what ever they have to do to ensure that the one third of insane droolers they manage and control can go to the polls and from their minority position influence the results.
Wrote trog69:
Exactly right, BM.
Once we get down to the remaining 'conscious' voters, they face the choice of "More of the Same", or "with friends like these...?", such as Jay Rockefeller, Jane Harman, D. Feinstein, et.al., who've been enabling the criminal workings of this administration since it's inception. Kinda hard to get all pumped for 'change' when the only difference is the names.
Wrote konagod:
What a hoot! The highlight of my day, Dark Wraith. Thank you!
Do people really cast a vote based on seeing a yard sign? Or worse, making a decision based on a sign just outside the no-politicking perimeters of the voting locale? I always wondered about that.
Truly, there's a huge percentage of people that I'd rather not see anywhere near a polling place. I'm not sure what percentage of Americans have no clue who is even running at this point, or how many have probably never heard of Dennis Kucinich, or ever watched a debate, but god knows, I don't want them near a voting booth if they can't be bothered to do their homework like good little boys & girls.
Wrote trog69:
It might be for the best that 1/2 don't bother voting.
Wrote My Pet Goat:
It might be for the best that 1/2 don't bother voting.
I'd calculate that as 3/4ths shouldn't be voting given the last two elections (even accounting for irregularities).
Add Comments
Log in
Become a Registered Commenter
« Return to the main page.
This blog offers Internet travelers a place where they can discuss economics, finance, politics, and other topics of scholarly and practical interest to thinking people. Your comments are always welcome, and your visits are most appreciated.
Your host of this Weblog is an award-winning college teacher and writer who specializes in economics, finance, mathematics, business administration, computer hardware and software skills, and English grammar and composition. His extensive writings on the history of the English language appeared on About.com in the avatar of the Selig Wraith in the 
Send a Secure Message to the Dark Wraith
![[Valid RSS]](http://dark-wraith.com/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Maybe democracy works admirably with a few thousand people. Every citizen is his own parliamentary representative. Convene every winter (after the farm-work is done), and at the end of the legislating session, elect an executive for the new year.
With millions of people, not so much. In representative democracy, however ideal, one is at the mercy of his collective neighbors who elect his representation for him -- and we all know how that goes.
And even if everyone could somehow be allowed now to participate in legislation via the internet (never mind the logistics on that!), the media corporations and their rulers would still rule.
I seriously believe that -- on this planet of dwindling fresh water and desertifying arabale land, where the human race has at least trebly overshot the earth's carrying capacity for it -- to expect anything other than a global techno-plutocracy is a pipe dream.
As the Wraith pointed out a while ago, twentieth-century fascism was only a prelude to that which is now coming about.
Grr, indeed.