[Editor’s Note: See Part 1, Oct. 15.]
The U.S. is Not a Democracy
It’s an exaggeration, of course, to say that the United States is NOT a democracy. Unfortunately, it’s also an exaggeration to say that it is. Maybe we could call it democratish.
George Monbiot described the British system in a way that sums up American –Western, even – democracy: “We elect a government on the basis of a manifesto containing hundreds of proposals. Probability suggests that a few thousand open-minded people might agree or disagree with all of them. Everyone else will favour some policies and reject others. But the new government interprets its victory as public support for every item in the manifesto, except those that it decides to drop. The moment we seek to refine our choice, by protesting against one of the proposals we are deemed to have supported, we are told that we are being undemocratic: the people have spoken — who are we to disagree? In the meantime, corporate lobbyists glide through government offices, reshaping policies to suit their commercial needs.”
In an era where “plus one” (as in, 51 percent) is seen as a mandate from heaven, there is a serious disconnect between what the government does and what people want, and not only in they way Monbiot describes. Remember Nader and the 2000 election? Many who blamed Gore’s loss on vote-splitting by people who voted for Nader essentially condemned people for voting for the candidate they felt best represented their interests. Their message, “Don’t vote for Green because you’ll only put a Republican in power,” is a fundamentally undemocratic message. The problem is deeper than that, however. The very means by which votes are counted makes the electoral system prone to breaking when there are more than two candidates. Between that and the Electoral College…
Further evidence that the democratic nature of U.S. democracy has been eroded or corrupted: 1) the sheer amount of money being spent on political campaigns, which puts running for office out of many people’s reach, 2) voting machine controversies, 3) distorted population to government representation ratios (2 senators per state regardless of population size), 4) skewered coverage by profit-driven media (example: we know all about frontrunners Clinton and Giuliani, but how many people know that Mike Gravel has a tax proposal that involves eliminating the IRS? How many people know what Kucinich’s platform is? Or Ron Paul’s?), 5) The Bush Administration’s use of signing statements and its insistence on the Unitary Executive, a concentration of power that hasn’t been well-challenged by Democrats.
It flies in the face of American self-perception to admit that there’s a problem with the structure of democracy. That’s unfortunate. But you can’t fix a problem if you don’t talk about it. With dissatisfaction toward Bush and the Democrat-controlled congress at unbelievable lows, there’s a need for a whole lot of talking. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071017/ts_nm/usa_politics_poll_dc
American Soldiers in Iraq Have Died in Vein
The facts have been in for some time: No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, no ties to Sept. 11th, no military capability strong enough to pose a threat. The ever-shifting rationale for the Bush Administration’s war in Iraq has justifiably provoked calls for impeachment. And this doesn’t touch on the use of mercenaries like Blackwater (surely an insult to the men and women in uniform), the missing billions of dollars, ongoing corruption, the disgraceful state of veteran’s health care, etc, etc. But of course, saying this will get amens from the choir and curses from people who still think that our “freedom” has anything to do with occupying a politically unstable Iraq; the same old static argument. But the thing is, with the war a sham, both politically and economically (how much money is being spent on the war?), the stubborn elephant in the room is that those brave men and women serving their country are being asked to risk their lives for a discredited, dishonorable cause. To put it bluntly, it was unnecessary – and still is – for all those soldiers to die, not to mention all the civilian casualties. It’s a hard thing to admit, however. I understand that no one wants to think that the death of a loved one was pointless or futile. But it isn’t a reflection on the soldiers themselves. It is the political masters, the people who abuse the troops' good intentions who bear the full force of the criticism. The accusing finger points toward President Bush for having so thoroughly disrespected the people serving in the military, for having dismissed the value of their lives.
And the point is…
…not to bring up talking points to annoy for the sake of annoying, but to touch on the controversies that, in my observation, have come to define our entry into the 21st century. Some of the points (U.S. democracy, class warfare) are structural problems. (My feeling is that if any of the frontrunners of either party win the presidential nomination, we really, really won’t see much of a change on these issues.) The other two (Sept.11th, U.S. troops) reflect poisonous cultural attitudes – fear, a lack of respect for the value of life and the horror of warfare – of the kind that allows the government to get away with royally four-letter wording the people. Welcome to the New Millennium…it sure looks a lot like the old one.
