In "Does American Democracy Still Work?" Alan Wolfe answers his own question with something equivalent to: if so, just barely and badly at that. For him, American democracy is in radical decline. Americans no longer get the information they need to make decisions properly, and politicians are no longer held accountable for the decisions they make in office. Emotional populist appeals, he believes, block out important facts....
In "Our Undemocratic Constitution," Sanford Levinson locates the flaws of the system in America's founding document itself--the Constitution....
He contends that the Electoral College, the Senate, the presence of two legislative chambers and the presidential veto all detract from "real" democracy. The Electoral College and the Senate give an unfair advantage to voters in less populous states; the requirement that both House and Senate approve of a bill makes it harder to fashion new law, and the veto makes it harder still, privileging the status quo.
Of course, the Constitution's design has a purpose--to make democracy republican and not "direct," to slow it down, lest wayward passions push the country too violently in one direction or another. Time seems to have vindicated the Framers' wisdom on such matters.... Mr. Levinson does not come close to showing why it would be prudent to rebuild this framework and put its redesign up for grabs.
November 7, 2006
"Will a Democratic victory in today's election suddenly restore the integrity of America's political system...?"
Lawprof John O. McGinnis looks at two books that say American democracy is broken and thinks what he's seeing are two authors who don't like who's winning the elections these days:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
I agree with Dbrooks comment.
For example, I work with a far-left lib and she said just a couple weeks ago that people should have to pass a test before being allowed to vote!!!
Sheez, it reminds me of folks that blame the Iraq invasion on a compliant media- like the MSM had veto power or some such.
I don't think that it's about people not getting enough information. I think that people realize that their choices are not that significant. The country's political culture has become completely divorced from the society of which it should be a product. We need a less ossified national party system. I'm not sure that a top-down solution is possible. The organic development of regional parties could help, but this hasn't been a phenomenon since the Civil War.
One problem alluded to above with our current system is that, yes, the real power in Congress is by seniority. But seniority doesn't usually come because the Senators or Representatives were good, but rather because they were running for safe seats. Thus, you have Kennedy and Kerry representing Mass. in the Senate and Pelosi being pushed to give Hastings the chair of the Intelligence committee, because she had booted Wm. Jefferson from Ways and Means. All four come from ultra-safe districts, the two Representatives from racially gerrymandered districts that all but guarantee an African-American as their Representative, regardless of competence.
The amazing thing about Kerry is that with over 20 years in the Senate, he is still the junior Senator from Mass. Because Colorado is a swing state, I don't remember any Senators from here serving for anywhere near that long in my lifetime. Typical is either one and two terms.
The result is that Kennedy, Kerry, and Hastings have seniority, and no matter how competent the newly elected Congressmen (and women) are, they won't have such for years, if ever.
(Actually, despite his personal problems, Kennedy does do a good enough job that he would be reelected in a much less liberal environment than Mass. Kerry though is a different story).
I agree that it isn't about the people not getting enough information, because far more is available than ever before. If you want it, it is easily accessible. My gripe is that too many still depend on the MSM to put the facts together for them, which opens them up to manipulation by such.
But realistically, that is most likely no worse, and probably better, than we have had through much of our history. Is is better to vote for someone because the MSM portrayed them positively and their opponent negatively? Or that the precinct boss told you how to vote? I would easily pick the former.
AJLynch, I wouldn't mind a test before voting if it included solving a quadatic equation. 95% of the Lefties I know couldn't do it. ;->=
And I remember a prof of mine in 1995 pining for a 'unified' government (i.e. one party having both Congress and Pres), but I understand he hasn't been all that happy with it the past few years.
I've posted the same sentiments elsewhere, that for liberals "Democracy" is defined as "We win".
If they do not, in fact, capture either house I have predicted that they will blame it all on Kerry (again) and thus avoid any nasty stuff like, perhaps, examining their basic philosophy of governance.
In 2004 I worked in a local government which was basically a Democratic HQ and they did that. All self-serving tripe about how "their message" was just too complex and (dare I say?) nuanced for all the "sheeple" to understand.
Which I guess they did act on since this cycle their sole message seems to be "Bush Sucks".
Democracy has always been "broken." We are but poor humans, and democracy is the best system we can devise to govern ourselves with the least degree of oppression. As Churchill said, it's the worst form of government--except for all the others.
And it doesn't bother me in the least that turnout is low--who wants an uninformed ignoramus casting a vote? The people who do vote are likely also the most informed.
Per dbrooks, the left is just steamed that it keeps losing.
If they do not, in fact, capture either house I have predicted that they will blame it all on Kerry (again)...
I don't think they blamed it on Kerry the first time, and they won't this time, either. Bush "stole" both elections, and Democratic failure today could only mean "We wuz robbed."
Republicans can only win by cheating, don't you know?
Hey, I'm just glad that Dems are complaining about not winning elections.
A few more underperformances in November and they'll want to do away with them entirely.
Post a Comment