Too Much Democracy
Is it possible to have too much democracy? The founding fathers certainly thought so, as Kurt Andersen reminds us …
The tea-party movement takes its name from the mob of angry people in Boston who, in 1773, committed a zany criminal stunt as a protest against taxes and the distant, out-of-touch government that imposed them. Two years later, the revolution was under way and—voilà!—democracy was born out of a wild moment of populist insurrection.
Except not, because in 1787 several dozen coolheaded members of the American Establishment had to meet and debate and horse-trade for four months to do the real work of creating an apparatus to make self-government practicable—that is, to write the Constitution. And what those thoughtful, educated, well-off, well-regarded gentlemen did was invent a democracy sufficiently undemocratic to function and endure. They wanted a government run by an American elite like themselves, as James Madison wrote, “whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.” They wanted to make sure the mass of ordinary citizens, too easily “stimulated by some irregular passion … or misled by the artful misrepresentations” and thus prone to hysteria—like, say, the rabble who’d run amok in Boston Harbor—be kept in check. That’s why they created a Senate and a Supreme Court and didn’t allow voters to elect senators or presidents directly. By the people and for the people, definitely; of the people, not so much.
Andersen preceds to build a compelling, contemporary case for a little more detached (grown up) governing and a little less populist zeal.
And in the other prominent New-York-monikered magazine, James Surowiecki — who not that long ago documented the potential for smart populism — seems, in this case, to agree with Andersen, albeit in tones less dismissive of the aforementioned populist zeal.
The temptation, then, is simply to abandon ambitious plans in an attempt to annoy no one. But a better approach would be to recognize that voters’ anger is less ideological than pragmatic: at heart, it’s the product of the weak economy and the poor job market. (The movement that today’s populism most closely resembles is Ross Perot’s, which arose, similarly, during a downturn.) And while that means that there’s no way to make voters happy without improving the economy, it also means that, if you start creating jobs, people will start to feel better. Obviously, small initiatives that nod to people’s concerns (like the deficit commission) can help. But what matters most is getting the economy moving again—even if doing so means handing out tax credits to businesses or magnifying voters’ frustration with government spending. It may bring some short-term political pain, but the only way out is through.
“The only way out is through.” It’s a difficult concept to appreciate if you’re prone to temper tantrums, but indicative of the pragmatism calmer minds should readily embrace.
______________________
This discussion is continued here.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
34 Responses to “Too Much Democracy”
Good God. You HAVE to be kidding.
I do not think I have ever heard a more biased, condescending, and flat-out piece of propaganda about the the Boston Tea Party, and its relationship to the founding of the United States.
p.s. – democracy predates the founding of the U.S. by a couple thousand years. A minor detail.
What's funny is that at this same time it's openly expressing resentful elitism, the Left hypocritically is also disparaging the “undemocratic,” etc., ad nauseum, U.S. Senate.
In summary, the left is all for democracy unless they can't get their health care plan through the Senate.
And they are all for people going into the streets and protesting as long as they are protesting somebody else.
Give it a rest dude. All your anti-leftist rhetoric in nearly every post gets tiring, but more importantly is a distraction from the subject at hand. And speaking of the subject, this sort of apologism-for-oligarchy is hardly a left or right thing. It's interesting from a historical context, and our government was indeed set up to not be pure democracy for good reason, but like all things that work about our govt. (when they work – which hasn't been lately) there needs to be a balance. Central leadership is of course critically important when there are so many problems being faced, and most of us expect that leadership to be better informed than the populace, but to also advocate for that populace.
I think Andersen is spot on in his commentary. We were designed to have most of the balance against the direct decisions of the people. We have a Congress that was originally set up first to weaken the power of the representatives of the People, i.e. the House, but also to weaken their say in their governance. This is not a bad thing.
I turn, of course, to California, where we see participatory democracy run amok. By a 50%+1 vote of the voting populace, the state may, at the behest of the voters, remove a fundamental right from the people, or put in place procedures for assuredly bankrupting the State Government. We need checks on the People just like we need checks on the leading politicians, and offices, because unchecked power in the hands of one person or one group of people is fundamentally dangerous. Each democratic institution needs a non-democratic check, just like each non-democratic institution needs a democratic check. The design of our government was ingenious, and remained so until the 17th Amendment, and, to a more limited extent through today, because it placed powerful checks against the direct power of the People. There is a non-democratic check on the choice of the executive…the electoral college, which gives the states individually, and as a whole, some say in the process of choosing Presidents. Similarly, the populist House of Representatives was supposed to be checked by the more aristocratic Senate. Finally, there was to be a large removal of the People from the choices of the Judiciary, which was to prevent the popular will from infiltrating the judiciary. The fall of these un-democratic checks, and the attack on the few remaining ones, threatens to turn us into a banana republic because we will no longer have the checks against the unbridled passions of the People, something the Founders abhorred, and rightly so.
This is an interesting view. Sure, tough times make people a little more ticked off — but no one can tell me with a straight face that today's tea partiers actually want this small government they seem to have fantasies about. You think times are tough now, just wait until their unemployment benefits go away, you know, that big government stuff they love to hate. I'd give any self-proclaimed small government person a lot more respect if they didn't bite the hand that feeds them.
I think what made the Boston Tea Party the event that it was were all the events leading up it. You had the Townshend Acts, threats of dissolving government entities if they didn't do what England wanted them to, a huge build-up of 'foreign' troops, and so on. Things were so tumultuous and chaotic in MA at the time that conditions were ripe for rebellion. And along comes the Boston Massacre and the resulting “trials” that ensued. I mean no disrespect to todays tea party folks, but putting them in the same sentence with the original Tea Partiers is simply ignorance of history. If things really do get bad, then we can talk about this movement of theirs. Sure, they're popular now, but what are they going to protest if the economy begins to rebound?
Anderson along with the vast majority of the people don't understand what the original tea party was about. It was about tax breaks for one of the largest multinationals at the time – The East India Tea Company, which effectively made it impossible for anyone to sell tea.
“We were designed to have most of the balance against the direct decisions of the people.”
The Left chooses one side or the other of this argument equally quickly these days to support its current position or stance, or merely preferred way of expressing a position or stance.
It has nothing to do with the actual nature of the government we have and the reasons for having it, or for making changes to it.
Just can't resist that mirror talk eh DLS? Reflex, reflex, reflex… zzzzzzzzz ………..
Yup. A little truth never hurt.
“mirror talk”
Do you even know what that phrase means, or are you just overreacting to the GOP (not my) recent switch of position on the bipartisan deficit commission?
No need waiting for an answer. [sigh]
It's really not an issue of too much or not enough democracy, it's more an issue of democracy at which level…
We have too many or to few States, far too few congresscritters (The number of congresscritters has not changed since 1911 when the US population was under 100 million)… Most State governments are too small, most local governments are too big…
Basically we are living a government that is run using a set of rules and institutions created two centuries ago when the population was under 10 million, the economy was primarily agricultural, and the fastest means of communication was a sailing ship…
“we are living a government that is run using a set of rules and institutions created two centuries ago”
This never has been true — there have been many changes, and there have been many things from our original system and Constitution kept and held in high regard, most loudly if incorrectly, by hypocritical lefties (including the First and Fourth Amendments).
Not to mention that we have a situation where 40 Senators representing the 20 smallest States with a population that is barely 10% of the US population can block any legislation…
31 Mississippi 2,921,088 ( Red State)
32 Arkansas 2,779,154 ( Red State)
33 Kansas 2,744,687 ( Red State)
34 Utah 2,469,585 ( Red State)
35 Nevada 2,414,807
36 New Mexico 1,928,384
37 West Virginia 1,816,856
38 Nebraska 1,758,787 ( Red State)
39 Idaho 1,429,096 ( Red State)
40 Maine 1,321,505
41 New Hampshire 1,309,940
42 Hawaii 1,275,194
43 Rhode Island 1,076,189
44 Montana 935,670 ( Red State)
45 Delaware 843,524
46 South Dakota 775,933 ( Red State)
47 Alaska 663,661 ( Red State)
48 North Dakota 636,677 ( Red State)
49 Vermont 623,050
50 Wyoming 509,294 ( Red State)
Total 30,233,081
US Population 300,737,973
BTW more people live in California that in those twenty Sates combined…
In over two centuries there have been 27 amendments, 10 which are the Bill of Rights, one to create prohibition and one to repeal it…
So since 1791 we have added 15 Amendments to the Constitution, roughly one every 15 years…
“we have added 15 Amendments to the Constitution, roughly one every 15 years…”
Are you saying that's bad, and that we should be amending or even rewriting it in full after each election?
A Constitutional Convention every 50 years or so would probably not be a bad thing…
Take the Issue of State size, how is it that one State can have 35 million inhabitants and another barely 1/2 million, how do you resolve it…
“A Constitutional Convention every 50 years or so would probably not be a bad thing…”
“Take the Issue of State size, how is it that one State can have 35 million inhabitants and another barely 1/2 million, how do you resolve it…”
Well, they didn't all intend to end up the way they did, and there's actually nothing wrong with Diversity.
Let's consider what you and others might want the states actually to be in the system you imagine, though, or if there is a role as well for the regions as well as states and counties, in addition to metropolitan areas. They at least should be at least notionally or coarsely similar, I'm assuming, in population size as well as in area. (There can be variance, but the variance shouldn't be large enough to be an issue in and of itself, in other words.)
That calls for rationalization of the states and organizing them with an eye toward local aggregates of population, as well as “governably” large areas. These goals could both be achieved by basing the states in large part or primarily on (unified) major metropolitan areas. At the least there might be a minimum population size, either an absolute amount or expressed as a fraction of the total (national) population. (Tugwell*, in his revised Constitution and government system, required any state to be at least five per cent of the population; 10-15 per cent is a commonplace fraction constituting a reasonable minimum threshold of substantiality — noteworthy significance.) Another real-world gauge would be as compared to the largest major metropolitan areas (on an absolute population basis).
A different approach would be to remodel Congress and have one house for the “megastates” and the other house for the other states. (More radical still would be a variant, to have two houses set up by economic criteria like GDP, the large and small states, or the previous year's net taxpayers and net tax receivers.)
That's in addition to mere “mergers and acquisitions” and “divestitures” (partitioning) of the existing states without otherwise changing boundaries, but that leads quickly to reorganization in earnest (see above).
That's also ignoring the role regions (the basis for true multiple nations in North America) could play in a revised system.
* Tugwell's works not only include more than one on constitutional reform and revision, but one book I have yet to get that specifically addresses problems with the Constitution in its original form and its meaning.
“A Constitutional Convention every 50 years or so would probably not be a bad thing…”
Not at all. Possibly less than that, about 25-30. What should be the longest repayment period for a loan, the longest term of a government or corporate bond, the sentence for a felony, the time of record for a bankruptcy, the longest of all terms — Supreme Court Justices — in a modern term-limited system?
What's a generation?
Well, they didn't all intend to end up the way they did, and there's actually nothing wrong with Diversity.”
No, but disproportionate representation is a problem. It is antithetical to premise of one man = one vote on which democracy is founded. A citizen living in Wyoming has about 70 times more voting power in the Senate than Californians. Anyone who thinks this is fine is no friend of democracy.
Pete you got me….right through the Red White and Blue.
After third consideration, only the rich elite should run the country. With the lower house representing the undisciplined, poorly organized masses of the standard classes with such limited powers that reflect said lesser class behaviors. We all have our contributions to make and should one be rich enough that life and limb sacrifice be unnecessary, then that should be rise, and, premise for superior powers afforded that very special leadership class.
That Greek version of Democracy, with all that white rock/black rock business, is simply to uncertain for today’s granola bar Bohemian populace that are more concerned with sexual proclivities than serious matters of state. Let the masses die for our critique and we shall lead them with a grandeur that will keep them amazed…..and…..subdued. As they play with their sex organs like monkeys, we shall fleece them for the sheep that they are as we continually look down upon their upturned smiles of wonder at our majesty.
Good Article Pete.
The Boston Tea Party was “taxation without representation”. It wasn't about government sanctioned monopolies. Tea just happened to be a didactic to grab the monarchy's attention.
Having a Federalist Republic here in the USA, I'm confused why you morons would time discussing democracy, especially you liberals. In a democracy, there are NO EXCEPTIONS for minority rights, NONE. There would be no need for a Supreme Court, no hiring quotas, no national minority standards in the military, universities, etc. White people would rule and everyone else wouldn't have a voice at all. So the topic isn't relevant. If you want democracy, whites win, everyone else loses. Not for me.
We could always start with Larry Sabato suggestions…
REFORMING THE SENATE
Personally I don't think he goes far enough…
There are two options:
1) Split large states into smaller states (California into 7 States, NY into 4 States, Texas into 5 States, etc…
2) Merge States so that you end up with 10 to 15 States, each with a population between 20 and 30 Million…
Hmmm –
“We should give the ten largest states two more Senate seats each, with the next fifteen largest states gaining one additional seat. The twenty-five states with the smallest populations would not forfeit any representation and keep their current two Senate seats. [...] reapportioned among the states, according to this formula, every ten years”
The Constitution cannot be amended to end equal suffrage in the Senate. (The solution to this is to abolish the Senate and create a new second house if a second house is sought — a bicameral legislature does not need to be retained. A unicameral legislature is perfectly okay, a tricameral complex legislature with passage in two of the three houses for a bill to become possible law on Presidential OK is an alternative.)
“1) Split large states into smaller states (California into 7 States, NY into 4 States, Texas into 5 States, etc…
2) Merge States so that you end up with 10 to 15 States, each with a population between 20 and 30 Million…”
Yep — “mergers & acquisitions and divestitures (partitioning).” This would be based on existing states and their territories (and populations), but needn't be limited to them.
It would certainly be amusing, including the combinations that weren't needed to meet the population minimum (or stay within the maximum). It would not only finally partition California and achieve partition where else it has been desired or where it makes the most sense (Florida peninsula from the Panhandle mainland portion; Texas being cut down to size, heh, heh) but also revisit old states (dividing the Vale among the two Mountains), and even revisit old states to make something described by Franklin real. (New York and Pennsylvania dividing up the Cask, as Franklin called it — I can envision the governors of New York and Pennsylvania meeting like Hitler and Stalin and treating New Jersey like Poland, meeting to decide how to divide it among the other two states.) The Eastern Continental Divide would finally make real the names Virginia and West Virginia (as well as form the western boundary of the eastern coastal states north of Florida).
Your size limit would preclude an eastern mammoth that could compete size-wize with California — the combination of Ohio and Pennsylvania (with the a major chunk or most of the peninsula of New Jersey). Another big-ol' eastern state that could hold its own would be Michigan and Ohio. Ohio and Illinois could decide how to divide Indiana among themselves, perhaps. Michigan might extend into Indiana (as well as contest Ohio territory once more) to encompass all the Great Lakes watershed associated with it.
http://epa.gov/greatlakes/atlas/images/big12.gif
Interesting proposition, Don.
Another reform I recall reading (it might have been Robert Dahl): we recalculate how voting is performed in the Senate by giving individual Senators a different number of Senatorial votes based on the relative size of their states. Ex. there could be 500 total votes in the Senate distributed amongst the 100 Senators. The Senators from California and Texas having some percentage more than those from Wyoming and Delaware. I sort of liked the idea because it allows for flexibility and perhaps a smoother transition to a more representative system.
They should also revise the Electoral College by using a District Plan, but that's for another topic.
“disproportionate representation is a problem. It is antithetical to premise of one man = one vote “
The logical completion of Baker v. Carr would have been to require the Senate to be reapportioned, or the Senate to be abolished. (Lazare's book on the “undemocratic” Senate included a scenario where the Senate is abolished and the claim for it was predicted by me, as it's obvious as well as silly: the Preamble.) There's actually nothing wrong because it's representing areas and representing the states, which have their own sovereignty. I actually lament that the Senators aren't fulfilling a role more like super-ambassador plenipotentiaries from their respective states. Of course, constitutional federalism has been given short shift in earnest since the 1930s and all the trends point toward more dimunition of respect for it in the future. I am ambivalent — I don't mind considering more democratic reforms, some of which I'd find superior to what we have now (ending the Duopoly with 4-6+ parties and proportional representation in the House, for examle). I am not naive about direct democracy, as many younger and liberal people are, but am far from being against it when I say you need to think twice before viewing the “undemocratic” Senate and disparately-sized states as undemocratic or even tyrannical.
Constitutional reform and changing our states and our nation (and continent) are fascinating subjects.
NOTE: “The logical completion of Baker v. Carr”
If you're curious — Baker v. Carr was continued by Reynolds v. Sims. You can see where the reasoning given in this ruling leads. What was said about state legislatures — to what extent does it (intentions and all) apply to the U.S. Senate?
“Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system. It could hardly be gainsaid that a constitutional claim had been asserted by an allegation that certain otherwise qualified voters had been entirely prohibited from voting for members of their state legislature. And, if a State should provide that the votes of citizens in one part of the State should be given two times, or five times, or 10 times the weight of votes of citizens in another part of the State, it could hardly be contended that the right to vote of those residing in the disfavored areas had not been effectively diluted. It would appear extraordinary to suggest that a State could be constitutionally permitted to enact a law providing that certain of the State's voters could vote two, five, or 10 times for their legislative representatives, while voters living elsewhere could vote only once. And it is inconceivable that a state law to the effect that, in counting votes for legislators, the votes of citizens in one part of the State would be multiplied by two, five, or 10, while the votes of persons in another area would be counted only at face value, could be constitutionally sustainable. …”
“Overweighting and overvaluation of the votes of those living here has the certain effect of dilution and undervaluation of the votes of those living there. The resulting discrimination against those individual voters living in disfavored areas is easily demonstrable mathematically. Their right to vote is simply not the same right to vote as that of those living in a favored part of the State. Two, five, or 10 of them must vote before the effect of their voting is equivalent to that of their favored neighbor. Weighting the votes of citizens differently, by any method or means, merely because of where they happen to reside, hardly seems justifiable.”
“Full and effective participation by all citizens in state government requires, therefore, that each citizen have an equally effective voice in the election of members of his state legislature. Modern and viable state government needs, and the Constitution demands, no less.”
“Since the achieving of fair and effective representation for all citizens is concededly the basic aim of legislative apportionment, we conclude that the Equal Protection Clause guarantees the opportunity for equal participation by all voters in the election of state legislators. Diluting the weight of votes because of place of residence impairs basic constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment just as much as invidious discriminations based upon factors such as race, Brown v. Board of Education, or economic status, Griffin v. Illinois, Douglas v. California. Our constitutional system amply provides for the protection of minorities by means other than giving them majority control of state legislatures. And the democratic ideals of equality and majority rule, which have served this Nation so well in the past, are hardly of any less significance for the present and the future.”
“We are told that the matter of apportioning representation in a state legislature is a complex and many-faceted one. We are advised that States can rationally consider factors other than population in apportioning legislative representation. We are admonished not to restrict the power of the States to impose differing views as to political philosophy on their citizens. We are cautioned about the dangers of entering into political thickets and mathematical quagmires. Our answer is this: a denial of constitutionally protected rights demands judicial protection; our oath and our office require no less of us.”
“Representation schemes once fair and equitable become archaic and outdated. But the basic principle of representative government remains, and must remain, unchanged — the weight of a citizen's vote cannot be made to depend on where he lives. Population is, of necessity, the starting point for consideration and the controlling criterion for judgment in legislative apportionment controversies.”
“A citizen, a qualified voter, is no more nor no less so because he lives in the city or on the farm. This is the clear and strong command of our Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. This is an essential part of the concept of a government of laws, and not men. This is at the heart of Lincoln's vision of 'government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people.' The Equal Protection Clause demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races.”
“We hold that, as a basic constitutional standard, the Equal Protection Clause requires that the seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned on a population basis. Simply stated, an individual's right to vote for state legislators is unconstitutionally impaired when its weight is in a substantial fashion diluted when compared with votes of citizens living in other parts of the State.”
Merge States so that you end up with 10 to 15 States, each with a population between 20 and 30 Million
Proposed Merge 12 States…
Connecticut 3,518,288
Massachusetts 6,593,587
New Hampshire 1,324,575
Rhode Island 1,053,209
New York 19,541,453
New Hampshire 1,324,575
Vermont 621,760
Maine 1,318,301
35,295,748
New Jersey 8,707,739
Pennsylvania 12,604,767
Delaware 885,122
Maryland 5,699,478
27,897,106
Virginia 7,882,590
West Virginia 1,819,777
North Carolina 9,380,884
Tennessee 6,296,254
Kentucky 4,314,113
29,693,618
Louisiana 4,492,076
Arkansas 2,889,450
Georgia 9,829,211
South Carolina 4,561,242
Alabama 4,708,708
Mississippi 2,951,996
29,432,683
Florida 18,537,969
Puerto Rico 3,967,288
U.S. Virgin Islands 109,825
22,615,082
Texas 24,782,302
Oklahoma 3,687,050
28,469,352
Ohio 11,542,645
Indiana 6,423,113
Michigan 9,969,727
27,935,485
Illinois 12,910,409
Wisconsin 5,654,774
8,565,183
South Dakota 812,383
North Dakota 646,844
Nebraska 1,796,619
Kansas 2,818,747
Minnesota 5,266,214
Iowa 3,007,856
Missouri 5,987,580
20,336,243
Arizona 6,595,778
Nevada 2,643,085
Colorado 5,024,748
New Mexico 2,009,671
Utah 2,784,572
19,057,854
Washington 6,664,195
Oregon 3,825,657
Alaska 698,473
Idaho 1,545,801
Montana 974,989
Wyoming 544,270
Hawaii 1,295,178
15,548,563
California 36,961,664
You are Men of La Mancha. LOL
“Bernice: Something funny's going on here.
Eric Duckman: It's about time. I'm getting sick of all the social commentary.”
Duckman: Private Dick/Family Man 1994
DQ, there's a much easier solution to regaining the one-man=one vote goal: have the state governments choose the sentators. That way, they represent the state governments instead of the people.
In other words, repeal the 17th amendment.
You would still have the same basic problems:
1) 40 Senators representing less than 10% of the US population could still block the will of the Majority.
2) A voter from Wyoming has 70 times the representation than a voter from California.
3) None of the States are large enough to stand up to the Federal Government…
And then you have all the problems that occurred prior to the 17th Amendment…
Considering how hard it is to amend the Constitution and how rarely we do it, there had to be good reasons for the 17th Amendment…
Yes, there were corruption problems, but does the name Blagojevich ring a bell? Despite the corruption, the purpose of the senate remains the same: to represent the powers of states — you know, state's rights? The people are still represent (roughly) by proportion in the house, and there's no need for the redundancy. It was a brilliant compromise set out by the founders, and regardless of what you think of them, would still be so today if the nation hadn't thrown out the baby with the bathwater.
You may even want to ponder what difference it would make to have a group that didn't have to serve their corporate masters to get elected every time. . .
Today you can almost figure out who has bought your Senator, if you had another level of redirection it'll be that much harder to figure out who bought your Senator… But bought he will be since under our political system most of our elected officials are for sale to the highest bidder…
Mousetrap! You just admitted that they're beholden only to their lobbyists. So, what difference does it make what population they're not representing?