Two Sizes Fit All: America’s Two-Party-System Stranglehold

A Rasmussen Reports poll conducted in early August 2011 found that “just 17% of likely U.S. voters think that the federal government . . . has the consent of the governed,” while 69% “believe that the government does not have that consent.”[1] Yet an overwhelming number of Congressional incumbents is reelected. Is it that many Americans stay away from the polls on election day, or does the two-party system essentially force a choice? Voting for a third-party candidate risks the defeat of the candidate of the major party closest to one’s views. Such a vote is typically referred to as a protest or throw-away vote. Is it worth driving to the polls to do that?
A poll of 1,000 Americans conducted by Douglas E. Schoen LLC in April 2011 found that a solid majority of Americans were looking for alternatives to the two-party system. A majority of the respondents (57%) said there is a need for a third party. Nearly one-third of the respondents said that having a third party is very important. In the next month, 52% of respondents in a Gallup poll said there is a need for a third party. For the first time in Gallup’s history, a majority of Republicans said so. These readings point to more than simply a desire to vote against the closest major party without merely being a protest or throw-away vote.
Even as Republican and Democratic candidates were at the time in tune with their respective bases, these two segments of the population were becoming two legs of a three-leg stool, rather than remaining as the two defining pillars holding up the American republics. In fact, with the number of independents growing, the two bases combined no longer made up a majority of the citizens able to vote.
To be sure, the electoral systems of the American states and the federation itself have been rigged against  aspiring third parties. For example, a Green Party presence in the U.S. House of Representatives would require one of that party’s candidates to snag the highest percentage of the vote in one of the 435 legislative districts. Were fifteen percent of Floridians vote for Green Party candidates in every House district, Florida's delegation would still not include any Green Party presence. In terms of the Electoral College, many of the states have a winner-take-all system in selecting electors. Furthermore, a third-party candidate doing well in electoral votes could keep none of the candidates from getting a majority, in which case the U.S. House of Representatives would elect the U.S. President (each state delegation getting one vote). A third party would have to be dominant in that chamber, or at least in a few of the state delegations, to have any impact. The proverbial deck, ladies and gentlemen, is stacked against any third party, so merely getting one started is not apt to eventuate in much of anything, practically speaking. For fundamental reform, one must think (and act) structurally, and Americans are not very good at that, being more issue- and candidate-oriented.

The real elephant in the room is the fact that the two animals are the only ones allowed in the room. Image Source: Wikimedia Commons

If the American political order has indeed been deteriorating and disintegrating, its artificial and self-perpetuating parchment walls might be too rigid to allow the vacuum to be filled by anything less than whatever would naturally fill the power-void in a complete collapse. The two major political parties, jealously guarding their joint structural advantages, have doubtlessly been all too vigilant in buttressing the very walls that keep real reform—real change—from happening at the expense of the vested interests. As a result, the electorate may be convinced that it is not possible to venture outside of the political realities of the two major parties that stultify movement. If a majority of Americans want a third party, they would have to apply popular political pressure to the two major parties themselves to level the playing field. A huge mass of dispersed political energy would be necessary, however, given the tyranny of the status quo. Indeed, such a feat might require going against the natural laws of power in human affairs. If so, the already-hardened arteries will eventually result to the death of the "perpetual union." Sadly, the determinism is utterly contrived rather than set by the fates.

1. Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, “Expect a Third-Party Candidate in 2012,” Wall Street Journal, August 25, 2011.

The Electoral College: A Check on Excess Democracy

As a delegate in the U.S. constitutional convention, Governeur Morris stated on July 19, 1787 that the proposed National Executive (i.e. the U.S. President) should be “a firm guardian of the people and of the public interest.” (1)  Given this role, Morris maintained that it “cannot be possible that a man shall have sufficiently distinguished himself to merit this high trust without having his character proclaimed by fame throughout the Empire.” (2)   In other words, presiding requires a requisite credibility or stature that may be difficult to find in a territory on the scale of an empire.

The E.U. has obviated this problem by having presidencies of particular E.U. governmental bodies the a state government serving in the E.U. Presidency, a figure-head “office” based on a six-month rotation. The U.S., on the other hand, put all of their eggs in one basket in terms of having one president with substantial power in being commander in chief and having a legislative veto as well as a “bully pulpit.” Considerable emphasis is thus placed on the office’s selection process.

In the constitutional convention, Morris believed that the people at large “would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce [a President] of distinguished Character.” (3) Morris was assuming that at least one candidate can be found whose character has been proclaimed by fame throughout the Empire. Differing from Morris, Gerry argued on July 19 in the convention that the “people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men. He urged the expediency of an appointment of the Executive by Electors to be chosen by the State Executives.” (4)  In other words, suitable candidates could exist, but the people would not be sufficiently aware of their characters to discern the wheat from the chaff.

Electors selected by the governors and presidents of the States would be of lesser number and thus able to come to know the candidates and thus avoid electing a lemon. However, Williamson, also on July 19, “had no great confidence in the Electors to be chosen for the special purpose. . . . They would be liable to undue influence.” (5) Even so, the convention voted that the President would be appointed by electors to be chosen by the State legislatures.

Williamson turned out to be right; the political parties have had tight influence on the States’ electors. The electors would also prove to be excessively subject to the influence of the  citizens who vote for them, rather than being a check on the passions and ignorance of the wider public.  In other words, the selection process has come to enervate an intended check on the democracy of the moment (e.g., the flavor of the month).  Presidential elections have become virtual popularity contests.  The matter of finding someone with sufficient maturity and credibility to preside over the common good has been lost.  Accordingly, the presidents have been highly partisan—even going against their campaign promises for political expediency. My point is that we can look beyond the individual presidents and find that the selection process itself is perhaps biased against producing good governance.

It seems to me that a better alternative would be to have the governors of the States meet together to select the U.S. President. The governors are apt to know the candidates (or can meet them), and could assess them from the standpoint of presiding and executing law. Lest this alternative be thought to slight representative democracy, it could be pointed out that governors are popularly elected and thus accountable to the people.

In actuality, the alternative is both rooted in democracy and capable of providing a check on some of its drawbacks (e.g., popularity contests). Perhaps having the governors select the office would prompt voters to take their governor races more seriously. Additionally, this alternative might provide a needed check on the encroachment of the Federal Government onto the domains of the States (i.e., beyond the enumerated powers in the US Constitution), since the State governments lost their involvement in the U.S. Government in 1913 when U.S. Senators were no longer appointed by the State governments.

In short, the move would strength democracy as well as federalism. This is merely one alternative; doubtless other good ones exist as well.  My main point is that such alternatives should be dug up and debated using the American media and our representatives as conduits. We ignore the bias in the selection process at our own peril. Slighting the problem is itself indicative of the danger in the current process.

1. James Madison, Notes in the Federal Convention of 1787. New York: Norton, 1987, p. 324.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid., p. 327.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid., pp. 328-29.

On the Allure of Popular Suffrage

In the European singing contest/show in which Susan Boyle competed, she lost the top spot to a teenage rap group. The method of selection made all the difference. Rather than having a three-judge panel of experts on singing determine the winner, the general public could “text” via cell phone or other device to vote. That one of the judges explicitly advocated for Boyle after her final performance (just before the voting) was no never mind to the general public that submitted a majority of the votes. To be sure, there were certainly non-music reasons to vote against her. Most notably, the suggestive comments she made on stage just before her first performance, including, “I’m 48, and that’s not my other half” (as she was swinging her hips as if she were sexy), were downright emetic, if not utterly bizarre. So it is possible that the voters put her personality defect above her excellent singing. It is also possible that the “texters” responsible for a majority of the votes simply preferred rap music. I do not like rap “songs” that include shouting and swearing; I do not even regard such “songs” as music. Otherwise, I could sing a song simply by yelling at you. From what I saw, the rap group in the competition was not swearing, but the “singing” did sound at times like shouting to me. Moreover, the group members seemed more oriented to dancing than singing. It is possible that the votes for that group went for any of the fads being represented rather than to singing per se.

A tension, or even an outright contradiction, can exist between meritocracy and direct democracy, or popular sovereignty. Plato and Aristotle both claim that there is a dark side to each system. Meritocracy can slide into aristocracy and democracy into mob rule: government by a selfish and uninformed mob swayed by the passions of the moment over even the people’s own best interests. What struck me about the results of the singing contest was that the rap singing wasn’t good singing whereas Susan Boyle sang very well, yet even so, the group won. It can be safely assumed that most of the voters probably were not experts on good singing. They were not trained to separate their own tastes from a critical perspective focusing on the singers’ voices. The judges presumably could have done this, but they were relegated to proffering their views before the voting—views that the voters could ignore without any imprecation. Indeed, the selection method itself—popular sovereignty—tacitly "disvalues" expertise. In one person, one vote, no one is assumed to be any better qualified to render a decision than anyone else. Differences in effort and talent among the electors are irrelevant unless particular voters care to take them into account.

Lest it be assumed that people in Western democracies necessarily privilege popular sovereignty or the will of the people refracted through elected representatives, it should be noted that power-elites are tacitly permitted to run our political, commercial and non-profit sectors. When Greece’s prime minister, George Papandreou, proposed a referendum in which the Greek people would decide whether to accept the latest debt-deal negotiated at a meeting of the European Council (consisting of heads of the E.U.’s state governments), leaders of France and Germany as well as E.U. appointed officials bore down on the prime minister, perhaps even undercutting his influence with members of his own party in the Greek legislature. Although defending the euro currency from a collapse assumed likely without the implementation of the latest debt deal, the E.U. leaders (including Merkel and Sarkozy) sent the message that direct democracy, ironically in Greece, could not be tolerated given the severity of the economic challenges involved. Experts at the E.U. level, such as the head of the European Central Bank, were included as the E.U. leaders met with Papandreou to pressure him to drop his proposal or change the question to being on the euro zone (rather than on whether to accept the latest E.U. debt deal). Disrespect for direct democracy, or popular sovereignty, was very much implied in the stance being taken at the impromptu E.U. meeting before the G-20 meeting. Yet strangely, the “gang” got away with it. Europeans did not stand up for the voice of the Greek people to be heard directly. Not even the Greek parliament resisted the E.U. “gang” by sufficiently backing the prime minister’s proposal. Instead, leaders of some of the E.U.’s big states and maybe even some E.U. appointed officials may even have pressured members of Papandreou’s own party to bring him down lest he not relent and do what was being deemed necessary to save the euro and the E.U. itself.  Indeed, even Papandreou, when he was caving on the referendum, betrayed his earlier appeal to popular sovereignty by stating that the referendum had value only as long as the opposition was opposing the debt-deal.

I contend that in the E.U., as well as in the U.S., all too often lip-service is given to popular sovereignty and representative democracy, when in fact people still look up to expertise. The Oscars, whose awards are decided by members of the film academy who have expertise in the various fields of filmmaking, is more esteemed than are the People’s Choice Awards. The Oscars are more likely to recognize Maryl Streep’s acting ability than is the People’s Choice.  I would argue that the results of the Oscars are more credible because expertise is not chucked for a flavor of the month. For instance, in the 2010 Oscars, Hurt Locker beat Avatar for Best Director and Best Picture. Hurt Locker was largely an Indie (i.e., on the fringes) film, whereas Avatar broke box office records and was no doubt much more popular with the general public. The Academy members were able to weight improved 3D effects, story and direction without allowing the technical dazzle to overshadow. Indeed, Avatar did receive the Oscar for its development and use of new 3-D technology, even as the members of the academy recognized that the most technologically-advanced film is not necessarily the best.

Of course, Oscar voting is not perfect. The 5000 plus membership may be sufficiently small that cronyism or, its opposite, grudges, may play a role. Avatar’s David Cameron, for example, was apparently not the best-liked man in Hollywood at the time, and his ex-wife just happened to be the director of Hurt Locker. I saw a television clip a few months before the 2010 Oscars showing Cameron being very rude to a fan who simply wanted an autograph at LAX, so I was rooting for his ex-wife and her movie even though Avatar was one of my favorite movies at the time. The lesson is perhaps that no selection process, or person for that matter, is perfect.

My point is that the case of Susan Boyle and the Oscars both point to there being drawbacks to popular suffrage. The E.U. suggests that efforts to bracket direct and even representative democracy are tolerated by the general populous even in democracies. Maybe we are not as much the democrats as we think we are. Maybe there is good reason to leave some things to experts. Even so, at least with respect to political judgment, there may be good reason not to cut off the will of the people. Hence, the U.S. has its Electoral College and the European Council appoints its president, while the U.S. House of Representatives and the E.U. Parliament have elected representatives of the people. In binding the Electoral College to popular vote, the U.S. has moved to the democratic pole, even while tolerating the influence of “big money” in politics. In looking the other way while E.U. leaders undercut state government vetoes and referendums, the E.U. have moved subtly away from the rule of law as well as democracy, even while the salience of state-level elected officials at the EU level (via the European Council) emphasizes “first order” representative democracy (over “second order” selected by the first order). Ideally, neither expertise nor the will of the people are eclipsed, with the rule of law protecting both. The E.U. and U.S. could both take a lesson.

Sources:

 Richard Corliss, “Oscar Wrap-Up: Why Avatar Lost,” Time, March 8, 2010. 

Marcus Walker and Alkman Granitsas, “Greece Blinks on Euro Threat,” The Wall Street Journal, November 4, 2011. 

Obama and the War Powers Act: On Libya

In June 2011, a bipartisan group of members of U.S. House of Representatives objected to the refusal of the Obama administration to obtain Congressional approval in line with the War Powers Act of 1973 for the U.S. military’s continued involvement in Libya. On June 17, 2011, The New York Times ran a story which indicated that Barak Obama had gone against the views of the top lawyers at the Justice Department and the Pentagon in his decision not to seek Congressional approval.

“Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to ‘hostilities.’ Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20 [2011].” The president went instead with the view of the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh , “who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of ‘hostilities.’ Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.”

According to the Times, “Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.”

The U.S. House speaker, John A. Boehner, said. “The White House says there are no hostilities taking place. Yet we’ve got drone attacks under way. We’re spending $10 million a day. We’re part of an effort to drop bombs on Qaddafi’s compounds. It just doesn’t pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we’re not in the midst of hostilities.”

It is indeed difficult to imagine that dropping bombs does not constitute or contribute toward hostilities. To parse the War Powers Act as not applying to dropping bombs does not give one much faith that the president has much common sense (or aptitude as a constitutional lawyer). Also raising concern is the possibility that Barak Obama had succumbed to the lust for power. Furthermore, ethically speaking, it is troubling that he would be fine with the conflict of interest wherein the commander-in-chief has the power to decide whether the U.S. military and those of the states (i.e., the militias) will be drawn into a new action. The commander-in-chief has a power-interest in making the policy decision in a direction favoring military activity. The War Powers Act was designed to prevent this conflict of interest. “Hostilities” is simply one way of referring to the military doing what it is designed to do, whether as troops on the ground, ships, or planes (or drones). To split hairs like a micro-managing lawyer not only enables the conflict of interest, it also falls short of the big-picture presiding role of a U.S. president. In other words, Obama's parsing makes him look small and self-serving.

Much more statesmanlike would have been for the president to have addressed Congress in a joint session at the beginning of the involvement of the U.S. military in Libya and asked for a resolution. In other words, the War Powers Act should never have been allowed to become an issue. In standing for the Union, the president could have presided over the question by asking Congress for its yea or nay, proffering his view as a secondary consideration for the Congress. To be sure, acting on a human rights basis to stop a brutal dictator is a worthy cause. I can emphasize with the president for wanting to carry through this agenda. Even so, he should not have allowed what he wanted to eclipse his role in presiding and Congress’ role in forestalling his conflict of interest and representing the people.

I suspect that the typical American on the street read the story and concluded that Barak Obama had succumbed to the elixir of power—not an uncommon occurrence in official Washington. To get a president who is immune from this drug of choice, the Electoral College would have had to draft a duty-bound citizen into serving in the office for a term rather than select among the candidates chafing at the bit to get it. There is something unseemly about someone tooting his or her own horn in order to gain the office, particularly if a lot has to be done to get it. We ought not to be surprised, therefore, when such a candidate gets attached to the power while in office.

Source:

Charlie Savage, “2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate,” The New York Times, June 17, 2011.

A Dysfunctional Trajectory of U.S. Presidential Debates: The Case of 2012

Just weeks before the 2012 elections in the U.S., the New York Times observed, “In 1960, John F. Kennedy was trailing Richard Nixon as they stepped into the crucible of the first nationally televised debate. While Kennedy soared, Nixon stumbled and never recovered. Network television played a definitive role, but those were very different times. There were three networks, not 500 channels, and the consumer Internet was still very much on the drawing board of the future. Half a century later, televised debates remain relevant, but the ritual is up against an always-on informational stream that surges with political messages.”

Indeed, $2.5 billion was being spent on the U.S. presidential election alone. It could even be said that the political conventions and the debates themselves had become pre-arranged “political messages” and thus part of the advertising.
In the second presidential debate of 2012, for example,  the candidates were primarily oriented to covering all their memorized talking points rather than answering questions posed by the voters invited for that very purpose as part of the "town hall" format. As it happened, the candidates talked so much that very few of the people's questions were asked. All that talk might have been justified had there been a focused and sustained back-and-forth limited to contending counter-arguments to specific points.
I was stunned at how rarely "debating" was even attempted. The candidates even dismissed the moderator when she tried to focus the "debate" by returning the particular candidate to the question that had been asked by the audience. The candidates' lack of respect for the moderator and the people asking the questions was displayed by the ease and quickness with which the candidates deviated in favor of their own talking points. It was as though the "debate" was a series of control battles between a candidate and the moderator. This indicates that insufficient direction was enforced by the moderator.
I was also stunned at the extent to which both candidates presumed that their role in the debate  included being able to overrule the moderate and run it as if they were not subject to the rules. Making matters worse, at a few points the moderator actually moved on to a new question and topic when the candidates had begun to focus on specific points and counter-points in a real back and forth. Even the moderator did not understand fundamentally what a debate is.
To take one example of the dysfunction in the debate, a voter asked Obama what he had accomplished in office that impacts the voter's ability to afford ordinary things needed in life, like food. Obama mentioned killing Bin Laden even though no economic link is salient between that killing and the price of bread. It was instead an opportunity for Obama to get out all of his talking points on a more general topic. Romney replied to particular points made by Obama on his accomplishments in office, but here too the focus on the economic aspect of the voter's question was insufficient. Then Obama deviated even from discussing his own record to criticize Romney's, which was not within the scope of the question. I believe the moderator went to a new question rather than enforce compliance with the original question and direct Obama to reply to one of Romney's specific counter-points on Obama's economic accomplishments in office. From my vantage-point, it was like looking at an arrangement severely out of balance and yet seemingly incapable of self-correction.
Particularly troubling to me was the lack of respect shown by the candidates for the invited voters with respect to their questions, and for the moderator with respect to her authority. When a voter asked who in the State Department had decided to reduce security in the U.S. embassy in Libya prior to the attack that killed the ambassador, neither Obama nor Romney came close to providing an answer. Instead, the candidates sparred over Obama's statements after the attack. This example also illustrates another way in which the moderator fell short.
Questions about why Obama thought at first that the attack was due to protests over a video produced in California are not as important as questions concerning Obama's policies on Iran and Syria, for example. Looking back at the presidential debates in the 2000 race would probably show too much attention on controversies that are only of the time; had there been more substantive debate in foreign policy, voters might have been better able to anticipate Bush's eventual invasion of Iraq. That is to say, a cost of the moderator selecting rather limited controversies because they are hot at the time of the debate is that the voters are deprived of being able to anticipate future policies of the candidates.
My thesis is that the presidential "debate" format and operation are deeply flawed from the standpoint of what it is to debate. Even to deem one candidate as "the winner" is an absurdity if the "debate" does not pass muster in terms of what a debate is. That the media runs with this absurdity anyway indicates just how out of touch we are on what constitutes debate. Just because insiders do not fix the problem does not mean that it cannot be fixed.  
As a possible reform bearing on the operation, the moderator could receive training from debate experts on how to run a debate (with some allowances for the fact that the candidates do not bring in folders of supporting evidence, though maybe doing so would help them to focus). At the very least, the moderator should be able to turn off the microphone of a candidate once he has swerved off  the question on the table or from the last "on point" contention made by the other candidate. The moderator should certainly have that ability when as in the second debate a candidate talks over the moderator in order to ignore the moderator's decision. "But I just need to respond to . . ." should trigger the moderator into "mic-cut" mode.
In short, a debate is characterized by a true back and forth that is focused and sustained (i.e., contained) on particular points oriented to a question. A debate is not “all over the map," where the candidates bounce around even within a given topic, like two hyperactive boys unable to concentrate (and with a moderator as though heavily sedated or impotent). It is therefore worth asking whether the presidential (and VP) debates at least as of 2012 were debates at all, as distinct from two people simply getting their respective messages out in pre-established talking points. Under the circumstances, it is astonishing that the media self-servingly promotes the "debates" as crucial to the outcome of the election.

It is of course in the economic interest of the media and its paid “commentators” or “experts” to populate the airwaves with “the next debate is crucial!” before the next debate. The media could get away with the manipulation were it not for the lack of any self-restraint in the claims. For example, the media claimed in the run-up to the VP debate that that debate would be crucial—perhaps even a game-changer—because Obama had lost the first presidential debate of the general campaign (i.e., after the primary season, or year). That political scientists had reported time and again that voters do not vote for president on the basis of the vice-presidential candidates was apparently missed by the media in its unquenchable thirst for still more viewers.

Americans in "The Federal City" watching a debate in 2012. Civic togetherness?  NYT

Indeed, as the New York Times suggests, even the electoral significance of the presidential debates was being overplayed. The Huffington Post reported that even after his “loss” in the first debate, President Obama continued to show an edge in battleground states. That is to say, the media’s claim in the wake of that debate that once again Romney was in play (vindicating the media’s view that the debates matter!) had been a momentary over-reaction. At the very least, the media was missing the forest for the trees (or branches).

Two contending forces could be pointed to as decisive. The "debates" are not salient in either account. On the one hand, pro-Obama supporters could point to the following as game changers: 1.) Bill Clinton’s speech at the Democratic Convention answering the Republican criticisms of Obama from the Republican Convention, and 2.) Romney’s leaded closed-door comment that it would not be his job as president to worry about the 47% of Americans who did not owe income taxes in 2011 and thus refuse to take responsibility for their lives (preferring to be dependent on the government) were the game-changing events in the election of 2012. On the other hand, a Romney supporter could point to the following forces: 1.) a general sense among Americans that Obama had caved into Wall Street or been generally weak as president, and 2.) the "pocket-book" (i.e., lack of an economic recovery). Neither of these possible scenerios has the debates playing a prominent role in the the voters' decisions of who to vote for.
The media’s hype on the debates was just that—self-interested manipulation akin to “pay attention to me!” With most of the American electorate having made up their minds before the debates, the post-debate polls showing significant shifts should have been read very skeptically, especially given the limitations of polling (e.g., by state vs. aggregated, “likely voters,” cell phones, no call lists, etc.) and the margins of error, which the media constantly ignore because definitive headlines sell.  

Indeed, the report a week after the vice presidential debate that Obama still held an edge in battleground states was itself an invalid claim, given the margin of error. The Huffington Post used the headline even while stating in the article itself that the finding is within the margin of error and thus spurious! The electorate is nearly blind to the errors and uncertainty in polling, especially in relation to the financial-interest of the media in misusing poll “data.”

Unfortunately, the presumption of truth tends to go with having a microphone and television camera. Reason takes a back seat behind the lights on the stage of a “debate.” The media keeps the electorate on the edge of their chairs for months on end, as if each bend in the road were on a political cliff. You better watch! There might be a crash! It is American Gladiator on steroids, and the masses are content to be spectators to a spectacle. I suspect that the subtle shifts throughout an electorate that constitute the will of the people on election day do not hinge on a series of orchestrated talking-points whether in a convention or “debate.”

Furthermore, the historical trajectory of the presidential debates over fifty years was toward “talking points” even without regard to the moderator’s question, in lieu of a sustained back and forth on a specific point to be debated and only then to be followed after some time by another point of contention in a debate that is moderated. In other words, after fifty years of presidential debates the viewers had no idea how far the spectacle had drifted out to sea. That something is called a debate does not mean that it is a debate. Moreover, just because the media characterizes a given social reality as true or actual does not necessarily mean that it is, particularly when the media’s interest is in play. Truth itself manifested as social reality should be viewed as a problem rather than as a given.

Stepping back finally, my thesis can be read as an indictment of the shift away from the emphasis on electing independent electors to the Electoral College by state, which was intended to serve as a check on excessive democracy. Election campaigns in extended republics (i.e., empire-scale) have so much distance between the candidates and the electorate, given the size of the latter and the extended geography of multiple republics, that democracy can be subject to media manipulation and demagoguery (enabled by the lack of sustained back and forth on specific points of contention in the debates). This is why the delegates in the U.S. Constitutional Convention in 1787 opted for smaller electorates (i.e., in the states) to elect their own electors, who in turn could meet with the candidates and cast more informed ballots without being beholden by their respective electorates to vote for a certain candidate.

Put another way, hundreds of millions of people are necessarily reliant on the media for information on the candidates for empire-wide office. The candidates in turn can essentially market themselves as a brand that can be quite contrived or artificial (e.g., the McCain campaign’s efforts to give us a certain view of Sarah Palin even as the campaign knew she was not qualified to be president).

My analysis in this essay is essentially geared to pointing to the expected decadence in electing an empire-level office directly. Jose Barroso, president of the E.U. Commission, was at the time proposing that his office be popularly elected by citizens of the E.U., and thus he was unwittingly subjecting the E.U. to the same sort of flaw. At root, Barroso was misconstruing the nature of the E.U. as a federal empire-level/scale union in applying that which is well-suited to the level of the E.U.'s republics.

As an alternative to the media spectacle that is the U.S. presidential election, Americans might consider reforms that would emphasize and protect the electors in the Electoral College, or replacing it with a combination of state officials and members of Congress (who are themselves elected and thus based in democracy!) to meet in order to choose the president. Both means are consistent with historical federal theory, whereas the direct election route is not. In other words, the reductionism to polls and talking points is to be expected; it confirms the judgment of the majority of the delegates who were at the federal convention in 1787. In short, they understood what the United States were much better than the modern electorate and officials do today. This is the basic problem facing the American polity, in my view.

If I am correct, we as a people have lost touch with what a federal, empire-level/scale union is, and so we do not even realize when we have gone far off course. For instance, we do not understand the particular risk that goes with consolidation at the federal level. We do not understand that what works electorally at the state level may not work in the context of a combination of such republics; a step-wise leap is involved, with qualitative as well as  quantitative differences. It is as though we were on a ship without a rudder, and yet we presume we must be on course so we keep going ahead. We continue with the status quo, happily going through the electoral-season rituals as though we were a dead beetle still moving along—the legs still twitching. It is indeed a horrible spectacle in the light of day, even if everything seems just dandy to the vast majority of the electorate that is to select the next president. Sadly yet tellingly, none of this is subject to debate.

Sources:

David Carr, “TV Debates That Sell More Than Just Drama,” The New York Times, October 15, 2012.

Mark Blumenthal, “2012 Polls Continue to Show Close Race Nationwide, Obama Edge in Battleground States,” The Huffington Post, October 15, 2012.

Russia's Putin and Big Tobacco

In political economy theory, democracy is said to have the drawback of excessive consumption of public revenues at the expense of investment, such as in infrastructure relevant to foreign direct investment. Latin American countries were contrasted negatively with the Asian newly industrialized economies, whose relatively strong states could buffer popular calls for more in entitlements so that more could be invested in infrastructure attractive to foreign multinational companies. The implication is that a trade-off exists between democracy and economic development.
Apart from the economic aspects, the question may be whether a representative government can resist popular calls for more money to be spent by the government on popular consumption. In the U.S. case, it can be asked whether the fiscal stresses on Social Security and Medicare are due more to demographic factors (i.e., an aging population) or democracy itself. The ability of representative democracy to maintain a viable economy and republic in the long term is at issue.
Accordingly, Putin’s less than democratic approach to ruling Russia may have a bright side. Even though nearly 40% of the population smoked in 2012 and the world’s four big tobacco companies controlled 90% of the Russian market, the Kremlin was pushing strong anti-smoking legislation through the legislature. Besides the question of whether such legislation should be at that level in an empire-level federal system (there had been legislation at the republic level), the fact that the government was standing up to big business and 40 percent of its population (60% of Russian men) can be attributed to a strong state resisting popular pressure literally for consumption. This is not necessarily bad, as people do not always know what is best for them.

Even in democracies, checks exist against “excessive democracy.” The Electoral College and the U.S. Senate are two such institutional checks at the federal level in the United States. The electors in the College were to check popular pressure to elect someone who is not in the best interest of the people. In the wake of an attack, for instance, the people might want a president who will invade the offending country (or another). The electors may say, “hold on, that’s not in your own best interest so we are going to elect someone else—someone who will resist that momentary urge.”

Popular passion can also have considerable sway in the U.S. House of Representatives because each member is up for re-election in two-year intervals. It was to be annual, but in the eighteenth century travel time made that unrealistic at the empire level (whereas annual elections suffered no such obstacle for state legislatures). The six-year term in the U.S. Senate was meant to check the influence of the passions of the moment that can sway the House. So, too, the appointment of U.S. Senators by the state governments rather than directly elected by the people was so designed. The subsequent popular election of the senators has thus weakened this check.

In short, if it seems that elected representatives, including the American president, cannot say no to additional entitlement programs or to Wall Street, the relatively-undemocratic federal government of Russia might be found to have a few pluses even though putting down the democratic impulse of protest is hardly laudable. Perhaps the ideal is a government that is democratic yet of a strong enough state to withstand or at least check the passions of the people to consume more. Smoking is indeed a case of consumption that is not in a person’s or society’s best interest. Putin can indeed be credited if history will show that his government did indeed stand up to big tobacco and the large minority of smokers in Russia.

Source:

Lukas Alpert, “Kremlin Cracks Down on Big Tobacco,” The Wall Street Journal, October 16, 2012.

Flavor of the Month: The Achilles' Heel of American Democracy?

The New York Times Sunday Magazine ran a feature toward the end of 2009 on Joe Biden, who was then Vice President of the United States.  Besides his experience and knowledge from having been a seasoned U.S. senator, Joe Biden is a man genuinely content in his own skin, and, it might be said, genuinely happy.  This, perhaps more than anything else, is vital to high level public official because sound judgment is important in those jobs. Ruling is not simply about how much one knows, or even how much experience one has; it is fundamentally about feeling at ease in who one is.  Ultimately, a positive vision springs from one’s state of mind and innate values.  One need only contrast Joe Biden with Richard Nixon, for example. Foreign policy comes up for both, but their mentalities could not be different.

My question is this: to what extent is our “Electoral College as popular election” geared to selecting the best candidate for president?  If the most popular is apt to be a people-pleaser, how comfortable is he (or she) likely to be in his (or her) own skin?  Furthermore, is the most popular necessarily seasoned with experience?  In short, if our current mechanism for selecting the president is oriented to privileging the flavor of the day, is this really the way we want to pick our presidents?    When we see a people-pleasing president cave to the business interests for support because popularity is not a sufficient basis of legitmacy, should we really be surprised?   What I see is a seasoned and knowledgeable vice president who is generally happy and getting along with people at the White House and in Congress, yet he did not do well at all in the popularity contests (i.e., the primaries).   I suggest that we have it backwards if we assume that Joe Biden is best as vice president because he did not fare well in the electoral contest.  As a case in point, he has been urging restraint in acquiescing to the pressure to add troops to Afganistan.  He wants a narrow focus, rather than a sensationalistic “surge.”  I suspect that he would stand up to big business and the military were he president because he wouldn’t need their approval to be content in his own skin.  Were he president, I suspect he wouldn’t need a second term.  Could that be said of a person who relishes popularity?

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/magazine/29Biden-t.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=joe%20biden&st=cse

Sarkozy’s Electoral Campaign in the E.U.: Not for the U.S. Presidency

On February 15, 2012, France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy formally announced his intent to file as a candidate for the office in what would be his second term. The announcement took place just over two months from the election (April22nd). If no candidate wins an absolute majority, the two top candidates would be on the ballot in a runoff held on May 6, 2012.[1] The European sense of a decent length for a campaign “season” could be taken to heart by Americans.

For example, as Nicolas Sarkozy was undergoing two or three months of campaigning in France, Scott Walker had been campaigning for months already in Wisconsin, well in advance of a recall election that could still be six months away. I suspect that generally speaking, the campaigns in the U.S. states are much longer in duration than in the E.U. states. Perhaps Europeans are less tolerate of excess, or more willing to “just say no.”

Comparing a state-level campaign season with the election of an office at the empire-level (i.e., of a Union of such polities) is problematic. For one thing, at the E.U. and U.S. level, the states themselves would expect to have a say. Hence, primaries and caucuses to nominate a party candidate for the office of the President of the United States are by state. This involves several problems, such as what to do if a state voting later has a narrowed range of possible candidates from which to choose. Having every state nominate on the same date, with a run off a week or two latter, would be an improvement, but it would take away the distinctiveness of the states—something Europeans appreciate.

The American Electoral College, wherein electors vote for the President of the United States by state (literally in the capitols), is also not convertible into elections at the state level. It would make no sense to apply such a mechanism to a state itself (i.e., voting by state). My more general point is that it is hazardous to compare state and federal electoral politics and processes because the nature of a federal union does not apply to a particular state thereof. Yet this is typically ignored and I’m sure many people are trying to compare Sarkozy’s campaign with that of Obama.

This raises a much larger point: what to do with a societal category mistake that has become the legitimate default. The human proclivity of ignorance to presume that it cannot be wrong only complicates the matter of correction. Treating the U.S. as if it were a state in the E.U. with a large backyard conflates apples and oranges. Moreover, the error involves treating an empire as if it were on the kingdom level (i.e., a part of itself). It is like treating one person in his entirety as if he were equivalent to another person’s arm. The problems with such a comparison become clear once clothing is considered. What covers your arm is not going to cover my entire body, and going with it in January in Wisconsin or Wyoming would be dangerous. Similarly, it is dangerous to a polity to disregard what it is and treat it as if it were something else.

Therefore, although the U.S. Presidential campaign “season” (now two years!) is entirely too long and is in urgent need of reform, it would be a mistake to look at Sarkozy’s announcement, coming just two months before of his election, as a basis of comparison. Perhaps it is because empire-level federal unions of states have added elements (as well as scale) that complicate (and thus extend) the selection process of an empire-wide office such as the Presidency of the United States that the European Union has so far decided not to have an elected president. Given the nature of the level and scale of the E.U. and U.S., there is a lot to be said of the proposals in the U.S. Constitutional Convention wherein state legislatures or chief executives select the U.S. President. As it is, the U.S. House of Representatives, voting by state, elects that office where no candidate has an absolute majority of the electors in the Electoral College. Because the delegates in the convention thought it unlikely that any one person could be so well-known even in the empire of 13 republics, I suspect that they presumed that most presidents would be elected by the democratically-elected federal representatives, voting by state as the U.S. is a union of states (i.e., the states being members too).

No one would be happier than me were the American presidential election reformed to have a two or three month campaign season, but given the fundamental difference between the U.S. and E.U. on the one hand and their respective states on the other, we could expect problems because a category mistake would be involved. For instance, two months given the empire scale would mean that grass-roots campaigning would be virtually impossible; the television media would be the conduit, and perhaps with undue manipulation from the funded-pundits and media “personalities.” There is a reason why in traditional federal theory, officials of the states select the empire-wide office holders. The state officials themselves having been elected (after a two month campaign!), their involvement would not be at the expense of democracy. In fact, it would heighten public attention on the state-level elections, as is the case in the E.U. Put another way, were the E.U. to have an overall president (rather than one of a given institution, such as the European Council), I doubt it would be a simple election decided only by the E.U. citizens as a whole. That would be to conflate the E.U. with one of its states. See what I mean? If so, you will see the mistake being made over and over again as a matter of course, as a generally accepted default rather than a gross error. Welcome to my world.

1. Gabriele Parussini and David Gauthier-Villars, “Sarkozy Launches His Bid for New Term,” The Wall Street Journal, February 17, 2012.