Domestic Intervention

23/10/2013

Democracy, Detroit and Dinosaurs !

One of many issues that have puzzled me over the years when studying the US is its claim to be one of 'the most developed democracies in the World'. Strange, since in effect with the odd exception, throughout its history the US has been a two party state. Now, being a Brit I'm used to at least three political parties if not four whereas elsewhere in Europe there are nation-states that have numerous representatives wearing different colours and emblems in an attempt to cover the diverse nature of their society as well as offering some balance of power. Moreover, democracy is a combination of many things, but it is not just about voting as we continue to see in many 'developed dictatorships'. What it is really about is a political body that is organised in such a way that it truly represents the 'will of the people'. Even taking into account that the two main parties in the US - the Republicans and the Democrats - are very broad churches, just having the 'elephants' and the 'donkeys' surely does not offer representation to the whole of today's United States political animal kingdom. Well, help may have finally arrived at the Washington circus. After the recent political nonsense over the budget and the debt ceiling it seems the American general public took a rather dim view of Republican tactics, so much so that many within the GOP are openly talking about splitting from the Tea Party. With mid term elections due next year there is growing concern as to the radical nature of the Tea Party members and their destructive intent. So, we could have a split between conservatives; offering an alternative right wing party, bearing mind that there no real left wing representation and when they call politicians centrists they mean in European terms, right of centre because there is no real political spectrum. But, the development of a new party could be a step forward. What animal title would we nominate for this new independent tea party? How about Dinosaurs!

As the nation-state came close to defaulting on its debts last week Detroit, Michigan - once with a population of 2 million people, famously known as 'Motown' is now down to just 700,000 and with debts of anything between $18 and $20 bn - had not only filed for bankruptcy but has also asked for protection from its creditors. The court case starts today. Now why does this matter? Well, if protection is given Detroit would not have to honour its pension payments to huge numbers of retired policemen and women, firemen and other public employees of the city. The repercussions are significant since Detroit is not the only US city without money as places such as Providence, Rhode Island and San Diego are watching on with nervous interest. At present counties and cities across the United States have $574bn unfunded pension obligations, in other words, no money to cover this long term financial commitment. Now you might ask how can cities within this most 'democratically developed nation' get to this position? Could we imagine London or Brussels going or being allowed to go bust ? I have a suggestion let us ask the donkeys, the elephants and the newly appointed dinosaurs to meet up, once again, on 'the Hill' and agree another increase in the debt ceiling so they can help cities like Detroit from defaulting. Seriously, this most recent development is not really about the demise of these once proud cities, but the effects this could have on hundreds of thousands of retired American citizens. Moreover, it offers more evidence that the US political circus, whatever its make up, is no longer representing a nation-state that continues to be under real economic stress.

9 Comments

Dimitri Neyt link

23/10/2013 05:18:10 pm

Unfortunately, I believe the US electoral system hardly allows for a third party. Because of the first-past-the-post system - only those who get the most votes in a district are elected - it is very hard for third parties to get a foothold. (That effect is called Duverger's law.) This would have to be repeated in several districts, in several states, too. A challenge all third parties - socialists, greens, autonomists, libertarians - know is practically impossible.
For any third party to succeed, be it a new GOP or the Green Party (which has some elected officials, locally and in state legislatures), we would have to revise the electoral system. Away from first-past-the-post and single-member districts, towards a more proportional representation. Or is that too "European" for the USA?

Ken Kennard link

24/10/2013 01:41:46 am

Technically and constitutionally there is no actual provision that stops third parties or forth parties from existing.However, as you observe there are practical difficulties, including the key issue -funding. The biggest donors to the republicans and/or democrats are the financial institutions based in Wall Street and the large industrial/commercial corporations based in the main cities of the US. They will not 'waste' money on people or parties that ultimately will have little or no influence on 'the Hill'. Hence, rightly or wrongly, the make up of the executive and legislative bodies are largely determined by the size of contributions received from interested parties. Therefore, in a sense the nation-state that gained its pre-eminence through the force of its economy ultimately becomes governed by that same power. KK

Eveline Versluys

24/10/2013 05:07:22 am

I agree with Dimitri on the fact that the first-past-the-post system makes it extremely hard for third parties to ever be successful. Even if the Tea Party would become a new independent party, I find it hard to believe that this event would suddenly lead to a more – in my eyes- democratic electoral system, paving the way for other small parties (e.g. the Green Party) to gain momentum. No matter how you twist or turn it, both the Republicans and Democrats will do anything to keep themselves in power. I think you could argue that US politics is too much stuck in the past. When the two-party system was created, The United States of America was still a very young nation and although both main party’s political agenda and focal points have changed over the years, and small third parties have come and gone, the US still remains a two-party conundrum. Being European, it seems so incredibly self-evident to have multiple political parties to choose from. And yet America –the Land of the Free and the quintessential example of the melting pot!- doesn’t seem to comprehend that their cultural stew, with people from many different backgrounds and beliefs, can only be democratically represented by many different political perspectives. Nowadays, I think many people are forced to vote for politicians or parties whose ideas they don’t necessarily support. And vice versa: candidates and politicians are forced to represent ideas they might not even believe in themselves.
Moreover, given the whole funding scheme, you could even go as far as to argue that the US has a One Party System with two different branches, the Republicans and Democrats. The One Big Party being Wall Street.

Wout Vergauwen

24/10/2013 05:20:02 am

I think the two party system as we know it in the US today is not undemocratic. Sure, I do not think it is 'the real democracy', but I don't think any democracy really is. It is true of course that the United States political animal kingdom consists of more than only donkeys and elephants, but as Dimitri said, it is hard for a dinosaur to get a foothold in the current system. As you argued, professor, technically there is the possibility for the emergence of a powerful third party, but you mentioned yourself it is really hard – If not impossible – to establish one since it will most certainly be outfunded.

The two-party system is, indeed, a natural result of the first-past-past-the-post system (which is automatically linked to the division of the country into constituencies), but I believe this system holds a great democratic value. This is because constituencies bring politics close to the people and it forces politicians to be concerned with the problems of their district. In other words, this first-past-the-point system guarantees the interests of a certain region – meaning the people living in that region – in the national policies. I agree that this system of representation is not the easiest way to run a country, or the most stable – as we have seen, it allows representatives of radical voting constituencies to hold the country hostage – but it is by far the most democratic. As I have argued in my mail as well, radicalism can topple every political system, no matter the number of parties the system consists of.

You also mention the not so silent talks about a split between the GOP and the Tea Party. This would not create a three-party system, I think. It would create, temporarily, a one-party system. In the short run, Democrats will benefit massively from the emergence of the Tea Party as another ‘major party’, since both Republicans and Tea Partyers will be too weak to win the next three to five elections. However, the Tea Party stands for an America that hardly exists anymore, and will therefore, I think, bleed to death. Indeed, the America they stand for does not include the omnipotence of Wall Street, which means they will cut themselves of from the major political donors. The GOP will suffer in the short run, but in the long run, they will reemerge as a strong and united (at least more than they are now) party.

Dimitri Neyt link

25/10/2013 02:55:02 am

I agree with you, Wout, when you say a two-party system doesn't necessarily mean a lack of democracy. Though the system carries risks - gerrymandering is the best known - having a district to represent in D.C. makes you more accountable to your own voters, in a way. Representatives in the House tend to look at how their own district is favored by any possible bill. That's democratic: people all across the nation are represented.

But, by that same logic, one-member-per-district representation also implies that there is only one representative who can, obviously, not fully represent a rather large proportion of his constituents. Arguably, in Belgium, my local interests are not so well represented, but my ideological ones are (in theory, at least); whereas in America, always about half of the time have someone who legally represents them but who's not on the same line. (This is true in Belgium, too, of course, but since we have proportional representation, there is almost always someone from your party to represent you.)

I guess what this shows is that these are merely differences in focus.

There are other differences with far greater impacts. For example: political polarization as a consequence of this same voting system. Or, indeed, the impossibility for radically new ideas to come to the fore through other ways than the established parties, who are, as all established institutions are, self-interested.

There's so much to say about this... :D.

Dimitri Neyt link

25/10/2013 02:55:11 am

Wout Vergauwen

25/10/2013 05:25:46 am

You are completely right, there is so much to say about this! :)

I do not think it is a real problem that it is almost impossible for radically new ideas to come through. As history has shown time and again, radicalism is a threat to any form of democracy. Therefore, I do not think it is a bad thing ideas find their way through the established political parties (no matter the number of parties in the system). Besides the fact that this benefits the establishment, it also gives these ideas – and those are mostly not that new, look at the program and independent Tea Party would use – the chance to survive, because the establishment will adapt them so they will be viable.

However, this does not mean I oppose the establishment of new parties, although most of the time they lack ‘new’ ideas. A new party mostly choses to focus on a topic that is not considered a priority by any existing party – they should have things in common of course, because if you do not want a two-party system, you depend on a coalition government that can only be formed when there is some common ground. But, as is already pointed out, it is almost impossible to establish a new party in the American political system because of party financing.

And finally, you mention the risk of political polarization. There, I agree with you completely. A two-party system is more susceptible for polarization since there are only two options. However, I do think that the American political system needs ‘respect’ and ‘compromise’. Therefore, I would not argue that the blame rests with the two-party system but with the politicians forgetting they are serving the whole country, and not only their own constituency – even though representatives should consider the latter as the more important one. And to make one final point, this was not what several Tea Party’ers were considering during the recent shutdown, despite the fact they told anyone so. Congressmen such as Ted Cruz were more considered with raising their national visibility level (2016 is not that far away) and pursuing a cheap and populist crusade against president Obama.

Dimitri Neyt link

25/10/2013 06:26:18 am

Absolutely, the blame is to a large enough extent with the individual politicians and the strategies they, as people in parties, but also in factions and caucuses, employ.

I would like to point out, though, that the birth and spread of 'radically' new ideas should not be equated with radical political action (i.e. revolutionary, fast, violent). Radical, to me, means that it dares to differ from the existing options in ways that none of the existing players is considering. If those ideas - supposing they're brilliant and useful - spread through the workings of an established party, I would applaud that too. I just don't think that's a likely scenario, especially not in a two-party nation such as the US. As you point out, for political practicalities, established players would not easily risk their support to advance a radically different idea (and this becomes more true as the number of parties involved decreases).

Yannick Verberckmoes

26/10/2013 02:26:39 am

I think the notion of “the will of the people” is absurd in itself. It is a very romantic idea, but much like most romantic ideas, it is merely a pleasant fiction. And how could 300 million people ever have the same will? A few weeks ago I had a brief discussion about the indifference of people towards politics with a Belgian politician and he said: “We politicians think everybody cares about politics, but that’s simply not true.” Most people do not ponder their political opinion enough and because of that democracy will always ensure the power of stupid people in large groups. Therefore the danger of populism will never cease to exist. No matter how a democratic system is structured.
Going back through classical history where democracy was invented, we see that the Athenian democracy had the same flaws as the American. At the height of the Peloponnesian War, the Athenians brought their six top admirals to trial. They had failed to rescue the survivors of the battle of Arginusae, due to bad weather conditions. Family members of the victims persuaded the public opinion to demand that the admirals be executed. Athenian courts, contrary to their modern counterparts, were democratic, meaning that a verdict was made by means of a public vote. The six admirals lost the vote and consequently their lives, leaving behind a poorly led and highly demoralized navy. As a result, the Athenian fleet was completely obliterated by the Spartan the next year. I believe I do not need to argue that killing the high command of the most vital part of an army is about as insane as not raising the debt ceiling.
I do not think it is relevant that the US is a two-party nation-state. The political system in Europe has also procured the aversion of a significant part of the population. As this pillock rightly states: http://gawker.com/russell-brand-may-have-started-a-revolution-last-night-1451318185 His name is Russell Brand and he is convinced that this is the right time to start a global revolution. “What would be the alternative?” you might ask. Good question. There is none. Starting a global revolution is much the same as bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq. It is a matter of replacing something with nothing and it simply will not work.
In the end we should be grateful to live in a democratic system. As Winston Churchill said: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” If you ask me our salvation lies with intelligent people and, given that democracy is an invention of a few pederastic bearded men with a profound dislike of underwear, classical philology. :)

Domestic Intervention

Democracy, Detroit and Dinosaurs !

Leave a Reply.

Author

Archives

Categories