I don't care who you vote for, just vote and get involved.
"One of the penalties for refusing to
participate in politics is that you
end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato
WARNING: LONG BLOG ON POLITICS
I remember reading an article in the Atlantic Monthly a few years ago. It laid out the various types of government that might replace Democracy, assuming that Democracy cannot last forever. It proposed 4 or so (I honestly can't remember the details) different forms of government:
Government One - Run by Intellectuals
Government Two - Run by Artists
Government Three - Run by Successful Businesspeople
Others - I can't remember (blame it on my Early Alzheimer's)
It basically said that democracy will fail due to apathy. In its replacement, government would be run by people appointed based on their status or standing in a single area of the human community. They proposed the strengths and weaknesses of each and how it would affect a country such as the USA. For example, they felt that a government run by Businesspeople would make decisions based on placing monetary value on each issue/policy/etc. In doing so, decisions would be rendered more efficient and more easily understood by the general populace that deal with money on a daily basis. However, the glaring weakness would lie in assigning monetary value to things that cannot be priced. For instance, the value of any form of art cannot be tied down to any monetary relationship. Doing so would inevitably give such things a value that is lower than what its true importance states. Having such a government would lead to removal of such things (although it is starting to happen now) and replacing it with pragmatic symbols of the human journey - a backwards step in civilization.
While an interesting read, I found the primary assumption that forms the basis of this article the most curious. Why assume that Democracy will fail?
While they didn't outline their reasoning for such an assumption, I'll try to do it here... albeit in a very non-analytical, overtly simplified, and poorly supported blog. And at the same time, I'll mention how I think democracy can and will overcome each reason for the its demise.
Voter Apathy
Democracy thrives on participation by those that are subject to it. The goal of democracy was to take power out of the hands of a few people and place it into the hands of those who are most affected by it - citizens under a democracy. Representatives, judges, and executives are appointed based on each individual citizen's voice to make decisions and oversee other representatives, judges, and executives in a manner abiding to the spirit of their constituents' wishes. Ideally, when all members participate in such government, decisions will be made to the benefit of the majority of citizens.
The problem arises when not all eligible voters vote. When the eligible voter fails to exercise his/her right to vote, government becomes decided not on the true feelings of the populace, but rather the agendas pursued by the most vociferous of citizens. In effect, it places power back into the hands of those few who wish to exercise it. While not as outwardly and obviously dangerous as having all the power in the hands of a King, it is insidiously hazardous nonetheless. It signifies the declining political morale of a society and, at the same time, it pushes forth an agenda that may seem to be representative of the general public, but over years shifts the policy and behavior of a nation into a dangerous quagmire. While we may not view President Bush's decision to wait for UN Inspectors as a huge mistake in the short term, in the longer term, we may see that the world has now viewed us a a paranoid, isolationist country ready to strike out at other countries based on imagined fears. Again, while a large percentage of the eligible voters may not see the big deal of his actions, their lack of voting would clearly indicate their ignorance of the importance of such an event and their constitutionally protected right to vote on such issues.
Voter apathy is the most dangerous weapon against democracy.
Despite the declining voter participation in recent elections, there are signs that change, it is a coming. It seems that more and more famous actors, athletes, musicians, etc are highlighting the issue of voter apathy. In particular, they are focusing on the self-disenfrachised youth. Those who feel anger towards the establishment, but yet have not realized that voting is the best way to change the establishment.
In hearing the concerns of the apathetic voter, the most common statement has been, "Well, with all the votes out there, mine hardly even matters." This couldn't be further than the truth. Few elections are won with greater than 10% of the general vote. For example, in one election, Candidate A got 48% of the popular vote. Candidate B got 47% of the popular vote. Who were they? Candidate A was Al Gore. Candidate B was George W Bush. Furthermore, the electoral vote aims to place more importance in the election. The reason that George W Bush won was Florida. In that state, he won with a vote count of 2,912,790 to 2,912,253. That is a difference of 537 votes. 537. Think about it. One section of a the Orange Bowl Stadium changed the course and direction of the United States for four years. If only 0.003% of Florida's nonvoting eligble voter population voted for Gore, we may not have been in debt, we may have not had soldiers dying daily, and we may not have alienated ourselves the international community. Think that individual votes don't count still?
The Majority is Not Always Right
There is an argument that the general population may not know what's best for itself. Ask any lemming, and you know what I mean. As much as we are loathe to admit it, the average American's understanding of the voluminous and complex issues of foreign and domestic policy is simplified and limited. The majority may think the same, but this is not necessarily the right course. To a certain extent, allowing one vote per citizen limits the intellectual's voice in a democracy. Those who placidly understand and care for the well-being of a nation can easily be drowned out by rudimentary acceptance of campaign slogans and spin doctors. Being a nation founded upon individualistic rights and concerns, the United States is a generally selfish nation. Attention is paid to that which brings the most benefit to the indvidual, not necessarily the state, nation, or world. The consequence of this being that people vote for what they can gain from the effort they put forth into voting. Whether it be selfish propagation of their agendas (often cloaked in the guise of the greater good of society) or selfish propagation of their own financial rewards, voting is very much an expression of want and not need on an individual basis.
If unchecked, the selfish nature of the voting citizenry can lead to the downfall of a nation. Society thrives upon policies, laws, or expressions that do not benefit the majority on an individual basis necessarily. Museums, monuments, national defense, mental health hospitals, childrens hospitals, all are not clearly a benefit to the selfish individual, but a benefit to the society as a whole. While these are more obvious examples, its the not-so-obvious examples of policies, laws, expressions that may not benefit the majority of the ppulation explicitly, but benefits them by bettering society. To put it more bluntly, the white guy in the rich suburb may not give a shit about the gang violence in the ghetto as it normally doesn't touch his life, but he will if he was ever a victim of it. Funding and supplying programs, policies, or laws that reduce gang warfare may hurt him in the short run, but will be of benefit in the long term by making society as a whole safer and more productive.
Does this necessarily translate into a failure of democracy because the majority makes bad decisions? I don't think so. I think that the majority has not made bad decisions in the past and present. Those who are better capable of understanding the intricacies and fundamentals of governing have been effective in vocalizing and publicizing their thoughts on these matters - and thus, helping the majority to decide what may be best for the society. The success of intellectuals in a democracy is strongly based in the intellectual's ability to convince the majority. If this is lost, then the majority takes on a selfish voting role.
The problem I have is that I feel that it is being lost. In the past, the media has played the role of a more accessible libarary - giving us factual information and intelligent analysis of government issues which allows the majority to make informed, capable decisions. Now, the media has taken on a more dangerously aggressive role. Instead of providing information, they now subject us with their unfounded and biased opinons on the matter - often in a strikingly naive way. Instead of giving us actual past voting history of the candidates, they shove advertisements and spin doctors through our second and eighth cranial nerves in all manners possible.
Instead of providing us with unbiased information and analysis, we get political gossip. If we are to remain democratic, we must not vote on gossip.
Voting for Similarity versus Superiority
The last and final (I know... long blog), point that may lead to the downfall of democracy lies in the inability of a democratically governed society to appoint a leader that is superior to all others in dealing with the complexities and intricacies of governing a large population of people.
Recently, the trend has been for candidates to pose themselves as the common person. A person just like you and me that happened to, lo and behold, become one of the most powerful people on the planet. Why would they do such a thing? It seems that the majority of the population has trended towards voting for candidates who seem similar to them. "Well if DUBYA could become President, I sure as hell can too! I'll vote for him for sure!" I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have a smarter, more able person protecting my country than me. Sure, I'd probably do a good job, but if there's somebody better - let them do it. However, in a country in which intellectuals, philosophers, scientists, and artists are placed on the outskirts of society, the majority deem such members too "snobby" to possibly be a good president. In essence, a vote for the more simliar candidate is an act of envy and jealously, rather than an act of true patriotism.
Will things change? I have no doubt that they will. In good times, people look to be social and find people of like minds to associate with. In bad times, they look for a strong leader who they can trust to excel when they cannot. This is why, in my opinon, George Bush won in 2000. The economy had been doing well, things were looking good. Why not put in somebody like you and me? Clearly in 1992, when things were going poorly for the nation, we voted for the intellectually superior Clinton. What happens in 2004? I wish I could tell you, but I can tell you that we will see a superioir leader again, owing to the fact that we will see hard times as a nation again.
Phew, that was ridiculously long
Sorry about that. I am and have been on a political fix. I think people take freedom for granted. My parents escaped communism to give me the ability to vote and voice my opinion on how this nation can be run. For them, freedom was as tangible as the smiles on their faces. They smiled freely in the USA. Before, smiles were far too few and far too forced. I'm not about to denigrate their sacrificies. I do hope that everyone I know who can, will vote. If not, I'll have to let them know about it and I will hold it against them.
participate in politics is that you
end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato
WARNING: LONG BLOG ON POLITICS
I remember reading an article in the Atlantic Monthly a few years ago. It laid out the various types of government that might replace Democracy, assuming that Democracy cannot last forever. It proposed 4 or so (I honestly can't remember the details) different forms of government:
Government One - Run by Intellectuals
Government Two - Run by Artists
Government Three - Run by Successful Businesspeople
Others - I can't remember (blame it on my Early Alzheimer's)
It basically said that democracy will fail due to apathy. In its replacement, government would be run by people appointed based on their status or standing in a single area of the human community. They proposed the strengths and weaknesses of each and how it would affect a country such as the USA. For example, they felt that a government run by Businesspeople would make decisions based on placing monetary value on each issue/policy/etc. In doing so, decisions would be rendered more efficient and more easily understood by the general populace that deal with money on a daily basis. However, the glaring weakness would lie in assigning monetary value to things that cannot be priced. For instance, the value of any form of art cannot be tied down to any monetary relationship. Doing so would inevitably give such things a value that is lower than what its true importance states. Having such a government would lead to removal of such things (although it is starting to happen now) and replacing it with pragmatic symbols of the human journey - a backwards step in civilization.
While an interesting read, I found the primary assumption that forms the basis of this article the most curious. Why assume that Democracy will fail?
While they didn't outline their reasoning for such an assumption, I'll try to do it here... albeit in a very non-analytical, overtly simplified, and poorly supported blog. And at the same time, I'll mention how I think democracy can and will overcome each reason for the its demise.
Voter Apathy
Democracy thrives on participation by those that are subject to it. The goal of democracy was to take power out of the hands of a few people and place it into the hands of those who are most affected by it - citizens under a democracy. Representatives, judges, and executives are appointed based on each individual citizen's voice to make decisions and oversee other representatives, judges, and executives in a manner abiding to the spirit of their constituents' wishes. Ideally, when all members participate in such government, decisions will be made to the benefit of the majority of citizens.
The problem arises when not all eligible voters vote. When the eligible voter fails to exercise his/her right to vote, government becomes decided not on the true feelings of the populace, but rather the agendas pursued by the most vociferous of citizens. In effect, it places power back into the hands of those few who wish to exercise it. While not as outwardly and obviously dangerous as having all the power in the hands of a King, it is insidiously hazardous nonetheless. It signifies the declining political morale of a society and, at the same time, it pushes forth an agenda that may seem to be representative of the general public, but over years shifts the policy and behavior of a nation into a dangerous quagmire. While we may not view President Bush's decision to wait for UN Inspectors as a huge mistake in the short term, in the longer term, we may see that the world has now viewed us a a paranoid, isolationist country ready to strike out at other countries based on imagined fears. Again, while a large percentage of the eligible voters may not see the big deal of his actions, their lack of voting would clearly indicate their ignorance of the importance of such an event and their constitutionally protected right to vote on such issues.
Voter apathy is the most dangerous weapon against democracy.
Despite the declining voter participation in recent elections, there are signs that change, it is a coming. It seems that more and more famous actors, athletes, musicians, etc are highlighting the issue of voter apathy. In particular, they are focusing on the self-disenfrachised youth. Those who feel anger towards the establishment, but yet have not realized that voting is the best way to change the establishment.
In hearing the concerns of the apathetic voter, the most common statement has been, "Well, with all the votes out there, mine hardly even matters." This couldn't be further than the truth. Few elections are won with greater than 10% of the general vote. For example, in one election, Candidate A got 48% of the popular vote. Candidate B got 47% of the popular vote. Who were they? Candidate A was Al Gore. Candidate B was George W Bush. Furthermore, the electoral vote aims to place more importance in the election. The reason that George W Bush won was Florida. In that state, he won with a vote count of 2,912,790 to 2,912,253. That is a difference of 537 votes. 537. Think about it. One section of a the Orange Bowl Stadium changed the course and direction of the United States for four years. If only 0.003% of Florida's nonvoting eligble voter population voted for Gore, we may not have been in debt, we may have not had soldiers dying daily, and we may not have alienated ourselves the international community. Think that individual votes don't count still?
The Majority is Not Always Right
There is an argument that the general population may not know what's best for itself. Ask any lemming, and you know what I mean. As much as we are loathe to admit it, the average American's understanding of the voluminous and complex issues of foreign and domestic policy is simplified and limited. The majority may think the same, but this is not necessarily the right course. To a certain extent, allowing one vote per citizen limits the intellectual's voice in a democracy. Those who placidly understand and care for the well-being of a nation can easily be drowned out by rudimentary acceptance of campaign slogans and spin doctors. Being a nation founded upon individualistic rights and concerns, the United States is a generally selfish nation. Attention is paid to that which brings the most benefit to the indvidual, not necessarily the state, nation, or world. The consequence of this being that people vote for what they can gain from the effort they put forth into voting. Whether it be selfish propagation of their agendas (often cloaked in the guise of the greater good of society) or selfish propagation of their own financial rewards, voting is very much an expression of want and not need on an individual basis.
If unchecked, the selfish nature of the voting citizenry can lead to the downfall of a nation. Society thrives upon policies, laws, or expressions that do not benefit the majority on an individual basis necessarily. Museums, monuments, national defense, mental health hospitals, childrens hospitals, all are not clearly a benefit to the selfish individual, but a benefit to the society as a whole. While these are more obvious examples, its the not-so-obvious examples of policies, laws, expressions that may not benefit the majority of the ppulation explicitly, but benefits them by bettering society. To put it more bluntly, the white guy in the rich suburb may not give a shit about the gang violence in the ghetto as it normally doesn't touch his life, but he will if he was ever a victim of it. Funding and supplying programs, policies, or laws that reduce gang warfare may hurt him in the short run, but will be of benefit in the long term by making society as a whole safer and more productive.
Does this necessarily translate into a failure of democracy because the majority makes bad decisions? I don't think so. I think that the majority has not made bad decisions in the past and present. Those who are better capable of understanding the intricacies and fundamentals of governing have been effective in vocalizing and publicizing their thoughts on these matters - and thus, helping the majority to decide what may be best for the society. The success of intellectuals in a democracy is strongly based in the intellectual's ability to convince the majority. If this is lost, then the majority takes on a selfish voting role.
The problem I have is that I feel that it is being lost. In the past, the media has played the role of a more accessible libarary - giving us factual information and intelligent analysis of government issues which allows the majority to make informed, capable decisions. Now, the media has taken on a more dangerously aggressive role. Instead of providing information, they now subject us with their unfounded and biased opinons on the matter - often in a strikingly naive way. Instead of giving us actual past voting history of the candidates, they shove advertisements and spin doctors through our second and eighth cranial nerves in all manners possible.
Instead of providing us with unbiased information and analysis, we get political gossip. If we are to remain democratic, we must not vote on gossip.
Voting for Similarity versus Superiority
The last and final (I know... long blog), point that may lead to the downfall of democracy lies in the inability of a democratically governed society to appoint a leader that is superior to all others in dealing with the complexities and intricacies of governing a large population of people.
Recently, the trend has been for candidates to pose themselves as the common person. A person just like you and me that happened to, lo and behold, become one of the most powerful people on the planet. Why would they do such a thing? It seems that the majority of the population has trended towards voting for candidates who seem similar to them. "Well if DUBYA could become President, I sure as hell can too! I'll vote for him for sure!" I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have a smarter, more able person protecting my country than me. Sure, I'd probably do a good job, but if there's somebody better - let them do it. However, in a country in which intellectuals, philosophers, scientists, and artists are placed on the outskirts of society, the majority deem such members too "snobby" to possibly be a good president. In essence, a vote for the more simliar candidate is an act of envy and jealously, rather than an act of true patriotism.
Will things change? I have no doubt that they will. In good times, people look to be social and find people of like minds to associate with. In bad times, they look for a strong leader who they can trust to excel when they cannot. This is why, in my opinon, George Bush won in 2000. The economy had been doing well, things were looking good. Why not put in somebody like you and me? Clearly in 1992, when things were going poorly for the nation, we voted for the intellectually superior Clinton. What happens in 2004? I wish I could tell you, but I can tell you that we will see a superioir leader again, owing to the fact that we will see hard times as a nation again.
Phew, that was ridiculously long
Sorry about that. I am and have been on a political fix. I think people take freedom for granted. My parents escaped communism to give me the ability to vote and voice my opinion on how this nation can be run. For them, freedom was as tangible as the smiles on their faces. They smiled freely in the USA. Before, smiles were far too few and far too forced. I'm not about to denigrate their sacrificies. I do hope that everyone I know who can, will vote. If not, I'll have to let them know about it and I will hold it against them.
posted by Richard at 2:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home