Stupid Voters and the Health of Our Democracy
Posted by Jeffrey R. Parenti, P.E. on September 27, 2011
It’s not considered a great idea to bite the hand that feeds you. One ballsy CNN columnist has. Say hello to LZ Granderson. In a recent column that his editors actually let him run with, he calls voters the S-word: stupid. It comes at a time with dissatisfaction with government is polling at record numbers.
Alexis de Tocqueville, maybe the greatest impartial observer of American democracy, said that “we get the government we deserve.” You can quote all the founding fathers you want, folks. Nothing tells us more about our politics than this quote.
I have been making this point (albeit in a much less direct way than Mr. Granderson) around these parts for over two years. Our government — from the Billerica Selectmen to the President — is elected by us. Complaining about he government is like making your own scrod dinner when you have a seafood allergy, and them blaming the fish market for your severe rash.
Americans have a gigantic “mirror problem” — that is, an inability to recognize our own failings and take responsibility for them. We elect dopey, corrupt people to Congress because they are attractive, deliver a neat speech they didn’t write, have a catchy slogan, or stumble upon a singe issue that is deeply personal to the electorate, and then we give Capitol Hill a 12% approval rating?
Duh!
At one time in history, intellect and leadership was important to us. Today anger, charm, and TV ads are what matter. Locally, it’s more of a popularity contest in a community where almost no one votes.
You want a better government? You really want a better government? Elect one.
Better yet, run yourself.
Tony said
Very well said. Recently I heard on the radio the host questioning if the NJ Gov could be elected president since he is overweight. Shows how a person looks can affect if voters would elect them. As you mentioned, voters should look at the record and intelligence of a candidate along with how their policy would affect you as a whole. Maybe someday people will wake up, we shall see.
Anonymous said
“Every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his.” ~
John Locke, “The Second Treatise On Civil Government”
The author does a good job (albeit highly partisan) in demonstrating voter incompetence. From my perspective, he left out the most significant element of this topic and that is what made and keeps America different from other nations in the way they are governed. It is true that we elect our leaders and our leaders are a direct reflection of us and our perspective on governance. We do, truly get what we deserve.
But what puts us in this position to choose is the right to vote and to select candidates without pressure or fear of government retaliation for making the wrong choice. No other nation puts as much emphasis on individual rights as does the United States. In fact, until the Declaration of Independence and its base principles codified by the United States Constitution, the idea of individual rights was only that: an idea. No other nation prior to Jefferson and company offered its citizens “certain unalienable rights” such as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This basic philosophy expresses a preference for lassaiz faire government where everyone is considered equal in the exercise of these basic rights and is free to live as they please so long as the free exercise of their rights does not intrude on the rights of others. At that point, government serves a legitimate purpose by interposing itself between those in dispute/conflict and rendering a judgment based on constitutional principles.
Government also has a legitimate interest in preventing one person or another nation from using force against her citizens. In fact, the founders are clear in that they believed and wrote into the Declaration of Independence every citizens right to rebel against their own government when it became too large, too intrusive, and too distant from those governed that it becomes a threat to the very liberty it was constructed and mandated to protect. However, there is a caveat that citizens only undertake such action after due consideration to the consequences and that there is certainty that it is the only recourse left. This implies that our founders expected citizens to become and remain sufficiently engaged in understanding government and world affairs within our constitutional framework – something, I fear, that expectation has long ago ceased to be among the majority of voters.
Over the centuries, our rights have become less important to the government and to those sitting on the courts. It is difficult to govern under the restrictions of principle; and so, there has been a continual undermining of our “unalienable rights”, such as the right to not buy health insurance, to use our property as we see fit so long as it does not have a negative impact on the properties of our neighbors, the right of individuals to establish businesses, to set the terms of pricing, labor costs, benefits, etc. in a competitive environment protected by government though fair tax policy, minimal regulation, and allowing autonomous control over such business where they are judged by those who would choose them over competitors.
Some argue that our rights were given to us by God. It’s even stated that our rights were endowed by “our creator”. This begs several questions in my mind. If “our creator” is some supernatural being, why did it take millenia for him to make these rights available? Why did it take Jefferson and company and a revolution against England to recognize the importance of individual human rights as an essential element of a peace loving society?
Even with these magnificent documents, there were still flaws in several aspects of human existence. For instance, we know that although the documents proclaim that all men are created equal (not meaning in ability, but meaning in the free exercise of individual rights); many, including blacks and Chinese in particular, were not afforded any semblance of equality by our founding generation. They got around this dilemma by legitimizing the concept that they because they weren’t white Christians, in particular, white Protestants, that they were not fully human and therefore were only granted limited rights – a convenient political posture to continue slavery to avoid upsetting the status quo, particularly in the south, with respect to commerce in an agribusiness culture.
In the article referred to by Jeff [which I believes holds many valid point that could have been more even-handedly made for greater effect], the author states the following:
“We have to move away from easy-to-repeat campaign slogans and promises of easy solutions, because we’re a country with more than 300 million people, a complicated racial and religious history and the world’s largest GDP. There are no easy solutions.”
Imagine the society we would be living in had we simply stuck to the spirit and principles of the founding documents, by recognized that all people, regardless of race, creed, color, cultural background, gender or sexual orientation and any of the other factors that separate us into groups were afforded equal protection under the law to all of our fundamental unalienable rights. We would only face litigation when one usurped the rights of another, regardless of such differences, and was confident that they had the same standing in court as the other party. Instead of focusing on how much more or less one group received in favorable treatment vs another, citizens could actually work to focus on making their democracy and liberty even stronger. Imagine how much more responsibly businesses would be forced to act in relation to not violating the rights of their neighbors. In such a position, they would not be able to force things such as power plants on populations who do not want such things and can prove that such a project would degrade their quality of life.
The establishment and protection of individual right by codification into law began in the United States, and although our founding fathers were not perfect, they certainly expressed a philosophic liberalism of freedom of movement, freedom of choice, freedom to earn and keep property, both physical and intellectual, including the exclusive right to self-determine the use of their most precious property – their own bodies, their own minds and the products that derive from each.
The article’s author is correct in stating that there are no easy answers to solving the problems of a society at large that is open and full or promises of freedom and hope for all when it consists of many varying elements; especially conflicting philosophies such as religion which often find themselves in conflict with each other and at times interpret their own principle that become anathema to a secular based constitution that demands equal protection for all under the law. As all sporting teams know, when you are not succeeding and facing difficulty in meeting your objectives, there is one principle that is always worth repeating: go back to the fundamentals and practice them until they become second nature. The final question the authors article puts in my mind is this: how do we find the right coach to help us with the fundamental and how do we get him or her to head the team either as the head coach or on of his or her many assistants?
I know this is rather lengthy, but I thought it good food for thought and something from which constructive commentary be be derived. In fact, I plan to use it on my own blog as a full article. Best wishes, always, to the citizens of Billerica. –Rick MacDonald.
Liberty and Stupid Voters « Let's Get Political said
[...] reading a very good and pithy article at Jeff Parenti’s blog, Can’t Get There From Here, I was reminded of the quote above by John Locke and coupled it with Jeff’s quote by Alexis [...]
Jim said
Perhaps all will get what they deserve in the end. A corrupt system that is beyond repair will eventually fall by the hand of the masses — and the mob will rule. It won’t be pretty.
--Rick said
You mean something like the occupy Wall Street mob?
Jim said
worse