What Democracy? - Part I
by Harry Lonsdale
I am frequently asked why anyone would run for major public office in the present political climate, in view of the vultures in the press, the loss of privacy, and the need to raise enormous amounts of money. I cant answer for others, but I have done this more than once and learned something in the process.
In the 1990s, I ran three times for the U.S. Senate from Oregon, as a Democrat. Initially my purpose was to get to the Senate and to try to stop the overcutting in the national forests of the Pacific Northwest. But, when I discovered how corrupt and money-driven elections are in our country, I ran a second and then a third time, hoping to bring about meaningful campaign finance reform and bring a touch of integrity to the Congress.
I lost all three elections: to then-Senator Mark Hatfield in 1990, 53-46%; to then-Democratic Congressman Les AuCoin in the 1992 Senate primary (by 330 votes out of 360,000 votes cast; AuCoin lost to then-Senator Bob Packwood, who later resigned); and in 1996 to Tom Bruggere in the Democratic primary, who then lost to current Senator Gordon Smith.
I was substantially outspent in all three contests.
I have thus seen the power of campaign money. I have concluded that in elections where both candidates are financially competitive, positions on issues and ones personal background and character matter. However, if one candidate is well financed and the other candidate or candidates are not, none of that matters: money prevails.
Ive become convinced from these experiences that this thing we call our democracy is in deep trouble and that only citizen outrage and activism will fix it. (Yes, this means you!).
Well, not all of them, and not all of the time, but enough of them do it enough of the time that weve become wary of what they say.
And one of the biggest whoppers theyre forever spewing out is, This is a democracy! Knowing who they really represent, it makes me want to puke.
Well, it isnt a democracy and they know it isnt. Never was and probably never will be.
I will therefore address three things:
What is our form of government, if not a democracy?
Why isnt it a democracy and should we even care?
Do we even want a real democracy? (Be careful what you wish for
What Is It?
So what is it, if it isnt a democracy? Its a republic. Even that answer isnt easily arrived at. Many textbooks of history and government waffle on the definition. Heres what my Websters College Dictionary says: democracy government in which the people hold the ruling power either directly or through elected representatives
. Theres some ambiguity there. To hold the ruling power directly is one thing; to hold it through elected representatives is something elsesomething quite different, as it turns out. When We the People hold power through elected representatives, thats usually referred to as a republic. Im not sure why politicians dont refer to our system of government as a republic. Maybe it isnt sexy enough. Maybe theyre trying to fool us.
Actually the definition of democracy that I prefer is one articulated by Alexander Meiklejohn in his little 1935 book entitled, What Does America Mean?: a society which is carrying on an enterprise in which all its members have a genuine share
(one in which) all people can actively and responsibly partake in the achievement.
Isnt that what we all want? If we want it, why dont we have it? Arent we in charge? Well, we dont have it because the folks that set up our system of government, the so-called Founding Fathers, didnt want it.
The Famous Founding Fathers
I have ambivalent feelings about the famous Fathers. First and foremost, I praise them. They were very much ahead of their time. Many of the men who created our Constitution in that summer of 1787 were also the signers of the Declaration of Independence, 11 years earlier. Had the Revolutionary War had a different outcome, those gentlemen would have been dangling at the end of a rope. When they signed their names to that document on that first 4th of July, ending with the words,
we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor, they werent kidding.
Our Constitution in many respects is a masterpiece. The notion of a balance of powers between an executive, a legislative, and a judicial branch wasnt exactly new . . . however, the implementation of it was. No question, the men who deliberated and hammered out this Constitution brought a tremendous amount of talent and commitment to the table.
But if you read a detailed history of the Constitutional Convention, youll find extended bickering about property, and property rights. Most of the Founders believed that property ownership was essential to good citizenship and therefore that only property owners should be able to vote. Property, in those days, also included slaves, of course, and half of the Founders were slave owners. Yet, the words slave or slavery never appear explicitly in the document, nor is property ever cited. When Jefferson was writing the Declaration of Independence, he originally wrote life, liberty, and property, as the self-evident truths with which the Creator endowed us. Only later did he revise it to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Theres no doubt that the Founders were mightily concerned with the security of their property, and they were subtle enough to place their faith in that security in the mechanisms of government they established. For example, in the bicameral legislature, the People (or at least a small percentage of them) were allowed to elect members of the House of Representatives, but not members of the Senate. Instead, the state legislatures elected Senators. And since both houses of Congress had to agree before any legislation became law, a key element of control remained in the hands of the elite. (Direct election of Senators didnt happen until the 17th Amendment was passed, more than a century later.)
The maintenance of power in the hands of the elite was further strengthened by who could vote. In 1787, there were about four million people living in the 13 original states. But only about four percent of them, it is estimated, could vote. Excluded were the one million slaves, the two million women, anyone under the age of 21, and all non-property owners.
And so, the Founders did not create a democracy. In spite of Lincolns famous words nearly a century later, it was not of, by, and for the People, but rather of, by, and for the elite. And that elite control, though its been nibbled away at over the years by extending the franchise to everyone over the age of 18 (except convicted felons in some states) and by allowing for the direct election of Senators, persists today. Its a lot subtler, even arcane, today, but its still with us, as Ill describe later.
Our Constitution was an enormous advance from the Divine Right of Kings, but it didnt give us a democracy. In fact, the word democracy appears nowhere in the Constitution, nor in the Declaration of Independence.
This was no oversight. Throughout history, the rulersand that includes the Founding Fathersactually feared democracy. We were taught in high school that democracy had its roots in ancient Greece and Rome. But what the Greeks and Romans practiced was a republican form of government. (Back to Webster: republica state or nation in which the supreme power rests in all the citizens entitled to vote ... and is exercised by representatives elected, directly or indirectly, by them and responsible to them.) Only a handful of citizens made the laws in Greece and Rome.
Two reasons, each with some validity, have been given down through the years for why our government, or any government, is not a democracy:
1. Its unwieldy. We simply cant have tens of thousands or even millions of people make the laws. It would be chaos.
2. You cant trust the People. Theyre fickle, uninformed, apathetic about governance, and they could make serious mistakes if left to their own devices. The elites, on the other hand, are well informed and we can trust them to look out for the rest of us.
If we needed proof that the People couldnt be trusted, the French Revolution, which followed our Constitution by only a matter of months, provided it. The guillotine disposed of thousands of people, including some of the perpetrators of the Revolution itself.
However, in my opinion, both of those historical arguments against democracyits too unwieldy, and we cant trust an uninformed electorateno longer hold, as Ill get into in Part II of this article. And so, for the present, the bottom line is that we have a republic, not a democracy.
Democrats & Republicans
For some years Ive been struggling to arrive at an iron-clad definition for: Whats a Democrat, and whats a Republican? I still dont have the ideal definition. The two political parties are not to be identified with any single ideological issue, like abortion, gun control, or welfare, nor any combination of ideological issues. And so I wonder if the difference isnt simply in their respective names: Republicans believe in a republican form of government where the elected (elites) make the laws. Democrats believe in democracy, where we all make the laws (if by some yet-to-be-defined mechanism).
Is our republican form of government working for us? Many would say that it is: more Americans are more prosperous than at any time in our history. In answer to the question, why dont half of Americans even bother to vote?, Newt Gingrich offered this answer: Theyre happy with the way things are; they dont need to vote.
I dont agree. Here are just a few of the things that I believe a majority of Americans want that our U.S. Congress wont give us, for a variety of reasons (most of them involving money):
Universal health care, probably similar to the Canadian system.
Regulation of tobacco as a drug (billboards across our country proclaim this: 500,000,000 people, now living, will die from cigarettes.).
Limits on U.S. military engagements, and on arms exports.
Better immigration control.
More progressive taxes, including corporate taxes.
Is democracy the answer? Ill address that fundamental question in the next installment.
Harry Lonsdale lives in Sisters, Oregon. His experiences running for office are described in his just published book, Running. Politics, Power, and the Press, available on-line at www.1stbooks.com, or from Amazon or Barnes and Noble, or toll free 888-280-7715. The book can also be ordered from your favorite bookstore.
eMail the editor with your comments on this article
Top | eMail Alternatives | Home