Is This Democracy?

The United States portrays itself as a leading light of democracy in the world today. But one can argue that democracy, to the extent that it ever truly existed in the US, is decaying.

Government is controlled by two established political parties. The current slate of parties has remained unchanged since the 1850's when the Republican Party was born out of the ashes of the Whig party. Increasingly, as evidenced by the response of both parties to the security policies of President Bush, Iraq in particular, these parties are failing in their responsibilities to the people of the United States, choosing political strategy over the good of the nation. Both are increasingly beholden to special interest groups in their respective cores. This is demonstrated by the gridlock in judicial appointments, which started in the Clinton years with Republicans blocking nominees and continuing today with Democrats blocking Bush nominees. These nominees are not blocked because they are weak or unqualified candidates, but rather because their views on specific issues, e.g. abortion, are in conflict with the opposition party's big special interest campaign contributors. The "representatives" of the people in the Senate prefer posturing themselves (i.e. groveling) before these money-men and money-women to actually doing their jobs. So the people are excluded from government.

The Center for Voting and Democracy has published statistics on the voter turnout for every presidential election since 1924. Their results shows a surprisingly consistent turnout over the decades with an average of 52.6%. In the last presidential election, which was so hotly contested and close, only 51% of voters actually cast a vote. The Center has also published a table showing voter turnout in 34 countries around the world. In this listing, the United States has the 4^th lowest average turnout (45%, including midterm elections), only beating out democratic bulwarks in Guatemala, Colombia, and Switzerland. Turnout in US elections is especially dismal in the mid-terms where turnout does not even break 40%.

Is this any surprise? Voters are dissatisfied because they see the unresponsiveness of government to regular people. The establishment parties do not make too much effort to court these disenfranchised voters. Keeping turnout at 50% is what keeps the establishment the establishment. Power is left securely in the hands of activists and special interest groups who finance each party, with no voice left for the people.

How do the parties choose a nominee for president? Through primaries and caucuses early in the election year. But because of the way the parties run these primaries and caucuses, the nominee is chosen quickly, before most people have even had a chance to cast a ballot. Effectively, if a candidate does not put in a good showing in New Hampshire or Iowa, their campaign is doomed. The 2004 campaign saw both parties have the "fastest wrap up to a primary season in history". If the people didn't choose these nominees, at least not the Democrat since that was the only competitive race, who did? The party bigwigs and the media decided. Both decided early on to portray Kerry as the leader, even when his campaign was fumbling miserably and Dean was roaring in the polls. In the 1992 race, the slate of candidates was quite undistinguished at first, until the media decided to crown then Governor Clinton the front-runner (because he won a meaningless straw poll in Florida) and covered his campaign thenceforth as such. Unsurprisingly, with the media endlessly extolling Clinton as the man to beat, his campaign went from obscure to winning the nomination and the White House.

So we see that the people have little voice in deciding who is nominated for major offices, that most people are so disenfranchised with the system that they choose not to participate, and that the elected officials care little for the interests of the United States. This is not democracy.