Most of you out there have at least one issue with the government; whether you are a Republican and think that government is too big, and you feel that liberals want to take away your guns, or if you are a Democrat and think that the Tea Party has too much pull in Congress, and that they only care about the sanctity of human rights up until the instant a human is born; regardless, one of the advantages of living in this country is that you have the freedom to sit at a bar or on a park bench and voice these differences to a fellow patron, or even out loud to yourself without getting thrown in prison.
The one thing that we may agree on is that there was a particular vision in mind when the Declaration of Independence was signed and the Constitution was framed. Granted, the Sarah Palin’s and Nancy Pelosi’s of the country argue over what that vision was, but it is safe to say that it was an ideal that strived to mirror true freedom – the Founders branded it Democracy.
Democracy, through and through, is a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system – a system that I outlined earlier (remember the Luxor). Of course this concept seems straight forward and easy enough, but like almost everything that sounds good, there are always vulnerabilities; weaknesses to be exploited – and Democracy is not immune. (To get a cleaner, more objective perspective on Democracy in-and-outside of the vacuum, I consulted a friend of mine who is a Political Scientist and professor of English in Korea).
The beneficence of Democracy lies in two very different, distinct concepts:
1) There is the act of Democracy itself. Within the paradigm of Democracy, it is assumed that there is something worthwhile in allowing people to have control over their own lives, directly, whether it be for good or ill, and…
2) The idea that the Democratic processes exaulted above actually can result in fundamentally better, and more favorable outcomes.
So there are two concepts about Democracy, so what? Well, for the purposes of these posts which are meant to inform and encourage voting at the local level of government, its important to break it down in order to find the vulnerabilities, show how these defects are used against us, and ultimately why, in theory, a more active involvement in your local government could help to deter such gross misuse of our governments’ principles. Think of Democracy like the Death Star in Star Wars: a huge planet-sized weapon that could be used either for good or evil. The Death Star is designed incredibly well, with few flaws, but there are particular individuals, we’ll call them “Corporations,” that spend the majority of their time and resources looking for these flaws in order to infiltrate the mechanism and manipulate it in order to solely serve their needs.
According to Keith Woogerd, if you are over the age of twelve it should be obvious that democracy will be, and has been, co-opted for multiple purposes, the most broad being a synonym of “freedom.” This is the most apparent case where the idea of “freedom” becomes bastardized as the “freedom” to make as much money as one can any way they can [capitalism], or the “freedom” to organize society in any way one deems fit and believes the majority should follow, and those that do not agree, simply do not belong – this would be your religious fundamentalism [from patriarchal Christianity to the most oppressive forms of Islam].
One issue that is heavily disagreed upon in this country is that of Capitalism – Half of us love it, half of us hate it, but surprisingly is not a cut-and-dry Democrat versus Republican issue. One thing that is true of the argument though: Capitalism loves a Democratic society. Corporations are now considered citizens and have obtained the same rights as you or my wife or your child. Because of this, Corporations have a much easier time using Democracy in their favor and if they can get far enough as to hold hands with particular individuals or groups of individuals at the Federal level, their power and success in making democracy malleable in the most advantageous way for them becomes effortless, all the while pushing us further and further from a place where we are able to do anything about it (See or read Manufacturing Consent). And this is ultimately good for no one (unless of course you own a large corporation).
It may seem at first glance that this issue of democracy is far larger than say your local Santa Fe County Clerk election, but philosophically it’s the same. The reason local, or as Woogerd calls it, direct Democratic systems are preferable to more republican or federalist systems is because they most legitimately pursue the two previously cited aspects of the Ideal of democracy as “freedom.” There is an experiential, qualitative difference between electing your local Mayor or judge versus a federal Congressman. The former’s decisions will be felt upon you, your family, and your friends immediately, dictating where and how your children go to school tomorrow, or what gets built in your neighborhood tomorrow, or what corporations will be allowed to build on the plaza tomorrow, whether it be a hospital, a new youth shelter, or a fancy, expensive corporate real estate park next to the National Cemetery across the street from Albertson’s.
Woogerd points out that the act of choosing between these kinds of outcomes stimulates the “Political Animal” in all of us – in the body politic. Simply put, it enhances what’s at stake for the voter. Voting at the local level demands more of our attention and thus makes us a “better” voter, a more informed voter. It promotes action from every member of society (regardless of their apathy), which is to say, it promotes Democracy, no matter what the outcomes may be. This is an excellent thing if you believe in the so-called “principles” of Democracy – which far too few actually do, and it is this cynicism that makes Democracy most vulnerable of all.
Woogerd points out that there is a second way local elections reveal themselves as more important, and it’s fairly pragmatic (i.e., the type of outcomes): A local election’s actualization and effectiveness always more closely reflects the idiosyncrasies and values of the majority, and it is the majority whose views are supposed to be represented in any Real democracy, correct? In essence, a pyramidal-structure of power, like ours (remember the Luxor), will always have diminishing democratic returns as one travels up the pyramid towards the penthouse suite.
For instance, a local prosecutor’s mandate is more specific by definition than a President’s, if only because the constituency that elected him is so much more concentrated (that is to say, smaller, more “direct”). Democracy is based on the premise that its functions align with the wishes of the majority, and local elections will always most accurately reflect these wishes.
I am certain that each and every one of you out there reading this have wishes you want fulfilled, and you may be surprised that the single individual, you, most likely shares these wishes with the majority of your cities’ populous. However, you will never know unless you get involved, and your wishes may certainly never be actualized if you do not vote in favor of them. So do it. Vote!
My next post will look into the work of Richard Ellenberg and his role as the Chair of the Democratic Party of Santa Fe County
