More Proof that the US is Not a Democracy

Yesterday, Iowa's former Democratic governor Tom Vilsack announced that he is abandoning his attempt at the Democratic nomination for President.  His reason was simple: he will not be able to raise enough money.  As the Chicago Tribune editorializes today, all major candidates for President--Obama, Clinton, McCain--have either made plans to ignore the public campaign system already, or are contemplating doing so. Why? They can raise far more money by going to private donors.

Meanwhile, "nut jobs" like Pat Buchanan, Dennis Kucinich, and Ralph Nader will be treated like leprous pariahs until they are forced to slink off the electoral stage. 

These people need public money, but will have no opportunity to participate in national debates no matter how much grassroots enthusiasm they can muster.  So I say again: We live in a political oligarchy, not a true democracy. 

Perhaps this is not such a bad thing. But let's call a spade a spade.

Comments

[Phillip_Bach]

While it's not a perfect correlation, the ability to raise money often corresponds with general popularity. I don't think that the filtering process, including the primary elections, makes our system an "oligarchy." It would not make our system any more legitimate if every Tom, Dick and Harry made it on the ballot, and someone ended up winning with 10% of the vote.

When I think of the people I'd most like to vote for in the next election, most of them are running and doing fine - and those who aren't didn't drop out for finance problems.

Vilsack's problem is not that he can't raise enough money. That's the symptom of the real problem: That no one considers him a serious contender for the Democratic nomination, with Hillary, Obama and other heavyweights in the race. Same goes for Buchanan and others on the right: They just don't command majority support.

I think our system has produced more stability and legitimacy than most of the European systems. What would you prefer?

[Marcus]

Perhaps it is true that the US electoral system is more stable and legitimate than that of most European countries. I don't know enough about the topic to have an informed opinion.

But let's assume that this is true. OK--The US system is more stable and legitimate than European counterparts. Even so, it does not rise to the level of a legitimate "democracy."

There is not a wide range of choice between the two dominant parties. Candidates on both sides must spout bromides about how the US is a beacon of liberty and the hope of the world; that we will be fierce and ruthless in the pursuit of terrorists; etc., etc.

Sure, the rhetoric will be ratcheted up to rile up the faithful during primary season. But this is just theater. In the end, campaigns are ultimately an "inside baseball" exercise in which the only winners are fixtures of the political establishment.

Stable? Yes. Legitimate? Perhaps. But when a popular governor of one of our 50 states has absolutely no chance of success, is this truly democratic? No.

[Wevbo]

Consider the attention paid in US elections to substance-less, polarizing, and ultimately never-reformed social issues like prayer in school, abortion, the morality of art, flag burning, etc., and you can't miss the poverty of ideas and ideology. Of course, it's the electorate's fault, not the system's. Candidates are reduced to sound-bites, which we are told is the voters' fault because, of course, voters must be illiterate, possessing short attention spans, or disinterested, and then we don't really turn out for elections anyway. Those sound bites drive partisan positions on manufactured differences regarding social issues, which become the substance of every American election post-1964 (partial exception for 1980 and the hostages in Iran + "morning in america.").

Consider also that the United States is the only major liberal democracy to have never sustained an independent labor party. Even at the height of post-WWI labor frenzy, the Wobblies, then LaForge registered nary a blip on the political landscape.

Consider finally that we have presumptive front-runners at the latest nine months before the first primary, which may be moved back into December 2007 for purposes of state pride. Or, that the first Republican nominees' debate will be April 5, 2007, broadcast live on CNN.

I agree with Marcus that no democratic process has yielded the prospective front-runners for the upcoming campaign, and that it will probably look like "democracy in action" if Obama manages to even "challenge" Clinton, whose machine is well-funded, organized, oiled, and raring to go. That's unfortunate.

At the same time, strong candidates win elections. Consider that the wide open 2004 primaries gave us John Kerry, who overcame Dean's fundraising advantage and secured enough superdelegates to stay alive long enough to win the nomination. But then, sheesh, John Kerry!

It will be interesting to see how the Republican candidates ween each other out, and who emerges as the nominee. Our system is indeed an oligarchy, but the oligarchy shifts and shapes candidates until it finds those that it likes the most.

In the end, it's a question of whether the oligarchy--which I would define as trial lawyers, ethnic minority leaders, labor unions, and entertainment industry money on the left; and big business, the pro-Israel lobby, and iconoclastic but wealthy and influential media organizations/individuals on the right--acts in the interest of the people whose candidates it is choosing. Which is another way of asking how closely aligned are the interests of the electorate and those of the capitalist ruling class, our political, economic, and social elites.

[Wevbo]

Wevbo,

I would also add whatever network of religious organizations and churches is commonly called "the religious right" into the mix of oligarchy on the right. Otherwise, I think your analysis is dead-on and incredibly insightful and powerful.

Wevbo

[Helen]

John, you are too funny. Helen