 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
| |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| |
|
GREAT AMERICAN THINK-OFF FINAL FOUR ESSAYS FOR 2000
NO: Democracy is Not Fair Is Democracy Fair? I completely forgot that it was election day. Walking to work that crisp March morning, I realized what day it was only when I saw a sign pressed into the dew-covered grass. It boldly displayed a candidate's name -- someone I'd never heard of before -- and since it wasn't there the previous day, it occurred to me that it was election Tuesday. Not that it mattered. Since last fall, I'd been enthralled with this year's presidential campaign. I wrote a biweekly political analysis column. I went to a bar to watch the returns from New Hampshire. I gossiped with my dot com coworkers about the candidates. Ironically, just two years ago, I penned a heartfelt column for the college newspaper I edited explaining my failure to participate in the midterm elections. Titled "Why I didn't vote: politics foster apathy," it didn't get much of a reaction -- except from my mother, who basically freaked out that I'd lost my unbridled optimism and idealism. And I had. This year was different. For some reason, I was excited. I registered to vote, trekking one lunch hour to fill out forms and officially become a registered voter in Chicago. I watched the debates. Read and wrote constantly. And got ready to vote. But then, in early March, it was all over: The two candidates I was excited about dropped out before Illinois' primary was even mentioned. The vigorous, substantive debates between opposing candidates stopped. The primaries ended before I ever got near a voting booth, so it wouldn't matter one bit who I voted for. Of course, there were others to vote for -- local officials and the like -- but I didn't know the first thing about any of them. Even if I still voted in the primary, who would I vote for? Could I make a decision based upon the few ads I'd seen? No way. I rationalized my lack of passion: Even if I wanted to vote, what did it matter? And how would I actually vote? The voting card I got in the mail was vague and cryptic, lacking even my polling location's address. It didn't even say when the election actually was. So I pretty much forgot. Later, I considered my enthusiasm turned apathy. For one, my power was essentially taken away, handed to others. Barriers to entry were placed in my way. And I'm an involved, active person; I even watched the debates on cable news networks instead of Ally McBeal. Shouldn't passion come naturally? Shouldn't participation be easy for me and for others? It should be, but it isn't. The real problem is beyond simple, politicized fixes. It's that our society was formed from two systems that are fundamentally incongruent with each other. Our people-centric, centralized democracy is trying to exist alongside capitalism, a system that's just the opposite -- sovereign-centric and decentralized. And it's not a symbiotic relationship. Democracy is about government by the people. Yet capitalism is about citizens handing off tasks to others to simplify their lives. Since, for better or for worse, money rules our lives, we've applied our economic mentality to politics: Let someone else handle it. That "someone else" is a lot of things. Political parties. The media. Special interest groups. Anyone but the individuals that allegedly rule the government. We rule, but only by letting others do everything for us. Plus, capitalism features all sorts of barriers to entry that our democracy has mirrored. To even have a shot at winning, you need lots of cash and incredibly thick skin -- never mind time. Dismal voter turn-outs, inadequate candidates, political parties blocking people from even appearing on the ballots, the media focusing on polls instead of substance -- all are indicative of a system that values letting other people handle the dirty work. As a result, our version of democracy is far from fair. We've allowed it to commingle with our economic system and our way of life, and that's created a fundamentally unjust system of government. We joke about buying candidates and votes, but that's precisely what's happening, but in a less-than-direct way. We treat politics and government with the same consumerist mentality that allows us to buy logo-sporting shoes despite our lack of participation in the process. We don't even care where the shoes came from or what happened during its production as long as our feet are comfortable and we look good. That shouldn't be the way we approach our democracy. NO: Democracy is Not Fair Is Democracy Fair? No, democracy is not fair;
and although many who might voice the same opinion will talk about things
like dubious financing laws or low voter turnout or presidential primaries
decided too early (thereby implying that if those things were fixed democracy
would be more acceptable), I believe the problem lies much deeper. The question is simply this: Do we or do we not have the right to determine our own standards of conduct? One of the basic tenets of our society is that “all men are created equal.” Therefore, are we not all equally entitled to live as we choose? When we vote on an issue, we are endorsing the concept that the correctness, the “rightness” of an idea can be determined by how many people agree with it. But what gives any of us the right to impose our sense of “rightness” on another? Several years ago, one of the companies I worked for made an ill-fated attempt to redefine the dress code. They formed a committee with representatives from the various departments, and had those people discuss, and then vote on, the new regulations. To the one, their votes were dependent not upon what they would like to be able to wear, but what they didn’t want other people to. The final product was a set of rules roughly as restrictive as that of your average convent. Given, if dress codes were all we ever voted on, perhaps the lunacy could be tolerated. Unfortunately, we seem compelled to put all manner of private behavior up for public approval, resulting in regulations that are unacceptable not only to those who hold the less “popular” view, and now have to conform to a set of standards they do not believe in, but are often unacceptable to any observer who is bothered by the mean-spirited actions of those seeking to impose their own “values” upon others. Recently, Californians voted on, and passed, Proposition 22, which defined marriage as something that will only be recognized to exist between a man and a woman. The people who voted for this law did so not to maintain their own right to marry someone of the opposite sex, but rather to stop others, who happen to love someone of the same sex, from creating that same bond. It’s a crucial distinction, and one that many voters, especially when it comes to laws of “morality,” do not understand, or even more sadly, do not respect. The failure to recognize this distinction can also be seen in many of the votes that will be cast for the upcoming presidential election. I take part in a discussion group on the Internee; one geared toward self-reliant living. Many of the topics posted for discussion have to do with government intrusion into our lives. Most of the participants favor the right to home school their children and own firearms without unnecessary restriction, and consider the income tax a crime against humanity. In short, they want to be left alone to live their lives as they choose. And yet, many of these same people have indicated that they will cast trier vote for Alan Keyes, a Republican candidate who supports bans on abortion and assisted suicide, and says that “not only do we need prayer in schools, but we need schools run by people who pray.” Because Keyes shares their view on these private issues, they would not consider it restrictive to live under these laws; yet it concerns them not at all that electing someone who will enact these policies would result in reduced freedom for those of us with different views. As these examples illustrate, democracy’s reputation as a “fair” process simply does not hold up; and in any case, what is best in the name of fairness may not be best in the name of freedom. If we are to say truthfully that we live in the “land of the free” we must come up with a political process that does not support the erosion of our freedoms. YES: Democracy is Fair Democracy is so fair that it reveals the best and worst qualities of the people who practice it. As an adoptive parent of three orphaned children from Ethiopia, I have learned that democracy means much more than majority rule. Democracy is not just a political model. It is not simply a way of casting votes–and it is emphatically not a synonym for the American system of government. Because it simply means “rule of the people”, democracy is fair if and when it lives up to its own definition. If the character and values of the people are correctly expressed in their decisions and institutions, then democracy is fair. Unfortunately, democracy is often fair to a fault. In the Ethiopian province of Wolo, in the late 1980’s, fair democracy produced a modern tragedy. While her five children worked and grew around her, a starving mother tasted the bitter side of democracy. For more than two thousand years, Ethiopia has practiced self-rule. As an unconquered nation, rich in tradition, literature and philosophy, Ethiopians have had many generations to choose their preferred form of government. Their experience is democratic in the extreme. Ethiopia has developed a modern government with roots in monarchy, empire and tribal traditions. Their modern practice includes elections, courts and all the hallmarks of a modern democracy. Yet in the cradle of that democracy, a popular ruler tried to subdue a rebellion by starving the people of the Northern regions. During the resulting political famine, a mother died and five orphans were cast into a world ill-prepared to meet their needs. Without a family or local agency to keep them together, the siblings were split apart. How can it be that people would choose for themselves a government opposed to their needs? How could any nation of parents and children sit by while political leaders traded lives for territory and grain for guarantees? The painful answer hits closer than we think. Democracy is fair because participation in democracy is always optional. Political scientists claim that people always have the government they really want. However much we might complain about the president or our mayor, those complaints rarely generate a critical mass of participation in any given election. During the first major election of this new century, we can expect over half of eligible voters to stay away from the polls. From distraction, alienation or simple laziness, that silent majority will muzzle their own voice in the political process. It this fair? Absolutely! Is it desirable...? Those who participate decide. In America, of those who could vote, less than half will. Of those who vote, a simple majority will decide. Even then, the will of the voting majority is not secure. In U.S. history we have more than once let the electoral college override the will of the electorate. This seems wrong, but it is fair. If Americans truly wanted a different system, there are vast numbers of inactive citizens who could rise up and change the system. Their apathy is truly reflected in a political machine which rewards the active majority, placates the vocal minority, and ignores the rest. The people get the government they want. In the wake of that tragic famine, knowing their resources are limited, Ethiopians have adopted simple and elegant adoption laws. After a potential adoptive family is found, the government publishes a notice in national newspapers to give anyone with an interest in the child a chance to make a claim. After a short period of time, and absent any claim, the children are joined with their new family. This is what the people of Ethiopia want, and it is fair that they have it. Contrast this with the American system. Before Worku, Lubaba and Saada came to join our family in Minnesota, we spent nearly 36 months weaving through a maze of local, state and federal agencies, all of whom had a series of forms, regulations and processes to impose. Criminal checks by the city police, federal investigation by the FBI, international assessments by the CIA and the INS. $35,000 in fees and costs to help three children rejoin a family eager to give them a home. My wife and I will raise our new children to love democracy, but that love will not be blind. They will see that in Ethiopia and America, democracy honestly reveals our true human nature. We will teach them that democracy is fair; so fair that it can never be any better than the people who practice it. YES: Democracy is Fair Imagine coming to a busy four-way intersection. What would be the fairest way to operate the intersection? If no controls were placed at the intersection, everyone would have to take their chances to proceed through the intersection. People with larger vehicles might intimidate and muscle their way through, denying the more responsible and cautious drivers their equal right to use the intersection. This scenario might resonate anarchy. If someone on their own accord took control of the intersection and directed the traffic, we might say it represented dictatorships. How then might democracy be represented in regulating the traffic intersection? Developing scenarios of fair and unfair democracy ought to help focus analysis of the question, “Is democracy fair?” After doing so, I think it will be easier to understand why pure democracy is fair, although sometimes with lack of citizen involvement it degenerates into unfair forms. Democracy is fair when all the adults of a community decide to install traffic lights at a busy intersection so that each lane is given the right of way for an equitable length of time. If 100 cars come from the north and 50 cars come from the west, then the north lane will have the right of way for a longer total time than the west lane. But to ensure everyone gets through in a timely fashion, each lane will break its right-of-way time into intervals to alternate with the other lanes. The lights are like laws. They do not discriminate on the basis of age, race, socioeconomic status, etc. They simply regulate the flow of traffic to increase efficiency in a timely manner. On the other hand, when the
order of proceeding through a traffic intersection is auctioned off to
the highest bidder, or limited on the basis of a discriminating factor
like race or age, democracy is unfair. For example, is the people along
the south lane take control of the governing body that oversees the traffic
intersection, and then give traffic on the south lane unlimited priority
over the other three directions, most would cry foul. Even if they had
done everything legally, their actions would be unfair because they used
to government to further self-interests at the expense of others. Yet
some of the responsibility for this situation would still rest on the
populace as a whole. If they did not bother to participate or were willing
to take bribes to vote a certain way, they -- the citizens -- brought
the unfairness upon the whole society. > From these examples I think it is easy to see that in its pure, theoretical > form, democracy is indeed fair. Democracy allows for the freedom to voice > one’s opinion, to be heard and counted, and even to leave in search of a place > that is more in rune with one’s views. However, in the form it often takes in America, democracy is unfair. In the past it was unfair due to anything from slavery to limited voting rights. Today I believe the greatest threats to fair democracy is our current focus on corporate profits and consumerism. When the value of a company overshadows the voices of the individuals, democracy is unfair. The basic premise of democracy - government of an for the people - is annihilated. And in the end, more citizens are pushed away from active participation. In a related way, the culture of consumerism has also effectively diverted our attention away from being active members of society. Simply, democracy is more easily bought and manipulated when the citizens do not invest the time to be involved and do not educate future generations in the responsibility of active involvement. Therefore, the best way to foster a fair democracy is to teach the history and methods of philosophy at all age levels in the schools. This will instill the importance of being active, thoughtful and informed citizens. In closing, the best test for analyzing the fairness of a government and its laws is the following. If you were asked to design a system of government and its laws, with the understanding that when completed, everyone would be randomly assigned a position in society, what would you do? You could end up as anything from the leader down to a prisoner. Wiring equitable and fair laws would seem to be in your best interest. Your best guarantee of freedom would be a fair democracy.
|
|
| Online Entry Form Contestants Media History The Center Sponsors Links Contact Home |
