Why are we so in love with democracy? I think our most ardent concern over the
question of whether we should be a democracy or not is the vision of the most
notorious examples of non-democratic regimes. Images of Nazi atrocities or stories of
Stalinist Russia are conjured up in popular media – films, books, magazine
articles – and that is probably what first comes to mind if the question of
supporting our democratic government is voiced.
A second point is the whole defiant strain we might harbor; we just want
to have a say in what we collectively are going to do. Or stated another way: no one is going to tell us what to do! The implied notion is that we, united, are in
charge. So it’s not just a matter of
fearing those nightmarish potentials of dictatorship, but the prideful sense
that we are responsible enough to determine these things. And yet how many among us avoid political
talk or keeping up with the news in order for us to be viable in any role we
might assume in this process of collective decision-making?
One of the current conditions I have cited in this blog to
justify shifting our current views of civics content is that currently we have
sufficient data to conclude that too many of us choose to ignore knowing and/or
participating in this process. This is
true from the act of voting to writing to government officials or otherwise
voicing our standing on questions of governmental policy or pending laws. If you ask the average American if we should just
leave the process of devising and deciding public policy to the experts, most
would respond, of course not. Yet, in
actuality, that is exactly what seems to take place most of the time.
My advocacy of federation theory, in part, has been that the
content we choose to present young people in secondary school, under the
dominance of the natural rights construct, has basically led to a detached
disposition toward policy formulation and implementation. In its overly structural approach and amoral
(not immoral) normative posture, our civics and government classes go a long
way in promoting this hands off attitude.
In a recent academic study by Paul Burstein[1] we have
more evidence of this indifference. In
this study, there are a couple of takeaways that are worth considering. Let me explain.
Burstein basically asks the question: do citizens of our democracy get what they
want from their government? He asks this
in terms of policies and bills that are being considered for passage. He breaks down the question in terms of both what
regular folks want, as measured by opinion polling, and in terms of the
activities of organized interest groups.
What he found, to me, is a bit surprising.
To begin with, as indicated above, he distinguishes between
policy proposals and proposed bills in Congress. By designating Congress, the study is about
national issues and proposals, not local or state concerns. He makes the distinction between policy and
bills because policy proposals are expressed in a variety of ways among
different bills. So to add to the study’s
clarity, he identified 60 policy proposals as expressed in a much larger number
of bills. He then analyzed the process
by which the proposals were handled by asking and investigating how public
opinion polls and lobbying behaviors promoted, fought against, or otherwise
reacted to the proposals. Of the sixty
policy proposals, public opinion polls were silent on 40% of them. Of the 60% that had polling information,
Congress seems to abide by public sentiment 50% of the time. As for the “silent” 40% percent, there is no
reaction to whether the proposals should be considered, much less as to whether
the policy proposal should be adopted or discarded or adopted in a modified
fashion. As for soliciting the attention
of interest groups, they responded to only three of the 60 proposals. Again, the indifference is sufficiently palpable.
If my math is right, only 30% of the time is Congress giving
the public what it wants – at least as indicated by studying these 60 policy proposals. Does this reflect a reality in which we can claim
we’re deciding what we want done? I can
hear the reaction: most of those
proposals are probably technical in nature and for the most part are marginal
concerns – a matter of tweaking some governmental program or such – and,
therefore, it is understandable that most people would not be concerned.
As a matter of fact, Burstein points out that pollsters are
going to ask the public only about issues that are the most salient at a given
time. And yet, at what level of
indifference can one say: people, you
need to pay more attention to this stuff.
I would say, given the obvious levels of overall disfavor our government
presently experiences – a recent poll found 70 percent of the electorate thinks
the nation is going in the wrong direction – you would at least believe that if
the current batch of proposals is not important enough to garner our interest,
we could think of another set of proposals that would address our current
concerns. Not only can one judge current
levels of involvement not sufficient, but that where there is public reaction,
such as interest group attempts at influencing Congress, Congressional members
seem significantly unimpressed, at least as measured by their voting
behavior. Of course, any study that
basically treats all interest groups as equals is bound to find these kinds of
results. Not all interest groups bring
to the table equal numbers of political assets.
These assets take the form of money, votes, or expertise. I would hypothesize that when such numbers
are taken into account, “public” input does make a difference as to whether a
proposal will eventually materialize as public policy in either law,
regulations, and/or judicial decisions (whom you hire as your solicitor does
matter).
This past judicial term, the LGBT community gained a big
victory in the courts. With the Supreme
Court holding state and local laws prohibiting gay marriage as
unconstitutional, the decision is paving the way to allow such unions across
our land. But is this the most
democratic way to get “democratic” outcomes?
Usually, when this question arises, one gets into the semantic discussion
as to what democracy means. Let me, for
my purposes here, just claim that an essential attribute of democracy is that everyone
is treated equally before the law when it comes to essential institutions such
as marriage. Meaning: the state cannot point out a segment of the
population for a discriminatory policy such as prohibiting gay couples from
getting married. So, under such a view,
the court’s decision is correct. But
wouldn’t it have been more democratic if the jurisdictions where such
prohibitions existed would have decided, on their own, to rescind such
provisions in the law? I think so. Why?
Because it would have more readily reflected a consensus – more of a
case of the people getting what they want.
I add this case because it further illustrates how our democratic zeal
is less than our communal expression. If
our citizens were more effectively educated in ways of joint decision-making –
from the most local issue to the most national or international concerns –
would our back and forth be more productive and less apt to hold on to parochial
prejudices? I add this question to help
drive the point that democratic participation is enhanced when it reflects an
active electorate. And if this be true,
then we need to look to our schools to do a better job of making the case for knowledgeable
participation by our youth.
[1]
Burstein, P.
(2014). American public opinion, advocacy, and policy in Congress: What the public wants and what it gets. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment