Is American Democracy Working?

The question itself, "Is American democracy working?" is so vast, and the topic so complex, it could fill volumes before an adequate answer was found with which to settle the subject. Undoubtedly, if presented this question, most would pause, mindfully think for a short minute, and then, with a degree of certainty, answer yes. We've had no need to rise up and overthrow our government at any point in our short history. Elections for all public offices are held every few years, and since George Washington was elected as our first president, these transitions of power have occurred without any violence. Whichever side of the political landscape you find yourself on, liberal, conservative, or a little of both, to look at were we as a nation are today is to see that American democracy must be working. Otherwise, this experiment called the United States would have come apart long ago, right?

Not so fast. A student of history would have some serious problems with simply giving our "democracy" a pass/fail grade. In exiting this class, I have learned a great deal in regards to our system of government, to include the history behind it and the ideals our Founding Fathers aspired to. If I were asked this question two months ago, I would have stopped, thought a minute, and, with a possible reservation or two, said "Yes, for the most part, we're doing very well for ourselves". Today, I can see how far we've gone from where we were intended to go, and how our democracy is still working, but only on the surface. American democracy is coming undone. We are not over the edge yet, but the majority of Americans are unaware of the serious problems we face, and that ignorance will be what causes the wheels of democracy to stop turning.

A Separation of Powers

First, we look at our current system of checks and balances. While not in a state of complete disarray, there are forces in action which certainly undermine the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution. In fear of a strong central government which could lead to tyranny, they developed a separation of powers which would ensure no one branch could ever usurp power from the other two¹. Each power given or assumed by any branch was always checked by giving either of the other branches a competing power to maintain balance in the system. We can see a presidential veto of a bill checked by a two-thirds vote to override in the Senate. The president can commute a prison sentence and grant pardons or reprieves, in effect rendering moot a Court's decision. Congress has the right to confirm or deny presidential appointments to the Supreme Court. In the name of democracy, this system of checks and balances was instituted. A look at our current situation reveals a growing problem with all three branches skirting around, or flat out ignoring, what was written into our Constitution.

Let's look at the U.S. Courts and highlight the abuse of their power of judicial review. Judicial review was never specifically written into the Constitution. As the Constitution was ruled the supreme law of the land, no law could be passed which contradicted it. Claimed by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison in 1803², Marshall understood that the courts needed to have the power of judicial review to rule unconstitutional any law which would detract from the Constitution or prove harmful to the nation as a whole. Left in the hands of those who strictly interpret the Constitution, this is a prudent and necessary tool. In light of today's activist judges who view the Constitution as a living document, meaning they believe it must evolve with the times and so must a judges rulings, judicial review is a dangerous weapon. The system of Courts was designed to operate as impartial and independent from the politics of the day. Judges were appointed for life, with voluntary retirement an option at any point in their service. Congress and the President were expressly denied from changing the salaries of actively servicing judges so as to render them immune to either punishments or incentives for a particular ruling. This cocoon judges reside in is intended to leave them in a position to make fair and impartial rulings based on a strict interpretation of the law. Cases abound where judges act on their personal feelings and not in concert with their intended purpose. When judges legislate from the bench, they rob citizens of their right to govern themselves.

U.S. Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) noted that state and federal courts have ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, legalized same-sex marriage, authorized governments to take private property solely to increase tax revenues, blocked parental control of sex education, and protected online pornography in recent months³. He's proposing a constitutional amendment that would require federal judges to interpret laws based on the text of the Constitution and the common meanings of the words used in a law at the time it was adopted. His proposal would further forbid judges from taking any action that would, in any way, alter the original meaning of the Constitution, to include subsequent amendments. This blatant abuse of the power of judicial review, which was not even written into the Constitution, is a threat to this country, and action is needed to correct it before more harm is done.

We can see examples of failed checks and balances in both the Legislative and Executive branches as well. Again, these failures are not due to a poorly written document or one that is incomplete. They have failed because of the men and women who have either overstepped their boundaries in pursuit of either partisan or personal goals, or failed to exercise the powers they are given. In the case of the President, who has the power to veto bills, even line-item veto portions of bills, he has failed time and again to demand fiscal responsibility from Congress. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Ok.) has initiated legislation which would begin to require accountability for the pork spending and earmarking that occurs daily on Capital Hill⁴. This wasn't intended when the Constitution was framed. Honest men were intended to run this country, and the Founding Fathers assumed a moral guideline would be followed. Stewards of the nation were envisioned, not thieves who would run up a national debt worth trillions of dollars. If the President would do his job, fiscal responsibility could solve countless problems, and would become the norm, not the cause for celebration we see it as today. As for the Legislature, we saw the way Bush's appointees to the Supreme Court were treated. It is Congress' right to confirm or deny potential candidates. What they did to Harriet Miers, Miguel Estrada, and nine other conservative nominees was way out of line. A total of ten were filibustered, eventually withdrawing their nominations as the witch hunt intensified by a venomously partisan Congress.

Each branch of our government has forgotten its role, and as opposed to separation of powers, we are more and more finding ourselves in a fusion of powers, where each is more concerned with power grabbing as opposed to the Constitutional checks and balances they were supposed to be bound by. We need to demand more from our government. Our Founding Fathers gave us a brilliant solution to the problem of governing a fledgling nation. Gifted men were able to masterfully craft a near perfect idea of what a nation should be. We do them deep injustice today, as citizens, when we let those we elect act the way they do without consequence.

The Electoral Process

Something that we see becoming more and more prevalent with each passing election is candidates concentrating their campaigning efforts on swing states, states were it is uncertain who will win their vote, or their electors' vote. That creates a couple of problems. First and foremost, those states which are sure to vote one way or the other receive very little attention during a campaign. The voters in those states then are more likely to not vote at all, assuming their vote won't make a difference. This begins a cycle of disillusionment with the political process, which then breeds political ignorance, which is probably the single greatest threat to democracy today⁵. Second, in contrast to its intentions, an electoral college will force politicians to tailor their campaign to attract those voters residing in states crucial to their overall chances of election. What was seen as a tool to promote a need for widespread support for one's policies has become a breeding ground for localized political posturing. A candidate will speak extensively to an issue which affects only California or Texas, both states with a high number of electors, and pay little attention to serious national concerns at a steep price to the populous as a whole.

Next we see problems with the idea of the popular vote. The electoral process as described in the Constitution was devised so as to limit rule by those who were unfamiliar with all the candidates, due to the large size of the nation and very primitive mass media of the time. A system voted on by electors designated by each state was written into the Constitution so, in theory, educated men who knew the candidates well would make an informed decision and have the final vote on who was elected to the presidency. As we recently saw in the 2000 Presidential Election, George W. Bush won the electoral vote despite Al Gore winning the popular vote. Here, it is necessary to understand the reason for having an electoral college to begin with. The Framers were not scared of handing over the reigns to the uneducated masses, as most believe. Instead, as noted above, the size of the nation coupled with the difficulties presented by both travel and communication made it reasonable to assume each state would vote for only the candidate they knew best, a "favorite son", thereby electing those from the largest states who could secure the most popular votes. Smaller states would be brushed to the side, in theory, and in this we find the origins of the Electoral College⁶. Today, with modern travel, and more importantly, the vast networks of mass media to include television, the internet, etc., an electoral college is not as necessary as it surely once was. Is it necessary to alter our electoral process in light of this? I don't think so. With the electors pledging to vote in the direction of the popular vote, and only very few incidents of so called faithless electors, it's really only a matter preference, I would think. For the most part, elections have proven to be both fair and reasonable. In the case of the 2000 Election, Bush eventually won even though he received fewer popular votes. He seemingly carried two thirds of the states, so one would assume two-thirds of the votes, but when population is factored in; this was not the case at all⁷. Gore took the more populous states, and with them their higher numbers of electors. To vote a president into office without the popular vote is the biggest shortcoming in regards to the Electoral College, and presents the best reason for abolishing it.

Media and Interest Groups

Mass media is the whole of all forms of media designed to reach a very large audience to include newspapers, television, the internet, radio, and any other instrument which disseminates information to the masses⁸. Media began with print, and during the time of the Revolutionary War, was the only real method of transferring ideas and opinions to a vast audience. During this time an immensely literate generation, possibly the most literate of all time, came together to forge a new nation, and with them the free flow of ideas proved to be vital in both producing a national cause worth fighting for and mobilizing a nation to act. This was done through vigorous debate in the halls of the First and Second Continental Congresses, with a printed media to capture this "marketplace of ideas" and pass it on to the masses. Those engaged in debate formed a nation based on a simple truth: a representative democracy rested on their trust of a well-informed populous. For this new government to work, and to prevent a return to tyranny, the people must be fully understanding of the happenings in their government in order to make correct decisions as they go to the polls. This need for educated citizens was filled when newspapers operated with integrity and held those in public office accountable. The media, in the days of newspapers as the national news medium, was a good and valued asset to democracy, as it provided this educated citizenry. Today, however, as TV has moved well into the lead as our news source, we see a national media concerned with selling time slots and bringing in more corporate sponsors. We see companies band together to form more powerful organizations, and as the news media increasingly sells out to the highest bidder, we see it have an increasingly negative affect on American democracy, as ideas are no longer transmitted, but simple-minded entertainment is offered as to keep us watching and keep money coming in.

In light of this dismal state of affairs, what is an average citizen to do? Could I get on T.V. myself and rant about the crisis we face if people don't smarten up? Sure, a local access channel may give me some time. I doubt any national news channels would offer me anything more than a thirty second sound bite, and that would probably only happen if I ran naked through the streets first. My point is this. The most readily accessible source of news, television, is concerned not with being helping Americans make an informed decision on social issues. They want to sell commercial time slots. If it bleeds, it leads, and if it thinks, it stinks. That's the mantra for all the major networks. Give me a story in thirty seconds and then we're moving on. Not to mention the blatant liberal slant we see coming from every major news network. The Media Research Center has spent the last twenty years thoroughly documenting the way journalists conduct their business, and how their parent corporations demand certain stories are reported extensively, while others are completely ignored. This is not some conservative conspiracy theory. We get our news, what we base our decisions on when we enter the polls, from a source that wants our money and wants us to vote how they think we should, bending the truth to fit their corporate goals. Even Diane Sawyer, respected newswoman extraordinaire of ABC, recounts a story of how she was laughed at by a courtroom full of people when she was asked if she could be truthful and responded, "That's what journalists do"¹⁰. That's a recipe for disaster. Today's news media is having a profoundly negative affect, and, if the internet hadn't shown up to provide very real, very accessible information to the masses, would be ultimately responsible for the collapse of American democracy.

Interest groups are another area where work is needed to change the status quo. Politicians routinely pander to these groups to secure donations in order to buy their next thirty-second T.V. commercial. The lobbying reforms of 1995 where a step towards solving this obvious problem¹⁰. Interest groups can be a very positive thing, to be sure. Problems arise when we see unchecked corruption enter into the equation, and the gift-giving and all-expense paid trips led to some seriously questionable actions. Although they are not causing as much damage to our country as the news media, interest groups tend to serve only a specific purpose, or try to attain a particular goal. This narrow focus can prove harmful to the larger populous as a whole, and interest groups must be fully brought into the light to ensure ethical behavior is consistently practiced on both ends.

Government Programs

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, earmarking, and affirmative action are all tax-funded programs provided by our government to provide for the general welfare of our population. This is a small sampling of the myriad government funded programs on the books today. These, along with so many others, are all to one degree or another, in serious disrepair. Some were so ill-conceived to begin with it's amazing that they are still being fought over in the court system. Beginning with Social Security, any serious inquiry into the workings of the program will fast lead one to wonder why a solution hasn't already been found and implemented. President Franklin Roosevelt created this program in 1935 in order to help families financially provide for seniors who did not have enough savings to support themselves¹¹. The system was designed so that current workers would pay into the system to support those who were eligible for the benefits. This was a sound plan when there were forty-three workers for every beneficiary, as there was when the program was started. Today, there are about three taxpayers per beneficiary, and with the cost of living rising steadily, this simply doesn't work. Taxes on current workers would have to rise dramatically to afford the ever increasing payouts we see as the baby boomer generation retires. Social Security's real problems effectively can't be hidden any longer in 2018, when they are expected to begin paying out more than they are taking in¹². Thereare too few workers compared with too many retirees for this program to sustain itself at its current level, never mind the fact that the Social Security Administration expects to face $4 trillion, with a "t", in unfunded liabilities over the next seventy-five years. Although President Bush made a good attempt at beginning to reform the horribly outdated program last year, it died when facing opposition from the AARP, among others, a powerful senior citizen lobbyist group.

Medicare is another gem worth mentioning. Begun in 1965 at President Lyndon B. Johnson's demand for subsidizing of senior's health coverage, today Medicare is costing taxpayers and employers almost $400 million dollars annually, with that number only likely to rise. Over the next seventy-five years, this program faces a shortfall of $28 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Who's going to pay for this? Medicaid and Medicare combined total up to such a large part of overall health coverage that the health care industry is basically subsidized to a point where it has become socialized. As the government is pumping a huge amount of money into the industry, they will have huge control over health care overall. With the cost of health care rising, on average, between two and three times as fast as inflation, the money just isn't there to support such a wide swath of the population. Socialism this is not, but socialism it is fast becoming.

Affirmative action is a crock, and we are very fortunate that states are beginning to act on this and pass legislation removing this racist program from all facets of society. In California and Michigan, ballot initiatives have won which have amended the respective states' Constitutions to reflect the general public's disapproval of affirmative action¹³. Both states have ruled affirmative action unconstitutional, and more are following suit. Affirmative action operates squarely on the terms it tries to eliminate. It discriminates against some in favor of others in an attempt to correct past discrimination. That's incredibly stupid. In forty years from now who could argue against a new form of affirmative action which benefits white males? Obviously that's not rational, but the point is that old saying we heard as kids, two wrongs don't make a right.

After eight weeks of politics, discussions, research, and studying, the question "Is American democracy working?" is now cause for concern. Our Constitution, once a brilliant answer to a pressing problem, has now become an antiquated piece of American folklore, which too few of our leaders care to study and teach and, most importantly, live by. Corporate greed runs campaigns, the news we trust as fact is anything but, and those we elect think themselves above the law and act accordingly. Stewards they are not, as was intended. As the world gets smaller, with the internet, cheap, fast travel, and instant communication, the problems we face are made so much more profound and consequential to so much more than just this country. As the world's sole superpower, American democracy must work. Our country was founded on principles which included a strong work ethic, fair dealings, a strong mind, and a desire to do the right thing, among others. We need a return to these as we can simply turn on the news and see corruption around every governmental corner. American democracy is hanging dangerously close to a point of no return where it will not be a government by and for the people, but a government which mostly ignores and merely tolerates the people only to meet its own ends.

1 Schmidt, Steffen W., Mark C. Shelley, and Barbara A. Bardes. American Government and Politics Today. Brief Edition. Belmont, CA: The Thomson Corporation, 2007.

2 http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm

3 www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5archive%5C200602%5CPOL20060213c.htm

4 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP04371:

5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

6 http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

7 http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~sara/html/mapping/election/map.html

8 http://www.reference.com/search?q=mass%20media

9 Schmidt, Steffen W., Mark C. Shelley, and Barbara A. Bardes. American Government and Politics Today. Brief Edition. Belmont, CA: The Thomson Corporation, 2007.

10 http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070713.asp#4

11 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=13885

12 http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-03-16-medicare-riddle_x.htm

13 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action