Progressive
Populist
August 2004
Beyond the 2004 Elections: Democracy, anyone?
By Steven Hill The push is on to re-defeat
George W. Bush. The left is on the march, with everyone from
the Democratic Party, labor unions, philanthropic foundations, 527s,
pragmatic Greens, progressive media, and George Soros rallying
behind the Kerry-Edwards ticket. But if that effort succeeds
in ousting Bush, then what? Does the center-left have plans beyond
the November 2004 election? Allow me to point toward some
badly needed direction.
Even if Kerry is elected, that will not change the fact that
representative democracy in the United States is severely broken.
It's gotten so bad that even the New York Times and Wall
Street Journal have made the case for overhaul of key institutions
and practices. Unless American democracy is remade in fundamental
ways, progressives can forget about enacting much of the leftie
laundry list of desired changes in foreign policy, health care,
corporate regulation, labor laws, the environment, media and civil
liberties. A functioning democracy is a prerequisite to having
an economic system that works for everyone, not just the rich and
powerful.
Usually, so much of the well-intentioned progressive effort seems
scattered. The only time all sides of the center-left seem to
come together is when rallying to protest a war or the ongoing
debacle of the Bush administration. The challenge is: can
the center-left imagine a common vision that lasts beyond this
November's election?
In my mind, such a common vision must have at the forefront the
remaking of our broken democracy.
But "democracy" and "representative government"
are not just fuzzy, feel-good terms - they involve precise
institutions and practices, and we know a good bit now about which
of those institutions and practices are best. They include public
financing of elections, free media time for candidates, full
(proportional) representation for legislatures, instant runoff
voting for executive offices, overhaul of the unrepresentative U.S.
Senate, abolition of the Electoral College, universal voter
registration, fair ballot access laws, inclusive political debates,
a national elections commission to develop fair and efficient
election administration, and a right to vote constitutional
amendment. We also need a more robust public broadcasting sector
funded by consumer fees (like consumers pay for cable TV) instead of
by a fickle (and currently Republican-dominated) Congress.
Let's call this the Democracy USA agenda, and sure, it's an
ambitious one -- but we will never significantly impact the broader
social, economic and foreign policy agenda until we change the rules
of the game that are blocking progress. In other words, until
we remove the boulders in the road, there will be no passage. The
Democracy USA agenda is what will remove the boulders.
Already publications like The Nation and others are featuring
articles by progressive leaders asking "what's next" after
November. Conspicuously missing from their vision is a stirring call
for remaking our democracy. I've spoken with many of these
leaders, and too many of them find these systemic barriers to be
bothersome inconveniences into which they are not going to invest
much time or resources. That's troubling, because that
attitude will lead progressives down still more dead ends.
For instance, most of these progressive and Democratic Party leaders
do not want to deal with the fact that the antiquated 18th-century
methods we use to elect the President, the U.S. Senate, and the U.S.
House favor Republican and conservative candidates over Democratic
and liberal/progressive candidates due to built-in, systemic
reasons. It's like having a foot race where Democrats and
progressives start out ten paces behind Republicans and
conservatives, election after election.
The presidency and the Senate are skewed because they give more
representation per capita to low population states, which today are
mostly the conservative states of Bush's Red America. This has
real-world impact on national policy and federal tax appropriations,
with Red America receiving more in federal taxes than they pay out,
even as they gripe about big government and welfare cheats. The
House is skewed because the Democratic vote has become highly
urbanized and can be packed into fewer districts. The fact is, when
the national vote is tied (or even when the Democrats have more
votes, like Gore did in 2000), the Republicans win more House seats
than Democrats.
Democrats and progressives will make little progress on the broader
national agenda until they address these barriers that affect all
three branches of the federal government (since the conservative
Senate confirms conservative Supreme Court and lower court judges).
After the November election, no matter who wins, progressive
activists, leaders, funders, Democrats and non-Democrats must become
focused on enacting the Democracy USA agenda. The Democrats
should do this because, not only is it in their self-interest since
current methods favor
Republicans/conservatives, but also because making our democracy
more fair is the right thing to do. In other words, at this
point, what is
fair and right FAVORS the Democratic Party.
New Democratic Party leaders like Barack Obama seems to be more open
to these ideas, as are Howard Dean, Congressmen Jesse Jackson Jr.,
Dennis Kucinich and others. Let's hope they are the future of the
party, because now is the time to push the Democracy USA agenda out
there boldly.
The overhaul of our democracy is THE pressing issue of our times. It
is a steep hill to climb, but climb it we must, there is no other
choice. Without more focused attention on the Democracy USA agenda,
progressive ideas and policies will continue to languish near the
sidelines of American politics rather than the center.
Steven Hill is senior analyst for the Washington DC-based Center for
Voting and Democracy (www.fairvote.org), and author of "Fixing
Elections: The Failure of America's Winner Take All
Politics" (www.FixingElections.com). Contact the Center
at [email protected] |