This is the third installment of a series of posts on lessons we progressives should take on the election. The overview is here.
One of the most important functions of a democracy is to allow people who vehemently disagree to reach fair compromises that prevent non-legal solutions. This works when people believe that the process is fair and that, while their solutions didn’t win, at least they had the opportunity to make their case, and they can still win out if they can convince enough other people to join them.
For many years, it was considered the role of the elected official to guard this process and preserve its prestige and strength. There have, of course, always been those that wished to win out no matter the cost – the feud between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson has dozens of examples –, but they at least tried to appear otherwise. For most of our national history, bipartisanship has been viewed as a virtue.
When there is a process that everyone thinks is fair, it has always been part of our national ethos to accept temporary losses as a goad to more activism, short-term sacrifices for long-term goals. The peaceful transfer of power is always met with a loyal opposition, disagreeing on policy and mechanism, and even on many values, but always accepting that the structure of the nation is sound and that the rules that meant we lose today will help us win tomorrow. These are some of the most important American additions to political thought.
But we don’t seem to believe that now. There is deep distrust in the way we elect people. Citizen’s United allowed huge money into politics. Districts are gerrymandered (more on that next blog). The popular vote for President disagreed with the electoral vote for both Republican Presidents this century. There is widespread belief by conservatives in election fraud, especially committed by illegal immigrants.
Beyond the elections, the Senate has given up on compromise and unity, throwing away the need for filibuster-proof margins in many cases. Ideologues on both sides will stymie candidates for SCOTUS or even cabinet appointees for reasons of politics, not readiness to take the job. Individual representatives are kept in line by powerful leaders of their parties and powerful sub-groups. If someone breaks out of the mold, they are punished by their party and then by their constituency. That leaves us with historically low approval ratings for Congress, of course.
And the judiciary is attacked as a partisan body. There are, of course, obvious times when that has been the case, such as in Bush v. Gore when virtually no Justice followed their normal jurisprudential pathway; or Judge Moore in Alabama as he ignored federal precedent; or the bakery/florist cases. At least since Roe v. Wade, the faith in the judiciary has steadily waned. And since President Reagan began filling the judiciary with ideologues, and Joe Biden attacked Judge Bork on ideological grounds, the judiciary has been diminished.
All this is to say that we need to re-.establish a faith in government, and to get there we need a process we can all believe in and get behind. While we each want our own policies enacted, we need to feel that having our fair say and giving it the good ole college try is sufficient. We need to be able to trust that leaders understand all this, and that they are willing to be the leaders of all, not just those that voted for them.
Without trust in the process, it becomes all-out attacks over the substance. We don't turn to the process to find solutions, but instead we try to game it, or we have no trust in government at all and try to ignore it, or even worse to bypass it completely through illegal action. Without some common agreement around the process, one of the most important foundations of society is weakened. That is the stuff that leads to bad things, like revolutions or despots.
This is, to me, paramount. If we have a fair and trusted process, everything else falls into place; if we do not, nothing does. Each blog after this will, to one extent or another, be talking about process at least as much as substance.
Thoughts?
One of the most important functions of a democracy is to allow people who vehemently disagree to reach fair compromises that prevent non-legal solutions. This works when people believe that the process is fair and that, while their solutions didn’t win, at least they had the opportunity to make their case, and they can still win out if they can convince enough other people to join them.
For many years, it was considered the role of the elected official to guard this process and preserve its prestige and strength. There have, of course, always been those that wished to win out no matter the cost – the feud between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson has dozens of examples –, but they at least tried to appear otherwise. For most of our national history, bipartisanship has been viewed as a virtue.
When there is a process that everyone thinks is fair, it has always been part of our national ethos to accept temporary losses as a goad to more activism, short-term sacrifices for long-term goals. The peaceful transfer of power is always met with a loyal opposition, disagreeing on policy and mechanism, and even on many values, but always accepting that the structure of the nation is sound and that the rules that meant we lose today will help us win tomorrow. These are some of the most important American additions to political thought.
But we don’t seem to believe that now. There is deep distrust in the way we elect people. Citizen’s United allowed huge money into politics. Districts are gerrymandered (more on that next blog). The popular vote for President disagreed with the electoral vote for both Republican Presidents this century. There is widespread belief by conservatives in election fraud, especially committed by illegal immigrants.
Beyond the elections, the Senate has given up on compromise and unity, throwing away the need for filibuster-proof margins in many cases. Ideologues on both sides will stymie candidates for SCOTUS or even cabinet appointees for reasons of politics, not readiness to take the job. Individual representatives are kept in line by powerful leaders of their parties and powerful sub-groups. If someone breaks out of the mold, they are punished by their party and then by their constituency. That leaves us with historically low approval ratings for Congress, of course.
And the judiciary is attacked as a partisan body. There are, of course, obvious times when that has been the case, such as in Bush v. Gore when virtually no Justice followed their normal jurisprudential pathway; or Judge Moore in Alabama as he ignored federal precedent; or the bakery/florist cases. At least since Roe v. Wade, the faith in the judiciary has steadily waned. And since President Reagan began filling the judiciary with ideologues, and Joe Biden attacked Judge Bork on ideological grounds, the judiciary has been diminished.
All this is to say that we need to re-.establish a faith in government, and to get there we need a process we can all believe in and get behind. While we each want our own policies enacted, we need to feel that having our fair say and giving it the good ole college try is sufficient. We need to be able to trust that leaders understand all this, and that they are willing to be the leaders of all, not just those that voted for them.
Without trust in the process, it becomes all-out attacks over the substance. We don't turn to the process to find solutions, but instead we try to game it, or we have no trust in government at all and try to ignore it, or even worse to bypass it completely through illegal action. Without some common agreement around the process, one of the most important foundations of society is weakened. That is the stuff that leads to bad things, like revolutions or despots.
This is, to me, paramount. If we have a fair and trusted process, everything else falls into place; if we do not, nothing does. Each blog after this will, to one extent or another, be talking about process at least as much as substance.
Thoughts?
Comments
Post a Comment