Let’s Defund Political Parties…

Posted on by Doug Carroll, Ed. D.

“The despotism of faction is not less to be dreaded than the despotism of an individual.”

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

Pundits and polls proclaim the U.S. is increasingly becoming a politically polarized society. Polarization leads to more significant civil unrest, dissatisfaction with government, a decline in national pride, and civility. The root causes for this polarization are a wide gambit, from social media to poor civic education to changing demographics or cultural shifts and racial strife. However, whatever you think of social media or believe about the U.S. education system, cultural shifts, or even demographic changes, these are not the root cause of polarization. Instead, they are the symptomatic indicators of a dramatic realignment of the civic and civil beliefs of American democracy. So who are the beneficiaries of societal polarization? Political parties – specifically the Republican and Democrat Parties.  

In 2020 more than 14 billion dollars was spent on elections of Congress, Senate, and the Presidential candidates. Fourteen billion dollars is more than 15 states spent in their state budgets in 2020. The amount is only the reported donations and does not include so-called dark money or gratuitous in-kind contributions or pocketed untraceable and unreported cash. It also doesn’t include state, city, county, and other local elections across the United States. With redistricting the result of the Census on the line, the two political parties spent tens of millions of dollars influencing voters in different elections. All to what end? 

“Government of the people, by the people, for the people,” as Lincoln expressed at Gettysburg, is now the government of the party, by the party, and for the party. The definition of monopoly is “a company, group, or individual having exclusive control over an activity.” The Republican and Democrat parties are unregulated monopolies. Congress makes laws that apply to every individual and organization except Congress. The institutions regulating political parties like the Federal Election Commission are neither impartial nor independent. 

The body that determines the district you vote in is the majority party at the time with little or no interest in competitive elections. Political parties are sophisticated street gangs, imposing their will on the locals through bribery, intimidation, and fraud. Reapportionment is an exercise in political gang warfare where each side lays claim and marks territory. Both parties decry the redistricting process but know that if they wait long enough, the tides of political fortunes turn in their favor – the minority party becomes the majority – then they get to carve out exclusive feudal territories and assume the position of elected Noble or Baron. 

In his farewell address, George Washington framed the worst impulses of political parties in this way. “It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.” Earlier in his speech, Washington warns against the tendency towards behaving as despots of political parties. Yet, is this not the condition we find American democracy in today?

Alexis de Tocqueville’s insight into the nature and character of political parties mirrors that of Washington. “Great parties” are those that “dedicate themselves more to principles than to consequences.” Political parties need a vision for leadership more than the ideology associated with political cult worship. “Such parties generally have nobler features, more generous passions, more genuine convictions, and a franker, bolder manner than others.” Contrast great parties to minor parties. “Minor parties are generally without political faith. Because they do not feel ennobled and sustained by any great purpose, their character bears the stamp of self-interest, which clearly manifests itself in every action they undertake. They always become hotly passionate for coldly calculated reasons; their language is violent, but their course is timid and uncertain. Their tactics are squalid, as is the goal they set for themselves.” Is there is a more accurate picture of modern twenty-first-century political parties? 

So, what can be done? First, remove the source of political party power – money. We must demand greater accountability in how political parties fund campaigns and spend donations. It’s time to hold corporations responsible for the behavior of the politicians they support. Refuse to buy from, invest in, or support corporations donating to candidates that misrepresent and defraud the American public through incivility and intentional misrepresentation of facts. Defunding the political parties should be the next great national movement.  

Next, break up the monopolies Republicans and Democrats hold on the electoral politics. While the court system may be the worst antidote to the anti-democratic activities of political parties, the courts may hold the only viable solution to breaking the stranglehold political parties have on candidates and elections. Bypassing the entrenched elite political class is the only way to create honest and fair elections. 

An overhaul of how districts are reapportioned is the greatest threat to political parties but is the only way to restore democratic elections in the United States. We can’t have independent and fair elections when districts are so blatantly aligned to represent politicians, not the body politic. In the age of technology, there is no reason not to have independent organizations use the best demographic algorithms possible to draw inclusive voting districts. Along with redistricting, ranked-choice voting may offer the best solution to encouraging people to contribute as candidates and seek elective office. 

Finally, there is a reason why revolutions begin at the base and not at the top. The most entitled occupy the top and have the least to gain from any upward mobility from the bottom. The Republican and Democrat parties are no different. The electorate’s gain is at the demise of the monopoly from which both parties have no desire to let go. Thus when a political party or politician begins to talk about election reform, you can believe it is no different than a business promoting corporate tax reform. There is nothing altruistic or otherwise un-blatant about self-interest and self-promotion. Election reform is code for we are losing our grip on power and have to change the rules to prolong it. Do not fall prey to the idea that election reform will enhance democracy in the United States. Political parties can not be trusted to regulate themselves. 

Democracy is too precious to be a commodity regulated by the Republicans or Democrats. Let’s defund political parties…

Let’s defund political parties…

The Moral Imperative of Voting

Posted on by Doug Carroll, Ed. D.

“Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”

Alexis de Tocqueville

A moral imperative is something you hear little of in this age of relativism and a culture that elevates narcissism to leadership positions. At the other end of the imperative moral paradigm is relativism. Relativism may be of more significant threat to democracy than the proclaimed governmental enemies of liberty.

The relativist believes they are superior liberated beings. The relativist says since there are no absolutes, then I am free to do as I wish. The consequence of my action is not society’s concern. They simply need to accept that there can be no “right truth” or moral guide from which humanity may judge my actions. Therefore, I will not be held responsible for the negative consequences of my actions, even those detrimental to the community, society, and neighbor, as a moral imperative are constructs that don’t exist. 

The relativist preaches tolerance for everyone except those who might disagree with having no guardrails, no boundaries – unfettered access to any and all things abhorrent to mainstream society. The relativist is the modern version of an anarchist. Like the anarchists, the moral failure of relativism is on display in full public view.

The modern anarchist – relativists – want us to believe the chaos in the streets is rooted in intolerance, bigotry, hate, and retribution for past failures. Somehow violent expressions of discontent should be expected and tolerated as normal. Normalizing violence is counterintuitive to the legitimate and open protests that are uniquely part of a democratic society. We see legitimate peaceful protest ending in rioting, looting, and destruction of innocent property. The relativist hides behind the idea we are the oppressor, I am the victim. It is my right to take from you what I have not earned as reparations for historical wrongs perpetrated by generations of unenlightened moralists. Your gain is to my detriment, and therefore, I am entitled to do as I please without consequence to settle the score. So, what does this have to do with voting?

I contend voting is a moral act, a solemn obligation, and an imperative in a democratic society. In simple language, voters care. Voters are not relativists. They comprehend there are consequences to every action. Voting is the supreme rejection of relativists who care only for themselves. Voting is the acknowledgment that people can change. Society is tolerant. Past mistakes can be reconciled by present and future actions. Democracy is not contingent on just the actions of one, but on the actions of the whole community through the ballot box. A vote is the most aspirational of activities a citizen in a democracy can perform.

Voting is a moral act because it not only requires a conscious effort and thoughtfulness but an inordinate amount of faith. Faith that what you do by voting in some small measure perpetuates freedom and liberty. Faith that outcomes are fairly adjudicated at the ballot box. Faith that the things you care about – community, neighbors, equality – are underpinned by voting. Faith that democracy is a moral imperative because the act of voting compels you to do more. The very definition of a moral imperative is a strongly-felt principle that compels a person to action. 

Not the action of the relativist, the modern version of the anarchist. Nor the action of the narcissist, what seems to substitute for authentic leadership in our times today. Instead, voting is the one action in those with the least, and those with the most are entirely planted on equal footing. The ballot box doesn’t ask your net worth. It’s not interested in your race, ethnicity, or gender. It has no interest in your political leanings or your educational background or occupation. Instead, the ballot box is the affirmation of your belief that democracy works!

The ballot box is the one place that truth always prevails. The relativist may argue there is no truth, no moral principles or guardrails. The act of voting proves otherwise! Democracy is the guardrail. Voting is the principled moral imperative.

No doubt, recent crises have fundamentally changed how the candidates, electorate, and elections officials view voting. Nevertheless, skepticism should never be considered as outright rejection. The relativist wants you to believe we live under a failed system. One that is too burdened with historical wrongs to be redeemed.

The relativist can’t possibly make that judgment without condemning their own historical aversion to democratic practice. If one exists, the most principled anarchist rejects all forms of authority but still concedes that some code must be adhered to, or we plunge into absolute chaos.  Reinhold Niebuhr wrote, “Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.” The surest path to destruction is to abandon voting and lose faith in the democratic system.

We can have a serious debate about the mechanics of voting. Drive-by curbside voting, electronic voting, lengthening the number of days a person can vote from one to three days, and expanding the early voting period are all ideas that are open to public scrutiny and comment. However, debating the mechanics should never elevate the relativist’s position voting is a meaningless act. Nor should the argument devolve into sound bite after sound bite of hyperbolic accusations. Mechanics are amoral tools. Voting is the moral expression of the voter. They are as different as the hammer is from the architect’s vision drawn on a set of plans.

Do not accept the relativists who hold no absolute truth, right or wrong, or principle to guide society. Likewise, do not believe those who try to dissuade you from exercising a moral imperative, voting.  “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith (de Tocqueville).” Voting is the expression of both!

Your vote makes a difference!

Democracy in America 2.0

Posted on by Doug Carroll, Ed. D.

“The health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of functions performed by private citizens.“

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy In America

I live in a small town – small enough to walk nearly the entire city in under an hour. The town has more churches than restaurants, a post office with five employees, a physician’s office, four police officers, and neighbors that know each other by name. There are no more than 1700 folks who live here. Small enough to hold a town meeting in a nearby former refurbished warehouse that at one time was part of a farm. It was at a town hall meeting that got me thinking. What has happened to American democracy?

If you were lucky enough to have a real history teacher at some point in your education, then you know who Alexis de Tocqueville is. He was a French sociologist and political theorist who journeyed from France to America to study American prisons in 1835. Instead of writing a book about prisons, de Tocqueville wrote one of the most influential books in history, Democracy in America, compiling his observations about life in America into two volumes. It would be easy to dismiss de Tocqueville’s observations if they were not as pertinent today as the nineteenth century. 

Skeptics will say 19th-century political observations have little to do with modern America, politics, and democracy. Life was a whole lot less complex in the 1800s than today. Consider this; the 1830s was the age of the populist President, Andrew Jackson. Jackson was as anti-establishment as you could find in 1829. He was unabashedly pro-slavery, a proponent of state rights, and railed against what he viewed as an elitist wealthy establishment class that valued wealth over the welfare of its citizenry. Elections were raucous events; corrupt to the core by vote-buying, unsupervised counting, and the victor most often the political handiwork of closed-door deal-making. At Jackson’s inauguration, a mob stoked by whiskey and pent-up anger fueled by years of perceived disrespect by the political establishment flooded the White House, overwhelming the staff, though by most accounts, did minor damage to the White House grounds and interiors. Not so in the media’s eyes that sensationalized reports of drunken vandalism and disrespect for civil authority.

William James wrote, “The world we see that seems so insane is the result of a belief system that is not working. To perceive the world differently, we must be willing to change our belief system, let the past slip away, expand our sense of now, and dissolve the fear in our minds.” Is James right, we view the world through a faulty belief system? So, is democracy in America faulty and broken? Or have we lost our belief in democracy? One answer to that question may be found in de Tocqueville’s quote, “The health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of functions performed by private citizens” – the town meeting.

Every day thousands of Americans volunteer to serve on nonprofits, in churches, mosques, temples, and schools. Every day, thousands of Americans serve on juries and volunteer to help their community in some capacity. Town meeting democracy is real, tangible, and exists. The belief is not broken, nor is democracy. We simply need to reimagine what democracy is and how it functions in our modern society. The answer is not found in political parties, Congress, or Washington, DC. The answer is civic engagement reaffirming the belief in American democracy. Forged by the first town meetings in the 1600s and reconstructed in volunteerism, charitable works, and civic education. This is Democracy 2.0.