An Ideal Democracy

What would the perfect democracy be like?

It seems to me that to understand more clearly what's wrong with something, it is useful to consider what could be right. Imagine, for a few moments, a democracy in which every citizen took his or her civic obligations very seriously. I don't mean just that they vote, of course.

It starts with staying well-informed. Everyone would read the newspaper enough to know about all the issues that affect us all. Everyone would know not just about the economy and the employment situation, but also about prison conditions, the military, domestic abuse, foreign aid, and all of the dozens of issues that affect us as individuals and as a country. We certainly wouldn't agree on all these topics, but we would know the important factors in understanding them. We wouldn't neglect an issue just because it didn't personally affect us.

We would vote based on this knowledge. We would, directly and through the media, demand thoughtful answers from the candidates on these questions, not just feel-good sound bites. We would know the candidates' stands on issues not only important to us, but important to the country. A candidate who evaded hard questions would not be seen as someone serious enough about his responsibilities to be elected. We would remember a candidate's past promises, and vote out someone who had not made a good-faith effort to fulfill them. We would not vote for a candidate who attacked his opponent's character, or made charges based on anything other than the opponent's record or statements. Insinuations and misleading statements would be recognized as the equivalent of lies, and punished by the voters accordingly.

We would vote based not just on how the candidates' proposed policies would affect us as individuals, but on how they would affect all of us. We might be ideological, but we would not be dogmatic. Liberals would respect the crucial role played by the free market in a free society, and introduce market principles in government where appropriate; conservatives would understand that sometimes governments must do what the free market isn't equipped to do. We all would encourage our representatives to negotiate to make laws that represent the interests of all of society, not to stand firm on ideology and reject any agreement not perfectly to one side's liking.

The media would consider themselves to have a sacred responsibility: to provide us with information designed to give us the best insight possible into the country and world around us. The more serious the issue, the more coverage there would be. Politicians and bureaucrats would be held to account, asked tough questions to which complete answers would be expected; a politician who evaded a question would be reminded that he hadn't answered the question. If a politician said something factually incorrect, the media would note this as a matter of course. Reporters would avoid being on friendly terms with members of the government, knowing this could interfere with their objectivity as journalists.

It would be well understood that money can be a corrupting influence in politics, so steps would be taken to prevent this. Public money would be allocated to pay for every political campaign, from President to city council member. The money would be given on the condition that it not be used for television advertising; the Web is more than sufficient to spread the politician's message to those who want to hear it. Private and corporate donations, while not being illegal, would be frowned on due to the potential for corruption, and those who took such donations would not be elected for that reason.

A politician would not be judged positively for acquiring federal money for local projects, as this would be recognized as thinly veiled support for a candidate's re-election at the taxpayers' expense. It would be understood that projects that benefit a particular city or region should be paid for by taxes collected as locally as possible, in the interest of not spending taxpayer money on projects that most taxpayers don't want their taxes to pay for. Voters would recognize that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and politicians would be praised for their fiscal prudence. A constitutional amendment would be passed requiring a 3/4 supermajority to allow deficit spending. Voters would approve of surpluses to pay for future projects, or to finance extra spending in the event of a recession, so deficit spending wouldn't be necessary.

Most importantly, we would recognize that our duty as voters was to reward politicians whose main efforts were directed at making a better country and a better world, as that would be of substantial benefit not only to us, but to our descendants. Statesmanship would be rewarded at the polls. It would be considered shameful for a politician to advocate putting off dealing with important problems for the next generation to deal with, even if that required an increase in taxes or a decrease in spending. Voters would support politicians who took a long-term view.

Will this ideal democracy ever come to pass? Almost certainly not. People are not like this. People, not politicians, though politicians are people too, subject to the same weaknesses and frailties. We don't pay attention to the newspapers. We want to spend less and get more, to have others pay for what we benefit from. We don't vote, or do so for superficial reasons. We are swayed by inspiring speeches rather than records of good governance. We allow ourselves to be influenced by campaign commercials that we should know are misleading at best. We sometimes don't punish our politicians for reprehensible behavior, for violating the public trust.

Above all, we don't have a high regard for politicians; we regard them as hypocrites and power-grubbers at best, and crooks at worst. In most cases, this view is well justified. But who's to blame? We are the ones who elected them, after all. They represent us, in more ways than one. They are we, writ large. There are dozens of problems with politics, but it starts here. Until a great majority of us recognize this, nothing will change.

Sarah Palin and the brand new 2010 Death Panels

We get the government we deserve. This is a well-known phrase, and it's considered to be cynical. Even though it could mean that if we're good we deserve good government, it tends to be used only when someone is saying that the government sucks because the people suck.

As for me, I think it's true, and this is the way it should be. The government represents the people, and if the people are well-intentioned, well-informed, and reasonably intelligent, then the government will reflect this. If the people are selfish, ignorant, and stupid, then this too will be reflected in government. Isn't that the essence of democracy?

These days, people on the left have been gnashing their teeth over Sarah Palin's description of end-of-life counseling provisions in the evolving health care plan as 'death panels'. However, a recent poll showed that 45% of Americans believe that the health care proposal will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care to the elderly. I have to believe that this number would have been somewhat lower if the question had been asked before Palin's comment, but I suspect it would have gotten at least 20%, mostly the people who believe Obama wasn't born in America.

To the media's credit, it tended to correctly report that the idea of 'death panels' was false. To its discredit, it broadcast the false charge loudly and often, because it was an incendiary charge made by a politician who's better than anyone in America at getting both sides stirred up with her every utterance. (And, naturally, such things are good for sales, ratings, page views, etc.) Without the amplification of the mainstream media, the charge would have been picked up mainly by right-wing radio and Fox News. So, this is the problem: a lot of people don't read much further than the headlines, and if the headline didn't say it was false, then it might be true. This sort of thing is what makes advertising work. We might buy a new toothpaste based solely on the ad campaign. Now, if someone bought a new car based on no other information than the word of a car ad, car exec, or car salesman, we'd think they were gullible and/or stupid. Of course, you do research before making such a big purchase.

If government reflects its citizens, then this is as good an example as any. If every citizen read the news diligently, and carefully sorted out false charges from true information, the percentage of people who believed the 'death panels' charge would be 0%. But clearly, that does not happen. People like Palin who spread stuff like this know that, and they know the best way to exploit people's fear of change of this magnitude is to muddy up the waters with lies, the bigger the better. (And it's not as though Democrats have never done this; the Republicans are simply better at it.) But to me, in the end, the blame lies with the people: the correct information is out there, but many don't seek it. Many don't understand, or make any effort to understand, the distinction between the media reporting what someone said and reporting facts.

Now, people have busy lives, and I can understand why people don't want to come home from a hard day at work and pay close attention to what's true and what's not in the health care debate. But much as not researching a car before you buy it may lead to the purchase of an inferior car (or one unsuitable for your needs), the collective result of being ill-informed on a crucial government policy is the creation of one that at best is less than perfect, and at worst serves the interests of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, doctors, and politicians more than it serves the interests of sick people.