Last week the world witnessed a historic election in Great Britain. Following a tightly fought campaign, the country emerged not only with its youngest Prime Minister in two hundred years and its first coalition government in sixty years, but it also with the first Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition in its history.
This change didn’t come about easily. The elections didn’t give any party a clear majority, leaving the parties to hash out a coalition government. Several tense days of backroom negotiations followed. Eventually, the Liberal Democrats threw their lot in with Conservatives—for a hefty price. Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, wrangled the position of Deputy Prime Minister, and six other Liberal Democrats secured ministerial posts in the new government.
Equally importantly, the Lib Dems secured a Conservative promise to put an important piece of election reform before the voters—a proposal to switch from first-past-the-post voting to an alternative vote system where voters rank their nominee preference (known in the U.S. as an instant run off system). The change could have serious consequences—according to some estimates the Liberal Democrats would have picked up fifty more seats with the alternative vote. Lib Dems have argued that in the first-past-the-post system a third party vote is often thrown away—something that third parties in the U.S. can surely sympathize with. But why has bringing this relatively straightforward issue before the voters been so difficult? The fact that Lib Dems could only secure the promise for a referendum now, after years of effort, when they were essentially placed in the role of kingmakers, gives some indication of how hard it can be to bring about electoral reform even in advanced democracies.
The last truly tumultuous election in the U.S. occurred in 2000. But for all the anger and disappointment that election caused, the 2000 election led to very little discussion, much less change, in our electoral process. Indeed, there seems to be an unnatural allergy to even discussing alterations. For example, one of the last major third parties movements in the U.S., the Green Party, was blamed for Democrat’s loss of the Presidential election in 2000. The fact that the Green Party won millions of votes in Florida, and that the Democratic Party won many millions more than that, however, didn’t lead to a discussion of why Florida’s electoral votes should all go to the Republican candidate. Similarly, even though the Electoral College gave the Presidency to George Bush despite the fact that Al Gore won the popular vote, no movement materialized to remove that antiquated mechanism. And anger at the Supreme Court didn’t lead to a discussion of term limits for Supreme Court justices or of the merits of judicial review of non-constitutional questions.
A more immediately relevant example is the issue of redistricting. Following the 2010 Census the governing party in many states will have the chance to redraw electoral district lines. In theory, the lines should be redrawn to reflect changes in population, but the reality of redistricting—so long accepted now as to be taken for granted—is that it gives the ruling party the opportunity to draw lines around its constituency. It is the democratic process backwards: The representatives are choosing their constituency.
While the newspaper editor who coined the term “gerrymandering” should receive great credit for cleverness, he did no favor for democracy. The term allows too many people, including those who know better, to think of the practice as an excusable eccentricity; a benign oddity of the U.S. system. In truth, the world would be a better place if the gerrymander were extinct. Incumbents should not be able to tailor their districts to ensure their reelection. How can an election be free and fair when one side is choosing who votes?
This failure to discuss inadequacies in our electoral processes is particularly odd for a country that takes such pride in its democracy, and that exports it so vigorously. Indeed, it is in the best of American traditions to innovate, to take risks, and to continually pursue perfection. These attributes are needed as much, if not more, in the realm of governance than business. Yet it is there that they are almost completely lacking. The U.S. would be much better off if we, like our cousins the British, worked to develop a resistance to this highly peculiar, and insidious, allergy.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
“Memorial Day”
By its nature, Memorial Day is solemn. Many Americans spent this past Memorial Day at cemeteries, visiting those they knew or didn’t know, who fought and died in America’s wars. Surprisingly, this somber practice is currently at the heart of a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The case involves Albert Snyder, the father Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq, and the Westboro Baptist Church. The Westboro Baptist Church has made a name for itself over the years by protesting at military funerals and it is now seeking formal protection the practice. The case requires a balancing of the father’ right to privacy and the solemnity of his son’s burial against the Westboro Baptist Church’s First Amendment right to freedom of expression. The Federal District Court for Maryland ruled for Mr. Snyder, but the Court of Appeals reversed.
The Westboro Baptist Church‘s protests are not about Mr. Snyder’s son per se. To the Westboro Baptist Church, all the tragedies that the U.S. suffers, from hurricanes to tornadoes to the deaths of soldiers, are the result of what they take to be America’s permissive attitude toward homosexuality. America is the new Gomorrah. Protesting at soldier’s funerals is only a ploy to get them attention beyond what their message or numbers merit. Although they keep up a busy schedule, most of their protests only include a few church members flown in from their home church in Kansas.
Knowing this hardly makes the Westboro Baptist Church’s actions more forgivable. It takes a fearsome devotion to the First Amendment to defend allowing a group like Westboro Baptist Church to broadcast their bizarre take on world affairs. In many other parts of the world even considering it would be unthinkable. In Germany, and in many countries in Europe, Holocaust Denial is illegal. In Britain, libel laws are so loose that one can be prosecuted for something said in another country. The vigour with which we defend freedom of speech in the U.S. is unique.
There are limitations, of course. You can’t yell “Fire” during a packed showing of “Avatar,” and if you harangue someone viciously enough to get slugged, the First Amendment won’t protect you. But how many other countries in the world would allow a group of Nazi’s march through a town with a large population of Jews, as we did in Skokie, Illinois? Not very many. So the question we have to ask each other is: Is this type of Exceptionalism really in our best interest?
But looking at the question this way makes it clear that the problem isn’t the First Amendment at all. While it’s true that the First Amendment allows the Westboro Baptist Church to carry out its protests, it isn’t the reason they are successful. The Westboro Baptist Church isn’t a civil liberties organization—they protest at soldier’s funerals because they know it will attract a large amount of news coverage. And it is not the First Amendment that gives them that platform—it is us. If we failed to pay attention, the Westboro Baptist Church would seek ways to get their message out. Could we collectively turn away? There’s good reason for doubt. Newspapers, television stations and websites, like any good businesses, will always find room to publish stories that sell, and outrage has a good track record for sales.
It is worth trying, however, if only because the alternative is so unappealing. Whether the First Amendment serves our interests well or poorly, we shouldn’t carve it up for fringe groups like the Westboro Baptist Church. Where would it end? After all, a group that is willing to protest at funerals would probably be willing to engage in other shocking behavior to get attention. Maybe mass flag burnings? Should we write that out of the First Amendment as well?
Nothing good can come by letting fringe groups like the Westboro Baptist Church rewrite our First Amendment jurisprudence. Whether the freedom of speech as it is practiced in the United States is superior to its treatment in the rest of the world is up for debate. If we should ever wish to change our stance, however, we should make sure we are doing it for the right reasons and not the wrong ones.
The Westboro Baptist Church‘s protests are not about Mr. Snyder’s son per se. To the Westboro Baptist Church, all the tragedies that the U.S. suffers, from hurricanes to tornadoes to the deaths of soldiers, are the result of what they take to be America’s permissive attitude toward homosexuality. America is the new Gomorrah. Protesting at soldier’s funerals is only a ploy to get them attention beyond what their message or numbers merit. Although they keep up a busy schedule, most of their protests only include a few church members flown in from their home church in Kansas.
Knowing this hardly makes the Westboro Baptist Church’s actions more forgivable. It takes a fearsome devotion to the First Amendment to defend allowing a group like Westboro Baptist Church to broadcast their bizarre take on world affairs. In many other parts of the world even considering it would be unthinkable. In Germany, and in many countries in Europe, Holocaust Denial is illegal. In Britain, libel laws are so loose that one can be prosecuted for something said in another country. The vigour with which we defend freedom of speech in the U.S. is unique.
There are limitations, of course. You can’t yell “Fire” during a packed showing of “Avatar,” and if you harangue someone viciously enough to get slugged, the First Amendment won’t protect you. But how many other countries in the world would allow a group of Nazi’s march through a town with a large population of Jews, as we did in Skokie, Illinois? Not very many. So the question we have to ask each other is: Is this type of Exceptionalism really in our best interest?
But looking at the question this way makes it clear that the problem isn’t the First Amendment at all. While it’s true that the First Amendment allows the Westboro Baptist Church to carry out its protests, it isn’t the reason they are successful. The Westboro Baptist Church isn’t a civil liberties organization—they protest at soldier’s funerals because they know it will attract a large amount of news coverage. And it is not the First Amendment that gives them that platform—it is us. If we failed to pay attention, the Westboro Baptist Church would seek ways to get their message out. Could we collectively turn away? There’s good reason for doubt. Newspapers, television stations and websites, like any good businesses, will always find room to publish stories that sell, and outrage has a good track record for sales.
It is worth trying, however, if only because the alternative is so unappealing. Whether the First Amendment serves our interests well or poorly, we shouldn’t carve it up for fringe groups like the Westboro Baptist Church. Where would it end? After all, a group that is willing to protest at funerals would probably be willing to engage in other shocking behavior to get attention. Maybe mass flag burnings? Should we write that out of the First Amendment as well?
Nothing good can come by letting fringe groups like the Westboro Baptist Church rewrite our First Amendment jurisprudence. Whether the freedom of speech as it is practiced in the United States is superior to its treatment in the rest of the world is up for debate. If we should ever wish to change our stance, however, we should make sure we are doing it for the right reasons and not the wrong ones.
“A Sinking Tide”
A famous, and optimistic, economic maxim says that “ a rising tide lifts all ships.” Unfortunately the opposite is also true. But a sinking tide is interesting for other reasons. As any beachgoer can tell you, when the tide goes out you can see what was previously covered--all the detritus that the waves bring forward is brought into view. Bottles, wood, seaweed.
In much the same way, an economic downturn uncovers things about our democracy and our society—many of them unsightly. What were previously only disagreements start to come to a fever pitch. Partisan gridlock starts to bring Congress to a halt. It’s not hard to think of specific examples. Like gun control. For one segment of society guns are the tools of criminals and the policeman who chase them. Their existence elsewhere poses an unnecessary risk to children and the mentally unstable. For others, guns are a heritage passed down from generation to generation, all the way back to the founding of the country. They provide a means of recreation and protection.
Or take health care. For some, the creation of universal health care approaches something akin to a moral obligation. America’s failure to provide health care already, when so many other less wealthy countries have been able to do so, is seen as an indictment of US values. To others, the very idea of introducing more government bureaucracy into health care is ill advised. Government programs already exist to cover many people in need. Further involvement will only lead to a loss of overall quality and an increase in government involvement in the lives of people who neither need nor desire it.
Or take border control. Many people see those coming over the border illegally, fleeing desperate poverty and sending massive amounts of money home to wives, children, and parents, and shudder at the idea of treating them like bank robbers and burglars. Others are shocked both by the immigrants disregard of the law and their governments indifference to enforcing it. They see thousands of people streaming over the border, adding to the millions already here, and worry what the effect of such a large group of people will be on a country they care deeply about.
Of course, in a country as large as the U.S. there is room for a variety of viewpoints. One great American strength is the ability of differing, even contradictory, views to coexist peacefully—so long as each party believes that the other has the country’s best interests at heart. But it is exactly this faith that is currently in short supply. The problem is not that the two sides disagree, but that there is mutual incomprehension. That black divide is a fertile breeding group for suspicion and animosity. And there, as Auden said, yawns a divide that embraces cannot bridge.
This rancor and partisanship has not gone unnoticed. To the contrary, both its amount and its severity have been commented upon extensively. What has received less attention is what should be done about it. When Evan Bayh, a giant of the Senate, retired he identified the extreme level of partisanship as a cause and suggested that monthly luncheons of each parties Senators could alleviate some of the ill will. While that suggestion surely has merit, it’s worth considering whether there are other, more fundamental issues that have to be addressed.
Indeed, it is worth asking whether or not certain facets of our democracy are partially to blame. One culprit could be gerrymandering. In many states, the party in power redraws the voting districts every ten years to include populations it knows support their views. This not only makes elections less competitive, it also makes politicians less compromising. After all, if your most serious reelection challenge is likely to come from the radical elements within your own party, why provide ammunition for a sharp primary battle by crossing party lines?
Another possible offender is the primary voting system itself. For the majority of the history of the Republic, primaries didn’t exist. Indeed, even when Robert Kennedy ran for President in 1968 only sixteen states held them. Though they have come to be a settled part of our electoral landscape there has been little public discussion of whether their overall effect has positive. It’s settled political strategy to move to the left or right during a primary campaign and then to move to the center for the general election. But why should we countenance a system that requires a candidate to espouse one set of views to one group and then requires them to give a different account of their views to another group only shortly thereafter, thereby practically requiring deception? Is it any surprise, then, that there has been a push for unwaveringly pure candidates that disdain compromise and who, once elected, will surely serve only to further the partisan gridlock that already consumes our capital?
I don’t mean to suggest that these are the only, or even the foremost causes for the acrimony that currently dominates our public debate. I do suggest that the current acrimony has deep structural roots that need to be addressed. When the tide comes back in it will be easy to put these divisions out of mind. But the water only conceals, it does not repair. If we fail to act, then when the tide goes out again, we are likely to find that our situation has worsened considerably.
In much the same way, an economic downturn uncovers things about our democracy and our society—many of them unsightly. What were previously only disagreements start to come to a fever pitch. Partisan gridlock starts to bring Congress to a halt. It’s not hard to think of specific examples. Like gun control. For one segment of society guns are the tools of criminals and the policeman who chase them. Their existence elsewhere poses an unnecessary risk to children and the mentally unstable. For others, guns are a heritage passed down from generation to generation, all the way back to the founding of the country. They provide a means of recreation and protection.
Or take health care. For some, the creation of universal health care approaches something akin to a moral obligation. America’s failure to provide health care already, when so many other less wealthy countries have been able to do so, is seen as an indictment of US values. To others, the very idea of introducing more government bureaucracy into health care is ill advised. Government programs already exist to cover many people in need. Further involvement will only lead to a loss of overall quality and an increase in government involvement in the lives of people who neither need nor desire it.
Or take border control. Many people see those coming over the border illegally, fleeing desperate poverty and sending massive amounts of money home to wives, children, and parents, and shudder at the idea of treating them like bank robbers and burglars. Others are shocked both by the immigrants disregard of the law and their governments indifference to enforcing it. They see thousands of people streaming over the border, adding to the millions already here, and worry what the effect of such a large group of people will be on a country they care deeply about.
Of course, in a country as large as the U.S. there is room for a variety of viewpoints. One great American strength is the ability of differing, even contradictory, views to coexist peacefully—so long as each party believes that the other has the country’s best interests at heart. But it is exactly this faith that is currently in short supply. The problem is not that the two sides disagree, but that there is mutual incomprehension. That black divide is a fertile breeding group for suspicion and animosity. And there, as Auden said, yawns a divide that embraces cannot bridge.
This rancor and partisanship has not gone unnoticed. To the contrary, both its amount and its severity have been commented upon extensively. What has received less attention is what should be done about it. When Evan Bayh, a giant of the Senate, retired he identified the extreme level of partisanship as a cause and suggested that monthly luncheons of each parties Senators could alleviate some of the ill will. While that suggestion surely has merit, it’s worth considering whether there are other, more fundamental issues that have to be addressed.
Indeed, it is worth asking whether or not certain facets of our democracy are partially to blame. One culprit could be gerrymandering. In many states, the party in power redraws the voting districts every ten years to include populations it knows support their views. This not only makes elections less competitive, it also makes politicians less compromising. After all, if your most serious reelection challenge is likely to come from the radical elements within your own party, why provide ammunition for a sharp primary battle by crossing party lines?
Another possible offender is the primary voting system itself. For the majority of the history of the Republic, primaries didn’t exist. Indeed, even when Robert Kennedy ran for President in 1968 only sixteen states held them. Though they have come to be a settled part of our electoral landscape there has been little public discussion of whether their overall effect has positive. It’s settled political strategy to move to the left or right during a primary campaign and then to move to the center for the general election. But why should we countenance a system that requires a candidate to espouse one set of views to one group and then requires them to give a different account of their views to another group only shortly thereafter, thereby practically requiring deception? Is it any surprise, then, that there has been a push for unwaveringly pure candidates that disdain compromise and who, once elected, will surely serve only to further the partisan gridlock that already consumes our capital?
I don’t mean to suggest that these are the only, or even the foremost causes for the acrimony that currently dominates our public debate. I do suggest that the current acrimony has deep structural roots that need to be addressed. When the tide comes back in it will be easy to put these divisions out of mind. But the water only conceals, it does not repair. If we fail to act, then when the tide goes out again, we are likely to find that our situation has worsened considerably.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)