On the State of the Union
This past summer, I did a brief stint canvassing for an environmental group. One evening, while doing my mostly futile rounds in the suburban environs of Mt. Lebanon (I wasn’t very good at my job), I was struck by the ideological split among those answering their doors. Support for the cause came around supper time as I was fortunate enough to wrangle up a contribution from a well-dressed man just back from work. While writing his check, he opined on how I must not be getting many takers because there are “a lotta Republicans here”. Less than an hour later, I was shot down by a woman mid-pitch who informed me that her husband works in natural gas. Far from my first refusal of the day, I parted gracefully and trod on.
Pausing for my own dinner, I sat curbside and had my a-ha moment: the man and woman I spoke with, they never meet. They never talk. Well, they might interact as neighbors, but not as fellow citizens. Instead, they demonize and caricature each other. They’ve sorted themselves into rival tribes. The woman has politics that are wrecking our environment; the man is calling for regulations that will take away her husband’s livelihood. Each thinks the other is out to destroy America, when really, it’s just two competing visions. How to rectify this mutual distrust? Honest and open dialogue, where the understanding of a position precedes attempts to persuade. This won’t magically birth agreement, but it will engender respect between citizens with clashing views. And that respect is the lifeblood of a thriving democratic society.
The goal of a representative government is to make laws that are to the benefit of those they represent. But those they represent do not always agree on every little thing. The woman’s husband has a family to feed and he does so by way of a job that pollutes. The man wants the water we drink and the air we breathe to be fresh and clean. That necessitates compromise.
That man and woman inhabit the same political community, but they don’t act like it. By denying this truth, they don’t change the reality — they don’t create separate political communities for their respective tribes. There is still one Congress, still one governor of Pennsylvania, etc. Instead, they make the governance of the community impossible. Political polarization, gridlock, institutional decay — here it was, greeting me with a neighborly smile upon the opening of a door.
I know I’m not alone in thinking this. Here’s a snippet from President Obama’s State of the Union last week:
[Democracy requires] basic bonds of trust between its citizens. It doesn’t work if we think the people who disagree with us are all motivated by malice, or that our political opponents are unpatriotic. Democracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise; or when even basic facts are contested, and we listen only to those who agree with us. Our public life withers when only the most extreme voices get attention. Most of all, democracy breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn’t matter; that the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some narrow interest.
Oh shit, he gets it. So, what is to be done? How do we revive constructive civic discourse and suppress the rancor? First, we come to terms with what has allowed this tribalism to fester. Obama did this as well, identifying three insidious factors currently at work poisoning our republic. This toxic trifecta needs to be urgently and forcefully remedied. Below are my favored antidotes.
We have to end the practice of drawing our congressional districts so that politicians can pick their voters, and not the other way around.
At first glance, this appears to be tricky. How do we induce our representatives to institute reforms that threaten their job security? As of now, in 33 states, the state legislatures have near-total control in shaping congressional districts. In recent years, these bodies have taken it upon themselves to create “safe” districts, where the candidate of one party is all but guaranteed victory. Likely Democratic or Republican voters might be packed all in one district or sprinkled throughout several districts to dilute their voting power. The resultant map thus benefits the party drawing the map. In other times and places, this is called out for what it is: rigging elections.
It is not really surprising that self-interested politicians have manipulated the electoral system to benefit their position and the power of their parties. But these practices don’t just spit in the face of representative government. Indeed, this carving up has also had grossly damaging unintended consequences. With a general election victory all but assured in many districts, the primary takes on greater importance. But primaries draw fewer voters to the polls — indeed, it is usually the most ideological extreme elements that turn out in force for these elections. In order to win primaries, our leaders must now cater to these elements, which often times deride even the notion of compromise in Washington.
These kooks, implacable in their views and committed to specific political dogmas, used to be marginalized by our political process. But without the specter of a competitive general election impending, candidates have no incentive to moderate their stances or cross party lines in D.C. If a principled stand is taken and a representative does the sort of thing that used to constitute good governance, they are likely to face a primary challenge from a far-right or far-left candidate.
Career politicians have thus become victims of their own machinations. We could laugh at the karmic justice, except now our Congress is inhabited by men and women willing to shut down the federal government on ideological grounds, without giving a care to the beyond-the-Beltway consequences.
Fortunately, the most practicable solution to this mess is already in place in several states: independent redistricting commissions. By taking the power of redistricting out of the hands of partisan politicians and into these commissions, the impetus for gerrymandering recedes from view. While far from perfect, commissioners — typically barred from seeking office for a number of years following their appointment — cannot directly benefit from their work, so citizens are less likely to be saddled with something like this. Candidates for elected office would then be compelled to seek the votes of all the citizens they aim to represent. It is not only just, but it will succeed in driving out unyielding radicals.
We have to reduce the influence of money in our politics, so that a handful of families and hidden interests can’t bankroll our elections — and if our existing approach to campaign finance can’t pass muster in the courts, we need to work together to find a real solution.
Plain and simple, we need a constitutional amendment overruling the disastrous precedent of Citizens United. This amendment should explicitly state that corporations are not persons entitled to constitutional rights. It is equal parts sad and absurd that this needs to be spelled out, but such is the case. That would roll back the Super PAC chicanery that has proliferated since 2010.
But the naked corruption that has sprouted up in the past few years could only take root because our electoral process itself is rotten. Campaigns themselves have gotten out of hand. Inordinate amounts of time and money are spent on each election cycle, with the effect of corroding the democratic spirit among our citizens. Cynicism and fatigue at the constant campaigning causes people to lose interest. Our voter turnout rate consistently ranks among the lowest of all industrialized nations. How can our elected representatives carry out the will of the people under such circumstances? As a result, only the shouting is heard because only the shouters have the stamina to stay tuned in.
It is imperative that we limit both the time and money spent on campaigning as the two are inextricably linked. Shorten the campaign season and the candidates will require less money to campaign. Then, rather than having politicians solicit the moneyed class for donations, establish a campaigns treasury that all candidates can draw from. The benefits from drastically reducing the length and price of campaigning would be manifold. The rich could less easily buy elections and contests could be reasonably followed and digested by the electorate. With candidates no longer beholden to special interests for funds and the elimination of incessant electioneering, despair with democracy would lessen and engagement would rise. No longer would the ideologically-driven hold so much sway. The conversation could change.
We’ve got to make voting easier, not harder, and modernize it for the way we live now.
In 1845, Congress set Election Day to its current status: the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Why? According to Wikipedia, “In 1845, the United States was largely an agrarian society. Farmers often needed a full day to travel by horse-drawn vehicles to the county seat to vote. Tuesday was established as election day because it did not interfere with the Biblical Sabbath or with market day, which was on Wednesday in many towns.” In essence, we created an Election Day that accommodated the norms of the times.
But those norms no longer hold true. America is mostly suburban and urban. Tuesday is in the heart of the workweek. Travel to and from a polling station does not take all day. It only makes sense to make a change and accommodate the norms of our times.
The first possibility is to make Election Day a holiday. Free from the obligations of work, citizens would have greater opportunity to make use of their vote. But, as a society, we value commerce more than democracy. We did in 1845 and we do now. I don’t see us sacrificing any potential profits or productivity, no matter how many jeremiads are written on the subject. Instead, let us opt for this alternative: institute an election weekend. Move Election Day from the anointed Tuesday to the first weekend in November. Citizens will then have two full days at their disposal in which to vote. This removes obstacles for the 9–5 worker and the parent swamped with caretaking duties. Barring an instance of nightmarish scheduling, wage workers should be able to find a block of time during the weekend to cast their ballots. And with polls open for two days, the shamefully long lines, lines that snake around elementary schools and churches, demanding hours of wait time many citizens cannot spare, will be severely diminished.
Voting is the most basic act of citizenship and yet our insistence on abiding by a schedule created for 19th century farmers hinders many of our fellow citizens from taking part in this act. It defies reason to keep the status quo.
And, like the previously mentioned items, our treatment of Election Day contributes to the disproportionate sway tribalism has on our politics. More voters means candidates must appeal to a broader swathe of society — no longer could elections be won by simply rallying the most zealous among us. This reform would serve as a moderating influence on our discourse, providing us with leaders inclined to govern in the name of as many citizens as possible.
These three factors have been acting in concert for years, breeding animosity and sowing disunity. And they obscure a simple truth: we are all in this together. Refusal to recognize this is unacceptable. Without a collaborative civic spirit animating our political debates, the ties that bind us weaken. Strand by strand, our commitment to each other and our belief in this unified political entity known as the United States will continue to fray. Then, one day, our nation, like so many before us, will be torn asunder.
