Is “Democracy” under Threat in America?

Claims of threats to “democracy” have a long history in American political rhetoric, and in some cases the peril has been very real.  Disturbing trends in the near past as well as recent revelations about machinations made possible by social media raise the probability that American democracy is again under assault.

The term “democracy” is widely used in today’s world, but it is often misunderstood if not deliberately misused.  The standard dictionary definition is woefully brief and vague: “government by the whole population, usually through elected representatives.”

Generally speaking, Americans always have assumed our political system to be democratic with potential threats being marginal or inconsequential.  Only when judging the veracity of a foreign government’s status as a democracy have American considered the issue seriously, and usually holding elections with a modicum of violence has been sufficient. 

But obviously some of the world’s most notorious tyrants have staged periodic “elections” to disguise despotism.  Vladimir Putin’s March 18 re-election for his fourth term as Russia’s president is a prime example, although he did show more restraint than Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.  Putin claimed 77% of the vote, the Egyptian military bully only 97% in his April 2 charade.

Clearly, in order for the democratic process to be valid, it should involve more than simply having people mark a ballot.  People should participate in the election process in a meaningful manner with the real possibility of influencing the outcome and without fear of retribution if they make the “wrong” choice. 

Essential to this kind of citizen participation is access to independent organizations, such as political parties, union, professional associations and other interest-related groups, through which the public can make their concerns and needs known to political leaders.  As well, in a democracy the rule of law must prevail and certain basic human rights recognized--- freedom of speech and press, access to the essentials of life---food, shelter, healthcare, education and the opportunity to earn a decent income.

Finally, the sustainability of any democracy requires the existence among the citizenry a level of trust and respect that allows the losers in an election to accept the results when unfavorable and requires the winners to exercise a degree of restraint in their victory celebration.   Countless revolutions for freedom and independence have crashed and burned when participants could not recognize a common interest once the struggle itself ended.

Has the American experiment reached this nadir in 2018.

“Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable; that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”

Those words do not come from the latest editions of the New York Times, the Charlotte Observer or the Columbia State.  They were written by James Madison in The Federalist Papers #10, part of the campaign to achieve ratification of the newly drafted US Constitution.

They do resonant in 2018, however, and for some of the same reasons they rang true in 1787.

Today’s circumstances to some extent are rooted in developments that began with the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War.  In the case of the movement, the fact that our traditional political structures were not being responsive and change only occurred after massive civil disobedience raised questions about the capacity of our governmental institutions.  In the case of Vietnam, at great cost Americans discovered the information they received from their government regarding that conflict was either flawed or deliberately misleading.  In either case, it was another blow to the public’s confidence in their government.

Another significant development has been the mammoth growth in lobbying efforts by both profit-oriented groups and ideologically focused think tanks.  Lobbyists in Washington, DC  number 12,000 to 14,000, having doubled since 1981.  An estimated $3.5 billion are spent annually with roughly 70% of lobbying funds spent on behalf of groups representing business interests.

State and local governments have not been ignored.  The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) was created in 1975 as a 501©3 nonprofit.  It describes itself as a “nonpartisan, voluntary membership organization of state legislators.”  However, the IRS Form 990 it filed in 2016 indicated fundraising expenditures of over $500,000 dollars.  It has championed tax and expenditure limitations (TELs) for state governments and attacked public pensions as unsustainable.

It is not that lobbying in and of itself is inappropriate, but when lobbying organizations controlled by special interests are so numerous and so richly financed, they overwhelm the resources and authority of our traditional political parties or co-opt these institutions.  Neither major party seems capable of dealing with this challenge, consequentially, our individual elected representatives seem more beholden to the lobbyists than to their party or their constituents.

Also, the power of lobbyists usually is applied in pursuit of the interest of a single industry, company or cause, not in promotion of the general public interest.  This heightens political divisions and intensifies conflict instead of facilitating reconciliation.

In recent months we have learned about another sinister threat to American democracy---social media.  Allowed to develop with little government oversight, social media in this country has been virtually unregulated and motivated primarily by the profit motive. Personal data collected and marketed to advertisers has also been made available to organizations supporting political purposes or candidates.  Although voters have always been subject to pandering by ambitious, and sometimes insincere, politicians, social media sites like Facebook are so ubiquitous and beguiling the seduction has been almost totally unnoticed.        

 

That has now changed to a significant degree, but the fortunes accumulated by social media giants---Facebook is a $400 billion company---are likely to bankroll Herculean efforts to blunt regulation.  Last year Facebook spent $11.5 million lobbying the national government alone. Only continued public attention can insure some possibility that the industry will be reined in.