I want to talk a bit about the Electoral College, and why our Founding Fathers created it in the first place. The wikipedia page has a great breakdown on some of the topics/issues/questions, to include
The comments about fears of 'intrigue' if the president was chosen by a small group of men, the worries about a party-run legislature, or influence by foreign interests...they're all rather interesting given where we are today. How justified were those fears, in hindsight?
But the one I wanted to dwell most on today was James Madison, who worried that citizens could be united by some "common impulse of passion" that was adverse to the rights of other citizens.
Mostly because he captured the tension and dissonance in our Founding Fathers towards creating a democracy. On the one hand, there's the entire concept of a social contract and the belief that people should have a say in their government. On the other hand, there's this fear that democracy could degenerate into a "tyranny of the masses". This, honestly, is what I think about whenever I see some internet mob raised in anger. Most of the time I sympathize. I understand why everyone is so upset. But there is something disturbing, almost chilling, about seeing a mass of people decide to take justice into their own hands and punish someone else. Who decides when someone has been punished enough? How do you even know how much punishment the recipient has received? Where was the trial, the evidence? There's a reason why cases are tried in court...and not the court of public opinion.
It's easy to talk about protecting minority rights when it means protecting the ones we now accept as deserving. People who have been persecuted for the color of their skin, or religion, or sexuality. It's not so easy to talk about it when it's most important, i.e. when the group needing protection is unpopular and disliked. Back before it became acceptable to speak out on behalf of minorities. You don't get to pick and choose who you decide is worthy of free speech, because then it's no longer about the principle of the thing...it's now about who you agree with and who you don't. (That said, there are ways to allow people to speak their mind...and make it clear that you disagree with them. And I personally do hope the voices of disagreement are louder on certain topics. I think the real question is "what's the difference between honestly voicing your opinion, vs bullying someone into submission for holding a different one?")
Anyways. Our Founders wanted democracy. But not too much democracy.
And that dissonance is still here today. Heck, that dissonance is true for me, as an individual, aside from the larger public.
Frame the issue this way: There is a social contract between government and the governed, and that the consent of the governed is critical for having a legitimate government (and stable society.) Democracy makes that consent legible, and renews it on a regular basis. The ability to have your say, to tell your government what issues you care about (and have those issues addressed) helps prevent the government from becoming unresponsive to the will of the people. It prevents that government from turning away from their duty as stewards to the public, prevents that government from deciding that their interests are more important...and backing that up with force. Democracy means that government cannot grow brittle and inflexible, since any such government will be voted out of office and a more responsive person will be placed in charge. It helps prevent stagnation and decay, and reduces the rot that seems almost inevitable.
As such, democracy is important. Giving the people a say is important. And all the problems I touched on previously - gerrymandering, voter registration, money, etc, are serious problems. Too many people no longer feel like their say matters, the government no longer represents our interests. And, as such, it risks losing it's legitimacy.
Frame it another way, though, and you will question all of that. After all, how many people still believe Elvis is alive? Or that 9/11 was an inside job?
People are crazy, man! You'd have to be nuts to leave something as important as governing up to them.
Especially if you're educated, and you follow the issues, and you know what's what...and then you see people voting for things that are just so...so...*sputter in incoherent rage*. (You know that's what happens. You've seen it on social media, if you haven't felt it yourself. Remember these thoughts. We'll come back to it later.)
And yet even though there are a LOT of people who can't tell you the difference between Sikh and Muslim - or accurately place Syria on a map - we do tend to act wiser than the sum of our parts.
I think Malcolm Gladwell explained the dynamics rather well in his book The Tipping Point. You've got your political junkies, your news junkies, the people who pay attention to this stuff. And they have friends and family. You have those Thanksgiving dinner discussions (*groan* I have to talk to them?!? They're so ______! Liberal, conservative, take your pick.) You have Christmas. You get in an argument over the phone. Maybe you see an argument on the internet that actually persuades you. Not the flame wars and trolls, of course. *eye roll*. But something thoughtful, well thought out, and it makes you see things in a new light.
Picture a 'typical' person with a full time job and a family. Wake up, and they have to make breakfast and get the kids to school. Then it's off to work. Work, work work. Time to pick up the kids from school. Make dinner. Get the kids ready for bed. And maybe you have to set aside time to help your kid with homework, or run out to the store to get poster board for some project they forgot about until the last minute. Or they participate in a sport, or band, and you have to get them to practice or a concert or a play.
That's your typical day. It's hectic and rushed, and when you get a few minutes to spare you're scrolling through facebook or checking your e-mail. You might sit down to watch the evening news, and then relax with Game of Thrones (or the television show of your choice). Or read a book, or play cards. Whatever.
Point is, that day you might have spent a half hour or less following politics. And some of it will come from the facebook posts of your more political friends. You don't have time to go cross checking and digging deeper into the issues - that's what reporters are for. So you go to the news source of your choice (CNN, Fox News, whatever)...and you see what your more political friends post. You may not do all the fact checking yourself, but if your friend is doing that (or is friends with someone else who is doing that) then the result may not be too far off.
So now I've come full circle around to trusting democracy again. There are concerns about how effective this is (especially in the age of fake news), but again you need 'experts' who help sort out what's real and what it isn't...and over time the more credible ones gain sway.
Ideally. It's not as perfect as I make it sound, and it can take time for the facts to catch up with the story.
Now is where I want you to recall the thoughts/feelings I mentioned above. The frustration of seeing masses of people support or agree with things that just plain wrong.
Because the natural urge, if you don't watch out, is to start thinking you know better than everyone else. And that you're justified in doing what's best for them. Even if it means fudging the appearance of a rally so that it looks like someone has more support than they really do.
Or clearing the path for a candidate of your choice, even if they are disliked by a large portion of Americans. (And if that candidate loses, it just reinforces the idea that the masses are too stupid - or sexist, or racist - for democracy. After all, if they had any brains your candidate would have won.)
...fears of "intrigue" if the president were chosen by a small group of men who met together regularly, as well as concerns for the independence of the president if he were elected by the Congress.Alexander Hamilton argued that -
The electors come directly from the people and them alone for that purpose only, and for that time only. This avoided a party-run legislature, or a permanent body that could be influenced by foreign interests before each election. Hamilton explained the election was to take place among all the states, so no corruption in any state could taint "the great body of the people" in their selection.And James Madison argued -
against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." What was then called republican government (i.e., federalism, as opposed to direct democracy), with its varied distribution of voter rights and powers, would countervail against factions.
The comments about fears of 'intrigue' if the president was chosen by a small group of men, the worries about a party-run legislature, or influence by foreign interests...they're all rather interesting given where we are today. How justified were those fears, in hindsight?
But the one I wanted to dwell most on today was James Madison, who worried that citizens could be united by some "common impulse of passion" that was adverse to the rights of other citizens.
Mostly because he captured the tension and dissonance in our Founding Fathers towards creating a democracy. On the one hand, there's the entire concept of a social contract and the belief that people should have a say in their government. On the other hand, there's this fear that democracy could degenerate into a "tyranny of the masses". This, honestly, is what I think about whenever I see some internet mob raised in anger. Most of the time I sympathize. I understand why everyone is so upset. But there is something disturbing, almost chilling, about seeing a mass of people decide to take justice into their own hands and punish someone else. Who decides when someone has been punished enough? How do you even know how much punishment the recipient has received? Where was the trial, the evidence? There's a reason why cases are tried in court...and not the court of public opinion.
It's easy to talk about protecting minority rights when it means protecting the ones we now accept as deserving. People who have been persecuted for the color of their skin, or religion, or sexuality. It's not so easy to talk about it when it's most important, i.e. when the group needing protection is unpopular and disliked. Back before it became acceptable to speak out on behalf of minorities. You don't get to pick and choose who you decide is worthy of free speech, because then it's no longer about the principle of the thing...it's now about who you agree with and who you don't. (That said, there are ways to allow people to speak their mind...and make it clear that you disagree with them. And I personally do hope the voices of disagreement are louder on certain topics. I think the real question is "what's the difference between honestly voicing your opinion, vs bullying someone into submission for holding a different one?")
Anyways. Our Founders wanted democracy. But not too much democracy.
And that dissonance is still here today. Heck, that dissonance is true for me, as an individual, aside from the larger public.
Frame the issue this way: There is a social contract between government and the governed, and that the consent of the governed is critical for having a legitimate government (and stable society.) Democracy makes that consent legible, and renews it on a regular basis. The ability to have your say, to tell your government what issues you care about (and have those issues addressed) helps prevent the government from becoming unresponsive to the will of the people. It prevents that government from turning away from their duty as stewards to the public, prevents that government from deciding that their interests are more important...and backing that up with force. Democracy means that government cannot grow brittle and inflexible, since any such government will be voted out of office and a more responsive person will be placed in charge. It helps prevent stagnation and decay, and reduces the rot that seems almost inevitable.
As such, democracy is important. Giving the people a say is important. And all the problems I touched on previously - gerrymandering, voter registration, money, etc, are serious problems. Too many people no longer feel like their say matters, the government no longer represents our interests. And, as such, it risks losing it's legitimacy.
Frame it another way, though, and you will question all of that. After all, how many people still believe Elvis is alive? Or that 9/11 was an inside job?
People are crazy, man! You'd have to be nuts to leave something as important as governing up to them.
Especially if you're educated, and you follow the issues, and you know what's what...and then you see people voting for things that are just so...so...*sputter in incoherent rage*. (You know that's what happens. You've seen it on social media, if you haven't felt it yourself. Remember these thoughts. We'll come back to it later.)
And yet even though there are a LOT of people who can't tell you the difference between Sikh and Muslim - or accurately place Syria on a map - we do tend to act wiser than the sum of our parts.
I think Malcolm Gladwell explained the dynamics rather well in his book The Tipping Point. You've got your political junkies, your news junkies, the people who pay attention to this stuff. And they have friends and family. You have those Thanksgiving dinner discussions (*groan* I have to talk to them?!? They're so ______! Liberal, conservative, take your pick.) You have Christmas. You get in an argument over the phone. Maybe you see an argument on the internet that actually persuades you. Not the flame wars and trolls, of course. *eye roll*. But something thoughtful, well thought out, and it makes you see things in a new light.
Picture a 'typical' person with a full time job and a family. Wake up, and they have to make breakfast and get the kids to school. Then it's off to work. Work, work work. Time to pick up the kids from school. Make dinner. Get the kids ready for bed. And maybe you have to set aside time to help your kid with homework, or run out to the store to get poster board for some project they forgot about until the last minute. Or they participate in a sport, or band, and you have to get them to practice or a concert or a play.
That's your typical day. It's hectic and rushed, and when you get a few minutes to spare you're scrolling through facebook or checking your e-mail. You might sit down to watch the evening news, and then relax with Game of Thrones (or the television show of your choice). Or read a book, or play cards. Whatever.
Point is, that day you might have spent a half hour or less following politics. And some of it will come from the facebook posts of your more political friends. You don't have time to go cross checking and digging deeper into the issues - that's what reporters are for. So you go to the news source of your choice (CNN, Fox News, whatever)...and you see what your more political friends post. You may not do all the fact checking yourself, but if your friend is doing that (or is friends with someone else who is doing that) then the result may not be too far off.
So now I've come full circle around to trusting democracy again. There are concerns about how effective this is (especially in the age of fake news), but again you need 'experts' who help sort out what's real and what it isn't...and over time the more credible ones gain sway.
Ideally. It's not as perfect as I make it sound, and it can take time for the facts to catch up with the story.
Now is where I want you to recall the thoughts/feelings I mentioned above. The frustration of seeing masses of people support or agree with things that just plain wrong.
Because the natural urge, if you don't watch out, is to start thinking you know better than everyone else. And that you're justified in doing what's best for them. Even if it means fudging the appearance of a rally so that it looks like someone has more support than they really do.
Or clearing the path for a candidate of your choice, even if they are disliked by a large portion of Americans. (And if that candidate loses, it just reinforces the idea that the masses are too stupid - or sexist, or racist - for democracy. After all, if they had any brains your candidate would have won.)
No comments:
Post a Comment