The Senate's Lesson About Democracy

by: David Sirota, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

David Sirota | The Senate's Lesson About Democracy
Facing a tough primary race, Sen. Michael Bennet is leaving his lethargy behind and mounting a push to use reconciliation to pass a public option for health care. (Photo: Mike Kindig / Colorado Labor Advocate)

When you look past the craziness, chaos and confusion of politics these days, you still find roughly two major schools of thought that aim to explain What's Fundamentally Wrong.

The first says America is paralyzed by a political system that is too democratic -- too responsive to citizens' whims. This is the religion of almost everyone in the permanent Washington elite, regardless of party. Its canon mixing paeans to noblesse oblige with shrill authoritarianism is most clearly articulated by high priests like The Washington Post's David Broder and The New York Times' Tom Friedman. The former has said democracy threatens to make "official Washington altogether too responsive to public opinion"; the latter dreams of Chinese-style dictatorship.

"One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages," Friedman recently gushed, adding that the chief "advantage" is the ability of despots to "just impose" policies at the barrel of a gun.

By contrast, most people living outside of Washington (i.e., the Rest of Us) see America harmed by a political system that is too undemocratic -- too controlled by moneyed interests, unaccountable lawmakers and a servile press. An organizer friend of mine sums up this view by saying, "The best kind of politician is a nervous politician" -- and the trouble is that gerrymandering, extended terms, incumbent fundraising advantages, obsequious media coverage, lame duck-ness and other travesties make sure few politicians are ever nervous about keeping their jobs.

Over the course of history, neither side of this divide has had a full monopoly on truth. But recent moves by three senators teach that, at least at this moment, the Rest of Us are more accurately diagnosing the root problem than our Beltway adversaries.

What, for instance, is Sen. Jim Bunning but the personification of unaccountability's downsides? The Kentucky Republican announced in July that he is not seeking re-election. Thus shielded from democratic pressure, he felt free to let his conservative extremism fly with an outrageous attempt this week to block unemployment benefits for thousands of jobless Americans.

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd is Bunning's Democratic analogue. When he was originally planning to face voters in 2010, he was motivated to represent voters' support for stronger financial regulations. For instance, he promised to use his Banking Committee chairmanship to pass a bill constructing a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) -- one independent of the Federal Reserve, which he rightly said "failed for over 14 years to put an end to the predatory mortgage lending practices that led to the financial crisis."

Now, however, Dodd has opted not to run for re-election -- and guess what? He's started working with lobbyists to make sure any CFPA is run by the Fed.

The converse of Dodd and Bunning is Michael Bennet, who embodies the same axiom -- but in the opposite way. Confronting an increasingly aggressive Democratic primary challenge from former state legislator Andrew Romanoff, the Colorado senator is suddenly shaking off his backbench lethargy. Last week, he released a letter endorsing the use of majority rules ("reconciliation") to create a much-needed government-run health insurer that will compete with private insurance monopolies. Polls in Colorado and nationally show his initiative is wildly popular -- and since he needs voters' support to retain his Senate seat, he is reinvigorating this critical fight.

Bennet is nervous; Bunning and Dodd are not. The one facing democracy is serving the public interest; the two insulated from democracy are serving their own interests. In government today, the election-related trepidation and legislative responsiveness is the exception, the insulation and indifference the norm.

If you want to understand What's Fundamentally Wrong, here endeth the lesson.

David Sirota is the author of the best-selling books "Hostile Takeover" and "The Uprising." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado and blogs at OpenLeft.com. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com or follow him on Twitter @davidsirota.

Copyright 2010 Creators.com

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.





     

»




Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



Smashing the wrong

Smashing the wrong (E)State.

Looks like the Fourth Estate got smashed,
democracy crashed out, and the corporations
cashed in.



And y'all (Sirota, included)

And y'all (Sirota, included) must remember; it is We, the People who remain sovereign of Constitution, Country and our Posterity.



yes and today's lesson is

yes and today's lesson is there are only ever 2 major sides to any issue. go team. after 30 yrs of watching them run these plays you'd think someone would finally realize the obvious. $$$ in general and special interest $$$ in particular have completely made democracy, 'democracy'. after all its such nice packaging.



Democracy is what must unite

Democracy is what must unite our various interests as Lakoff has also noted. Corporations have corrupted most politicians thoroughly.
It would be great to see hacks like broder, freidman and the idiot george will go, and be replaced by Sirota and others



I just always have the same

I just always have the same thought, recurring for years and years: if pols think our government is too bit, that "big gov. is not the answer" -- why in the world do they ever run for office in the first place? Either you think that government can (not nec. will) do some good for the real world or you don't.



This highlights the inherent

This highlights the inherent problem with "representative" Democracy. It failed the Romans and with little improvement, it is failing America.

More accountability through votes of confidence.

More attention to explaining to the American people why a policy is better for them, not for the special interests.

More public referendums utilizing today's technology to make voting easier and more accessible with severe penalties for tampering.

And another interesting option is explained in Ernst Callenbach's "A Citizen Democracy", where the House of Representatives is just that, a group of citizen representatives selected in the same manner as jurors to offset the Senate "elite".



It is all the more strange,

It is all the more strange, then, that the media is reporting that Democrats seeking re-election this year are nervous about passing any health care bill at all. That never made sense to me, because the polls show people are for a public option.

The only explanation I can think of is that those Democrats are believing the lies from the Republicans, who are saying most people are against health care reform. Can they really be that stupid? Or is there some other reason, like fearing the insurance companies will put out ads against them? And it that's the real reason, why doesn't the media report it that way? I think we all know why - the media is afraid of losing ad revenue from the same corporations. What a racket!



Excuse me, I recognize no

Excuse me, I recognize no rulers. Government or corporate. It is clearly time to initiate our sovereign rite to replace these blustery folk. They serve us, not themselves. One way to accomplish a clearing out of dust bunnies is to spray them with reduced income. Gods are made through wealth, we already have One and need no more thank you.



Americonned, You may not

Americonned,
You may not recognize any rulers, but you had better hope that they do not recognize you! With video cameras everywhere, what do you think the chances are that they don't? Exactly how do you intend to "spray them with reduced income"? I am looking forward to hearing about it.



Excuse me but why does it

Excuse me but why does it have to be one or the other? It seems to me like both are at work destroying the ability of the country to govern itself.



borisjimbo: Ask yourself

borisjimbo: Ask yourself the Grail Question (the one Galahad failed to ask, which made the Castle of the Fisher King disappear): "Whom Does the Grail Serve?"