The Point of Democracy

Several years before the USSR finally collapsed, a group of Americans representing a key industry traveled to Moscow to share our technology with their Soviet counterparts. The industry was the manufacture of women's underwear. What our folks found out about the Soviet industry was amusing, at least if you enjoy drinking like a Russian and then leaving like an American. Soviet brassieres were stiff, had the texture of number 40 sand paper, and came in exactly two sizes. How many of each size seems to have been determined by lottery.

Why was the American industry so much more effective in meeting the needs of women than the Soviet industry? Elementary, my dear Watson. The American system included a feedback loop between consumers and producers. Changes in consumer preference force changes in production. No such feedback loop existed in the Soviet system. The managers had no way to know how well they were meeting the needs of consumers, let alone any reason why they had to ask. What was true of the differences between American and Soviet industries was true as well of the difference between their governments.

For that reason, I am less than impressed with Steve Chapman's complaint about American voters in Reason.

In fact, many won't learn the most rudimentary facts about the people running for office and the policy issues they will have to address. Some of us will jump to believe any half-baked rumor or stereotype that confirms our prejudices.

We'll vote to reward or punish incumbents for events that they have nothing to do with. Some voters won't even find out the names of the people running for many offices. In short, the citizenry as a whole will carry out what looks like a giant cartoon parody of democracy. Our form of government is one of those inventions that often look much better in concept than in practice…

This knowledge void is hard to square with our belief in democracy -- which relies on ordinary people to 1) figure out what the government should do and 2) elect candidates who will implement their preferences.

This is a perennial complaint, and it is true enough that many voters are not well informed. A poll run by Zogby shortly after the 2008 election found that more than half of Obama voters did not know which party controlled both houses of Congress. Chapman, however, almost misses both the point and the necessity for representative institutions.

Their depressing failure is enough to raise doubts about the validity of government by the people. Of course, the founders of the American republic had plenty of those doubts. That's why they built in checks on popular control, particularly restrictions on who may participate in elections.

I say "almost" because he goes on to add this:

Even an ill-informed electorate will fare better if it has a role in choosing its leaders -- just as patients gain from being allowed to choose their doctors, despite not having been to medical school.

That is indeed the point. It is true that many states at the time of the founding had property qualifications for voting. This was not, however, because the propertied were better informed; it was because they were thought to have more of a stake.

You don't have to know anything about the executives who run Fruit of the Loom to know whether your boxers are comfortable. You don't have to know anything about Steve Jobs to know whether you like your lap top. You don't need to know much at all about the President or Congress to know when they are sinking the ship of state.

I am all for better informed voters. Efforts to educate the electorate are one way of recognizing the dignity of individual citizens. It may well increase their attachment to liberal institutions. The basic function of democracy is something else. It is to make sure that the producers of policy cannot ignore the needs of the citizen consumers.

Public confidence in American institutions has sharply declined over the last decade. The same thing is happening in Europe. This isn't because the voters are ignorant about the shrewd policies of their betters. It is because they can damn well tell when the crew is running the ship aground.

Comments

[Bill Fleming]

New on my reading List. "Power, Inc." by David Rothkopf. We seem more and more inclined to ignore the warnings of the forefathers that too much concentration of power in the hands of too few people will lead to the undoing of our democracy. Now... were they talking about corporations? Or government? I'm starting to think it might be kind of a "rock-paper-scissors" game. But this reviewer seems to think the game has already been won. By the corporations.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roy-ulrich/david-rothkopf-power-inc_b_1389955.html

[larry kurtz]

No time like the present to convene a constitutional convention:

http://interested-party.blogspot.com/2012/04/krcc-is-radio-colorado-college-one-of.html

[Donald Pay]

I'm more than a bit skeptical of the chart you show. What you've got in 2002 are government institutions riding the wave of post-911 unity. That presents an artifical high. Over a greater time span the numbers for the Presidency fluctuate with the public's perception of foreign and domestic affairs. The big hit in the Presidential numbers comes right after Bush was reelected in 2004. It went up when Obama was elected and has eroded as jobs didn't return. Numbers for Congress are usually lower than the Presidency, and have been eroding since the 70s. The numbers for religion in your chart don't account for a large drop that occurred as religion became more politically focused in the late 70s.

I think the skepticism about institutions, particularly large ones, is healthy in a democracy. It's a sign that people are paying attention.

[Stan Gibilisco]

Donald says:

"The big hit in the Presidential numbers comes right after Bush was reelected in 2004. It went up when Obama was elected and has eroded as jobs didn't return."

+ How do you know that? The chart tells us nothing about the timing.

"I think the skepticism about institutions, particularly large ones, is healthy in a democracy. It's a sign that people are paying attention."

+ I agree completely. That, in part, is driving me ever closer to the Libertarian Party. But before they win me over altogether, the LP must learn that large private, as well as public, institutions can abuse their power.

[Donald Pay]

I checked the historic data at Gallup. Anytime there are data points skipped you can never be sure that the trend you're seeing is real. In the case presented above, it's just not a fair reflection of the Gallup polling over the years.

[Stan Gibilisco]

You know, Donald, I first began to get really scared of the Bush Administration's attitude right around the time you say -- maybe 2004 to 2006. He seemed bent on the idea of privatizing Social Security, putting more and more of a stake into the stock market. Can you imagine what would have happened had he gotten his way? (I'll bet you can!)

I am 58 years old. I am right in the middle of the Baby Boomer generation. When I reach age 65 to 70, I'll be riding the crest of a gigantic wave of fellow baby-boomers. Whoever thinks we're just going to quietly lay down and die has another thing coming.

Unfortunately, I suspect that the politicians will keep putting off the time of reckoning until things get so bad, or until they can convince the American people that things have gotten so bad, that a majority will accept a brand new value-added tax (VAT) as the "least bad alternative" to "solve the problem." That will put the greatest burden on the poor (working or not!) because it will in effect tax them at the highest percentage of disposable income.

I have a funny feeling that more than a few politicians know all this, and they really want that VAT. Then when they get it, they'll somehow forget that it was supposed to save Social Security and Medicare; they'll just toss it into the general fund and we'll have an even worse oligarchy than we have now. And, just as giving an alcoholic the keys to the liquor store might temporarily relieve the withdrawal symptoms, in the end it will only kill the patient faster.

Makes me pine for the Clinton years when, as Garrison Keillor said, "we had a surplus and everybody liked us." An oversimplification, maybe, but what a line for Hillary to use in 2016!