Voters Are Not Victims
I think it is a mistake to portray voters, Republican or Democratic, as victims of politicians. There seems to be a hesitance, for example, to blame Bush II's failures on the people who voted for him. They're just regular Americans, after all, and they're suffering the same as the rest of us.
I think this is a mistake. People who voted for Republicans are regular Americans, and they are suffering, but that doesn't change the fact that they are getting what they voted for. Whether they voted for Bush out of fear, ignorance, apathy, or hatred, they are grownups and they're responsible for their actions. What is happening now is the fault of people who voted for Republicans. It is not the fault of people who voted for Democrats, with the possible exception of people who voted for frauds like Ben Nelson.
We can't move forward effectively as a nation if we don't expect people to take responsibility for their own democracy. Despite the Republicans' best efforts, we still have some kind of a democracy. In a democracy, the voters get what they want one way or another. It's true that there are structural problems with our government -- the electoral college, the senate -- but even those things would no longer exist if the people had demanded those changes. Politicians are people we hire to do a job. If we are stupid or short-sighted in our hiring practices, then we're responsible for the screwup just the same as if your boss carelessly or intentionally hired an incompetent to work with you.
This voter-as-victim mentality also negatively affects our rhetoric and our tactics. How can we fight if we can't identify the enemy? We're not fighting with, or for, people who voted for John Kyl or Jim DeMint. We are fighting against them. They are part of the opposition as surely as any Republican elected official. The mainstream media bear some responsibility as well, but anyone with roughly average intelligence and any interest can find out what is really going on. I do not believe that people are helpless before the mightly power of the local paper and the 11:00 news. They can look and think, if they want to. It's not Chris Matthew's fault if people want to be ignorant, stupid, or crazy and vote on that basis.
A democracy is not a commune. There are winners and losers. There are correct decisions and incorrect decisions. The difference between us and them is that when liberals and Democrats win, everyone benefits. When conservatives and Republicans win, everyone suffers. But that doesn't absolve of responsibility the people who voted for their own suffering.
I think this is a mistake. People who voted for Republicans are regular Americans, and they are suffering, but that doesn't change the fact that they are getting what they voted for. Whether they voted for Bush out of fear, ignorance, apathy, or hatred, they are grownups and they're responsible for their actions. What is happening now is the fault of people who voted for Republicans. It is not the fault of people who voted for Democrats, with the possible exception of people who voted for frauds like Ben Nelson.
We can't move forward effectively as a nation if we don't expect people to take responsibility for their own democracy. Despite the Republicans' best efforts, we still have some kind of a democracy. In a democracy, the voters get what they want one way or another. It's true that there are structural problems with our government -- the electoral college, the senate -- but even those things would no longer exist if the people had demanded those changes. Politicians are people we hire to do a job. If we are stupid or short-sighted in our hiring practices, then we're responsible for the screwup just the same as if your boss carelessly or intentionally hired an incompetent to work with you.
This voter-as-victim mentality also negatively affects our rhetoric and our tactics. How can we fight if we can't identify the enemy? We're not fighting with, or for, people who voted for John Kyl or Jim DeMint. We are fighting against them. They are part of the opposition as surely as any Republican elected official. The mainstream media bear some responsibility as well, but anyone with roughly average intelligence and any interest can find out what is really going on. I do not believe that people are helpless before the mightly power of the local paper and the 11:00 news. They can look and think, if they want to. It's not Chris Matthew's fault if people want to be ignorant, stupid, or crazy and vote on that basis.
A democracy is not a commune. There are winners and losers. There are correct decisions and incorrect decisions. The difference between us and them is that when liberals and Democrats win, everyone benefits. When conservatives and Republicans win, everyone suffers. But that doesn't absolve of responsibility the people who voted for their own suffering.
Advertisement
I really agree with your point that American voters must take responsibility for the what is delivered to them by those they vote into office and if positive changes are not made, voters must act accordingly.
I'd like to agree when you say that "when liberals and Democrats win, everyone benefits." I'm not sure what you are basing that on. Maybe history or the short term effects of Clinton's policies while he was in office. But before putting too much confidence in any party, I think we should consider that the Democrats in Congress are not victims, either.
Bush could not have compromised our liberties and lied us into a war without enough in Congress (both parties) facilitating it, or standing idly by. If you put rhetoric aside and look only at actions and results, how different are the parties today? For example, have President Obama and the Democrats addressed the illegal collection of phone, e-mail, fax and credit card data of all Americans? (recently explained by Tice on Keith Olbermann's show) Is that still happening? And why do the same interests donate to both parties? Are they just throwing their money down the drain when it comes to Democrats?
Both parties in Congress had no problem finding enough votes when it came to using our tax money for unnecessary wars and rushed bailouts for banks and big investors. The very same actors just never seem able to agree when it comes to delivering anything so substantial that would benefit the majority of the taxpayers. The voters came out overwhelmingly against the bailout in unprecedented numbers, but both parties immediately passed that secretive giveaway. And after the stimulus is decided (which appears to direct at least some of the taxpayers own money toward helping to rescuing them from failed government policies) another bailout of a trillion or more is coming down the pike right behind it.
So I agree with you that the voters need to take responsibility for this Democracy. And I would add that to do that effectively, voters must live in the present, look only to verifiable facts and tangible results, and dismiss all excuses, theater and rhetoric.
February 6, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, Miami Herald, Sarasota Herald Tribune, Sacramento Bee, The Tennessean, Fayetteville Observer, Anderson Herald Bulletin, Wichita Falls Times, The Columbian, and other newspapers. The bill has been endorsed by Common Cause, Fair Vote, and numerous other organizations.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in Arkansas (80%), California (70%), Colorado (68%), Connecticut (73%), Delaware (75%), Kentucky (80%), Maine (71%), Massachusetts (73%), Michigan (73%), Mississippi (77%), Missouri (70%), New Hampshire (69%), Nebraska (74%), Nevada (72%), New Mexico (76%), New York (79%), North Carolina (74%), Ohio (70%), Pennsylvania (78%), Rhode Island (74%), Vermont (75%), Virginia (74%), Washington (77%), and Wisconsin (71%).
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
February 8, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink