Representative Democracy and Civic Responsibilities
©2004 By Arlene K. Golden
It cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals-that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government, that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government.
--Ayn Rand
I believe that the strengths of representative government lie in its practicality. In a nation the size of the United States, there is simply no reasonable way possible for the people to govern themselves directly. It is essential that as a whole, they elect someone to represent their interests. The structure of our government contains the best of systems. To support and maintain the positive forces this type of government and keep it from deteriorating into a tyranny requires citizen involvement and action.
That said, in actual practice, representative government often fails to live up to its promises. There is a statement in the Traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous, “principles before personalities.” This is true also of our government. Our principles are good. As people, we are flawed. Over the course of our nation’s history, we have progressed toward increasing civil rights and greater opportunities for ever increasing numbers of people. As technology has improved and scientific advancement has increased, our whole world should be moving toward ever increasing standards of living for its occupants.
Our governmental leadership is ideally a group of people chosen because they possess high moral standards, will exercise fair and reasonable judgment and not place personal interests ahead of those they have been chosen to represent. They will be guided by what is best for the whole, recognizing the social needs that require the weak to be protected from the predatory stronger members. This idea that the weaker need protecting is supported by the Lockean idea that man, left to his own device, will overpower the weaker for his own good, and that to protect his own interests, he finds it to his advantage to give up some of his benefits in exchange for some protections.
We must also remember that when our founding fathers wrote our constitution, many did not believe that it would be successful. Perhaps they might have been surprised to learn it would still be in effect 200 years later. When our president’s role was designed, it was with George Washington’s integrity and character as the first chosen president that the role was designed for. Since that time, many of our presidents have failed to live up to those ideals of character and virtue.
Another thing to keep in mind is when the constitution was written, and for decades after, a majority of the population was excluded from the ideals that the document purported to hold forth. Not for over 78 years did “all men” come to mean equality for the Black man or the Native American. It took 133 years from the original formation to include both genders of our country. The reality is that those who wrote the constitution and designed our representative democracy did not want to place power in the hands of the people. They were a group of well-bred and well-fed, educated members mostly of aristocratic and wealthy backgrounds. They were by no means your average citizen. Nor did they intend for the average citizen to be allowed to rule. Former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall stated, “To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today. When contemporary Americans cite "The Constitution," they invoke a concept that is vastly different from what the Framers barely began to construct two centuries ago.”
While our form of government has created a successful and powerful nation of world dominance, and has increased wealth in its citizenry, part of this success was due to the vastness of the land, the natural resources that were used, and the civilization and industry that were built on it. We have run out of the excess of these resources; now we come to a place in our nation where the true test of this democracy will be tried. Will we survive, now that we do not have unlimited land and room for expansion and growth? A free market never places the ideals of equality before profits. A free market must be tempered by a government which looks out for the needs of those who do not hold power within the system.
While charity, kindness and tolerance cannot be legislated, actions can be prohibited or enforced to uphold those values. While we cannot legislate that everyone will not hold racial or other prejudice, we can outlaw the results or actions or consequences of actions that would sustain those injustices. Although noble, Carnegian philosophy of giving back by the elite to those who made it possible is a bit arrogant, and self-serving as well as self-righteous. Several statements are made about “separating the drones from the bees,” and “returning the surplus wealth to the mass… in the forms best calculated to do them lasting good,” smacks of elitist conceit. I admit; God has given to some greater talents, greater brains, some a seemingly innate talent to “make money.” The greater part of the population is average, and this is not a bad thing, for how can greatness be measured if everyone were great? But by that same disbursement of God’s impetuous beneficence, there are those who, through no fault of their own, are born with less talent, less intelligence, and from backgrounds that will require greater effort and tenacity to overcome.
We must also remember that it was not the government that initiated the actions that finally resulted in freeing the slaves, but only upon pressure from the people themselves. There were those who fought bitterly, aided by the religious southern pulpits using “God’s word” as justification. When it became politically expedient for those in power, only then did they act. In addition, those in the South resisted, and not until they were forced to comply with the laws of desegregation did they comply. Even after the 13th and 15th amendments were passed, the Southern states enacted laws which prohibited Blacks from owning property, from voting, from going to school or accessing public parks. It is a shameful past that we have. We as a nation must always be grateful for our liberty, but we must always remember that our ideals have not been met with actual reality in many ways.
Even after Black men were given enfranchisement, women did not get handed the right to vote. They too had to pressure and fight for their rights, not without violence. Those in power never give up their power willingly. That is why those in power always seek to divide the common majority so they can not gather a collective voice. There are more common people; decent, hard-working citizens who want only to live a decent, comfortable life and work in a safe environment, free to attend schools and churches of their choice than there are the ultra, aristocratic elite class. The average citizen more than likely would certainly not support the vast excesses of expenditures that our government has for decades squandered on various wars, some of them questionable in intent as well as success.
For a time, our country experienced a great time of prosperity following the depression. Franklin D. Roosevelt utilized the collective talents of the people and put them to work building or rebuilding parks, bridges, and other societal goods that would benefit our society. This put people to work, enabled them to support themselves, and moved many people from poverty to middle class. The New Deal programs enriched this country for decades. We must move away from the destruction that has been slowly undoing what the New Deal did for our country.
In America, we do not lack for willing and able workers. As Hoffer suggests, we have been cultured out of a Calvinist belief system that work is good for the soul. It is uniquely American that our culture has grown not from kings, priests and other aristocratic tastes, but the masses obsession with success and the acquisition of goods, to the point we continue to work even after we have satisfied our needs. Our cultural heritage, our individual spirit, our can-do attitude can work for the good of people. While we are a nation of people who enjoy recreation, we also value hard work and take pride in our achievements.
There is a faction within our system that operates on the knowledge that full employment means higher wages. While higher wages would benefit the majority of people, there is a minority who would not benefit by this, and so now and then we suffer unemployment so that the business and corporate interests can drive wages down and keep the control over the worker’s lives. Who is easier to control? One who is full and comfortable, or one who is lean and hungry? Those same manipulators of the money system would have us believe that socialism is an evil. I was disappointed that we were not required to read “The Employee Bill of Rights,” (Ewing). I believe it is common for our nation to have a false belief that citizens enjoy civil rights in the workplace, and he so aptly shows us this is not so.
There is nothing wrong with socialism. The argument that people will not work if they are provided for is not a general American state of mind. This merely implies that the only reason people work is to satisfy hunger or fulfill desires of greed. Our work ethic is strong in this country, and many people take their jobs very seriously, and place a great deal of value in their occupations. Work is done out of a sense of responsibility and a need for accomplishment. These would not be stifled by a greater distribution of wealth equity or wage balancing. What social equity and justice would do would be to work toward the elimination of the hopelessness and desperation that poverty has cultured over several generations.
I hate when I hear the word “entitlement” because it invariably is used to instill hostility and anger toward the weakest and poorest members of our society. In fact, those who most benefit from “entitlement” are those that sit in the justice halls and executive positions of our society. Their incomes are unfairly proportionate to their productive capacity. I read where our current Supreme Court has reviewed about half the cases the Court heard thirty years ago. They are working less, and making more. It galls me to hear how, while arguing for months over something we all would support (such as the raising of the minimum wage, or a national health care plan), our Congress will take off a month at Christmas time for a break, not having settled a thing. How much time off do the workers of this country get? We are working longer hours, not less. Those who sit in the halls of lawmaking should work themselves harder. If they cannot enact the proper laws, figure out a way to manage the budget, meet our needs, why are they not required to work overtime? “No one leaves until we are done.” How many times have all of us heard this at work? Why not our public servants? After all, they are our employees, are they not?
Many high government positions are held by members of the good old boys’ clubs, the Yale fellows and their families and cronies, achieved not by merit so much as birth and status. That is entitlement. We have an inequity in how wages are determined in this country. Those who write the rules have taken very nice care of themselves. That is why all the tax breaks exist for those who are in the upper incomes; the rest of us wage earners have our monies snatched out of our checks before we get them. How many of us were able to utilize the 100,000$ tax credit for the purchase of a Hummer? How many are able to put into savings what the government allows us to shelter for retirement? Do these types of tax breaks and credits help your average citizen who has been struggling the past two decades with increasing costs and declining buying power?
Many of the benefits that our society experienced were as a result of the New Deal. Social programs, the 40 hour work week, overtime pay (which is now in danger of disappearing), the National Labor Relations Board, OSHA, safe working conditions, veterans benefit, student grants and loans and federal housing programs to assist low income buyers to home ownership came about because of Progressives in the early part of the 20th century, many of which were socialist ideals. No one knows whether socialism actually works or not, because there has never been a society which was truly socialist. Sweden, Denmark, Germany and France all have strong social democrat or labor parties that balance the interests of the business and corporate establishments with social equity and security and fairness toward workers. We consider these countries as developed nations enjoying high standards of living. Socialist does not necessarily mean non-democratic. However, it calls for government to take measures that ensure government will provide for the collective good, such as environmental protections, or worker safety measures and enact the necessary regulations and rules upon business. We could certainly profit in this country by more employee-owned businesses. The workers would work hard for a company they have an investment in, as well as a voice in how it is run. We have far too many companies that are willing to jeopardize worker safety, pollute the rivers and streams or water table in their areas with hazardous waste or chemicals and pay fines rather than fix their methods of operation and reduce their profits. We are poisoned by this, and we suffer from ill effects to our lungs and risks of cancer.
While the market should be free to operate, it is not free when there are a few large and powerful companies or organizations or industries that consume and overpower the smaller, family owned or locally run operations. Is that a truly free market, when only a few are running the show? Left to their own devices, the large will swallow up the small, and there will be no small fish left. The result is a tyranny of the large interests, and the worker and consumer are left to the mercy of those large powers. Thus, a free market can not be left totally to free market pressures without some governing rules that are in place to protect the good of the whole. It requires far more effort to sustain a free society than an authoritarian one. While a dictator can make decisions for everyone, in a free society each must individually chose as their duty to obey the laws based on “inner dictates of a well-formed conscience,” (Lehrman). The first responsibility of every citizen is to govern himself under the law of whatever spiritual foundation he believes in, the summation of which is the Golden rule. If we do to others as we wish they would do to us, we would have a just and fair society. Our duty as citizens is to obey the law. The second is to understand the laws, and to enact just laws and do away with unjust laws. This requires vigilance and awareness.
Being a good citizen is a lot of work, because it requires time to investigate, to read, to listen to several different opinions and viewpoints, assess expert’s advice, and make a determination based upon one’s values and beliefs. As an example, when hearing about a situation regarding the use of public lands, if one side is warning of environmental dangers and concerns for endangered species, if it is defending leaving the land alone, and the group is a citizens group such as the Sierra Club, would they represent the goals and values of our society, or would these goals and ideals be more represented by those lobbying for the land to be opened up for recreational use and four-wheel driving sponsored by a group such as a “Corporate Executive Council” for the RV industry. Which one would a reasonable concerned person actually believe to have the general publics rather than self-interest in mind? One should always look at who sponsors legislation or is promoting an idea. Do they profit from it, economically, or are they driven more by humanitarian or environmental ideals?
There is a little known group, the American Legislative Exchange Council, populated by membership of 2400 legislators. This group is an example of corporation-sponsored law-making. Companies that stand to make huge profits from the prison industrial complex all contribute as well as influence lawmakers and help write the laws that the legislators take back to their states and Congress. Such companies such as Canteen Correctional Services, Wackenhut and Corrections Corporation of America all contribute heavily, and sponsor conferences and pay huge corporate membership fees. Meetings between these large corporate interests and the legislators are not subject to public scrutiny, but are held behind closed doors. These same interests stand to make large amounts of money from selling to prisons items such as inmate clothing, commissary items, food, medical services, and concrete modular cells. The certainly benefit from three-strikes laws, and mandatory minimum sentences. Keep the profits rolling in! (Beiwen). This should be a concern for every citizen, particularly when we now have over 6 million American citizens under some form of court supervision or incarceration (BJS).
There is a grassroots movement in this country that is taking place all over. A website dedicated to “Meet Ups” supports many groups who share common interests or goals. While each political party or ideal has joined the Meet-up movement, there are many other groups that are answering this need that we all have to build a community of like minded “others” to share our ideals and goals with. This grassroots movement may be the hope of our country’s future because our elected leadership has moved away from hearing the voices of the people beneath the din of corporate money. In my Meet-Up meetings that I have attended, I have later seen those same people in the grocery store, or at Walgreen’s, and it is nice to feel a sense of neighborliness and build trust. When people are strangers, it is easy to discount or dislike them, act or decide against them. But when they become someone you personally know the walls of isolation and self-interest are chipped away. So it must be for those who represent us in government. Keeping an eye on them, being informed, writing letters, expressing indignation or praise is essential to insure they are ever mindful of who they are there to represent.
As citizens, we must participate in building community at the local level. It is unfortunate that our work schedules today are 24/7; there are a variety of people rushing hither and thither at all times, so that there is no shared day of rest and relaxation, a common day of gathering together. While our world has shrunk with the advent of television and the Internet, it has also drawn up walls like cubicles around each person, so that while surrounded by people and media and instant news access, we are isolated and alone. As Putnam stated, we need more “bowling leagues.”
And a final thought on democratic representative government, West pointed out Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence where he wrote: a “long train of abuses and usurpations evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their DUTY, to throw off such government.” We do this today by elections. At issue in this next election is whether voting machines will not be subject to manipulation and corruption. At stake is whether the vote will reflect the will of the people. Today, America is polarized between two opposing viewpoints. More of concern, the voice of the people seems to be weaker and weaker as the checks and balances of our original government seem to be getting smaller and weaker; justices are making laws, and Presidents are usurping war powers that were never intended to be held by that office. We have corporate malfeasance, theft in high places, and a growing sense of despair in our society as we lock up or court supervise over 6.7 million citizens (BJS). If we desire to remain free, we must take to heart what former Chief Justice Earl Warren declared:
"No., the democratic way of life is not easy. It conveys great privileges with constant vigilance needed to preserve them. This vigilance must be maintained by those responsible for the government. And in our country those responsible are we the people, no one else. Responsible citizenship is therefore the ... anchor of our republic. With it we can withstand the storm. Without it, we are helplessly at sea."
I simply cannot pass up a quote from an Op/Ed article by New York Times columnist Bob Hebert:
“There's a terrible sense of dread filtering across America at the moment and it's not simply because of the continuing fear of terrorism and the fact that the nation is at war. It's more frightening than that. It grows out of the suspicion that we all may be passengers in a vehicle that has made a radically wrong turn and is barreling along a dark road, with its headlights off and with someone behind the wheel who may not know how to drive.”
References
Biewen, J., April, 2002. Corporate-Sponsored Crime Laws. PART I of Corrections, Inc.
On the Internet at:http://www.americanradioworks.org/features/corrections/index.html
Bureau of Justice Statistics. “Correctional Surveys: The Annual Probation Survey, National Prisoner Statistics, Survey of Jails, and The Annual Parole Survey as presented in Correctional Populations in the United States, Annual, Prisoners in 2002 and Probation and Parole in the United States, 2002.” Last accessed May 26, 2004. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/corr2.htm
Carnegie, Andrew. (1889). “The Gospel of Wealth.” In D.J. Devine, T. Jasnowski, C. Mason, D. Stites, & J. Wydeven (Eds.), Western Vision and American Values (pp. 437-440). Acton, MA: Bellevue University Press.
Corrections Statistics. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Last accessed on the web May 25, 2004. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/correct.htm
Ewing, David. (1977). “Employee Rights and Duties: An Employee bill of rights.” In D.J. Devine, T. Jasnowski, C. Mason, D. Stites, & J. Wydeven (Eds.), Western Vision and American Values (pp. 564-569). Acton, MA: Bellevue University Press.
Hebert, Bob. Did Somebody Say War? May 24, 2004. The New York Times. Last accessed on the web May 25, 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/24/opinion/24HERB.html
Hoffer, Eric. (1982). “The Readiness to Work” In D.J. Devine, T. Jasnowski, C. Mason, D. Stites, & J. Wydeven (Eds.), Western Vision and American Values (pp. 575-579). Acton, MA: Bellevue University Press.
Lehrman, Lewis E. (2000). “Capitalism: Only One Cheer,” In D.J. Devine, T. Jasnowski, C. Mason, D. Stites, & J. Wydeven (Eds.), Western Vision and American Values (pp. 447-451). Acton, MA: Bellevue University Press.
Marshall, Thurgood. Remarks at The Annual Seminar of the San Francisco Patent and Trademark Law Association in Maui, Hawaii. May 6, 1987. Last accessed from the web on May 25, 2004.
http://www.thurgoodmarshall.com/speeches/constitutional_speech.htm
Putnam, Robert. (1995) “Bowling Alone: America’s declining social capital.” In D.J. Devine, T. Jasnowski, C. Mason, D. Stites, & J. Wydeven (Eds.), Western Vision and American Values (pp. 429-436). Acton, MA: Bellevue University Press.
West, Thomas G. (2001). “The Founders’ Embrace of Both Rights and Duties.” In D.J. Devine, T. Jasnowski, C. Mason, D. Stites, & J. Wydeven (Eds.), Western Vision and American Values (pp. 592-592). Acton, MA: Bellevue University Press.
