Can the Democrats Be Good For Democracy?
Everyone knows that our government and our economy are rigged. And everyone knows who’s doing the bulk of the rigging: those with money, with lots and lots of money. We also know how this works: Paid corporate lobbyists and ultra-rich individuals buy our politicians. Of course, both the politicians and the moneyed know that it is unseemly, if not illegal, to offer a “quid pro quo” — “Give me that sack of money, Mr. Lobbyist, and I will give you my vote.” Instead, we play the game that money buys access, but not necessarily influence. Oh, yes, and here’s a bag of horse manure that I’m selling as potpourri.
While we are talking about these rigged systems, let’s not forget the parts played in that system by our two political parties. Both Republicans and Democrats need money to run campaigns, but the power of money in politics goes well beyond that. Outside money goes to funding legislation and favored programs, whether gay rights or the availability of guns, that donors and lobbyists champion and are willing to pay for. There aren’t any think tanks springing up devoted to developing ways to support unions, for example, and so that is a pretty good sign of how the ultra-rich and corporations influence what gets done in government to their benefit.
Neither party seems concerned about where their money comes from or the strings attached when it is received. Regardless of the sources, money in our politics is the problem, and those with the most money to spend — billionaires, multimillionaires, and corporations — are the biggest obstacle to addressing it. Right now, power is in the hands of corporations and of the 813 billionaires in America. That’s not a democracy; it’s an oligarchic plutocracy. If democratic participation and democratic power are your goals, then big money is the enemy and needs to be cleansed from the political system. A political enema for the enemy?
Because money is the root answer to every question about what’s wrong with our politics, if it isn’t the answer to every question about how our society operates, then we can correct our political course by addressing this core problem. But our politicians don’t. Oh, there are a few like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who point out the solution, but they are often dismissed as “angry” (Sanders) or “preachy” (Warren). Dismissed, too, is anyone else who proposes turning our attention away from immigrants and trans-kids to the real enemy: corporations, mega-donors, Wall Street, and their paid-for politicians.
Our democratic system has suffered since the decision by the Supreme Court in Citizens United hung an “open for business” sign over every politician’s door. Coupled with the ludicrous idea, also coming from the Supreme Court, that corporations are themselves people and that their use of money is a protected form of free speech, Citizens United makes cleaning money out of politics nearly insurmountable. One way to surmount it isn’t to clean out the money, but to circumvent it. To do so, we might start with two opportunities I offer here.
Opportunity 1:
Who speaks on behalf of workers and their families and communities left out and left behind, as corporations through neoliberalism sought non-unions and cheap labor across the country and throughout the world? Increasingly, people feel that no one speaks for them, certainly not the political parties who fail repeatedly to support or look out for them.
Under Trump the Republican Party has pretended to be the friend, if not champion, of the working class. But at best Republicans divert working-class attention from what should be their true focus — predatory and cupidinous corporations and Wall Street pirates — onto incidental cultural issues like transgender athletes (Less than two percent of students in the United States are transgender, and only 12 percent of transgender girls play sports.) or onto scapegoats like undocumented immigrants who are painted as rapists and murderers (but whose crime rates are lower than native-born citizens).
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party, which used to be the party of the working class battling against the powerful, by and large sacrificed workers to concentrate on catering to the college educated and the professional and credentialed elites who have become the new base of the party. Thus, it is no accident that the only two places where Harris did better than Biden electorally were among college-educated whites and those making over $100,000 per year.
Nevertheless, many Biden policies underscored the attempt of Democrats to attract the working class: using government to bring back manufacturing (the CHIPS Act), to repair and build our infrastructure (infrastructure bill), to expand the availability of broadband, and to develop green energy and green technologies, all of this through good-paying union jobs. These are signs that his administration has broken out of the headlock of neoliberalism.
But were any of these accomplishments and programs played up by our corporate media? Good news doesn’t get clicks and eyeballs. But why didn’t the Democratic Party happily broadcast this news? Broadcast it where? People need to hear about this, but where can they go?
This is opportunity #1. I see the need for a new team, or league, in the media business, one that can compete with and counter the power and influence of the constant blasts from the right-wing lie and hate machines — podcasts, websites, local Sinclair television “news,” The Wall Street Journal, FOX journo-tainment, X, and other sources of misinformation and disinformation. In addition to generating money, these outlets feed talking points to the Republican Party and distract their listeners and viewers from the real source of our nation’s problem — to repeat, the money coming from rich donors and corporations. Bear in mind that the Republicans are not simply trying to win elections through their multi-media outlets; they are also trying to shift the entire culture to the right.
The new information network that I am suggesting would not come out of the Democratic Party, since they, too, remain at the trough, gobbling up money. Their snouts just aren’t as deep in the trough as the Republican Party.
Instead, the new information network would exist to broadcast the truth, not spin and certainly not lies. Both parties, then, would be targets, because both parties are loath to turn off the money spigot and thus loath to turn against donors and corporations by revealing their tactics and demands. Nevertheless, of the two parties, the Democrats are closest to honoring facts, evidence, and truth. This network would exist to share with the people insights into what happened under both parties to their standard of living, but especially what happened under Republican administrations to their healthcare, childcare, and eldercare; to their rural, urban, and suburban communities; to their public services and education; and to the idea of social mobility. Such topics would be the central point.
So, what I’m proposing may sound like another new silo where like-minded progressives and far-leftists can hang out and reinforce their enlightened takes on politics, culture, and global affairs. Yet that will not be the case, since those watching and listening will see and hear only evidence and reason, which is all the network will offer. In addition, one arm of this network must be to resurrect and, at least, to reinvigorate local news coverage and local investigative reporting. The target is more than getting people to vote a certain way; it is also to get them to think critically.
Opportunity #2:
The second opportunity is the opposite of the first. Instead of offering reason, evidence, and reality-based truth to the people, this opportunity asks Democrats in particular (but not exclusively) to take in, not give out. I am proposing a network of young workers in all 50 states. Their task is to have large ears but small mouths. That is, these workers, operating in pairs, will visit those spots ignored, left out, or forgotten by the Democratic Party — small towns, rural towns, remote communities, and inner cities. There they will meet residents where they live, work, and pray.
The teams will drop in on, for example, places of worship, barber shops and beauty salons, diners and cafés, community centers, Elks Lodges and Kiwanis Clubs, schools and libraries, to listen to what citizens want and need, to learn about their worries, fears, problems, and concerns. This so that they can help people forge or bring into their lives whatever is required to make their lives easier and better. Large or small, contradictory or consistent, whatever problems people face are the ones to note.
These teams or pairs are there to listen and learn, not to offer solutions and certainly not to be seen as Democrats arriving to save the communities. As said, all team members will have large ears and small mouths. If they’re going to talk, it will mostly be to ask questions and seek clarification.
Perhaps team members, after their stint, will remain in the state and work within communities, and even run for local offices, to help residents build whatever kinds of programs and infrastructure they need to renew community relationships and move toward better lives. Democratic Congresswoman Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, representing a heavily Republican rural section of Washington, offers an important lesson: She won her district for a second time, because she showed voters throughout her first term that her focus was steadfast on local issues and local needs.
The teams will be made up of community-college students, preferably in their own home states and localities. Community colleges enroll 40 percent of college students. These colleges are located throughout their states, including in rural communities where they are often the largest employer in the county and held in high regard as economic engines.
Using community-college students permits people suspicious of university graduates as out-of-touch elites and college-educated do-gooders to see faces like those of their own family, friends, and neighbors. Local students can connect by having grown up and lived in the state, county, and city or town and can share stories of similar histories, acquaintances, and experiences.
The ages of the students can range from 18 to 65, given that community colleges draw students of different ages with diverse backgrounds, with varying academic abilities and ambitions, and with fluid goals. These could be students who have graduated or who wish to add work experience to their resumés. The expectation is for a two-year commitment, at a salary of $40,000 per year, including health care.
I imagine 50 teams per state. Some small states like Delaware and Rhode Island will need fewer teams; so, too, states with less population like Wyoming. States with large populations such as California, Texas, and Florida will require more teams. This is a total of 5,000 team members nationwide, and the cost to the Democratic Party is $200 million per year. Can the Party afford that? Certainly. Will they pay for it? They’d better.
The two opportunities outlined here are band-aids covering the deep wounds our democratic system has suffered since that “open for business” sign went up over every politician’s door. That enema can flush out the system, but it can’t change the politicians’ diets.
As with opportunities 1 and 2, here is another way to bypass the money problem rather than trying to surmount it: Introduce at whatever level possible — school boards, city councils, citizen assemblies, state houses — citizen-run deliberative democratic bodies to make civic decisions. The goal, then, is to create in every state shared public spaces for citizen deliberation where multiple perspectives can be heard and used in reaching democratic decisions.
How is this a way to bypass money in politics? The citizens deliberating and making decisions are appointed at random, just as names are drawn for serving on juries. There is no campaigning and thus no need of money. They serve for a set period, and so there is no re-election and thus no need for a war chest. Bribery is a crime, and that would remain the only option for donors and lobbyists intent on skewing decisions in their favor. Let them then use their resources from within a jail cell.
Both parties are in the business of winning elections to occupy seats of power. Gaining power requires money, and seeking and getting money is their immediate and constant goal. So, we can’t look to the parties for aid. We need to look to and rely upon the people. Appointing citizens as deliberative decision-makers would also, therefore, bypass the parties.
If real democracy is your goal, then shared public spaces and democratic venues where perspectives are welcomed is your vehicle. Want to mix classes and social statuses? Create deliberative democratic venues. Otherwise, we shall simply go on pretending we have democracy, as plutocrats and corporations actually rule our country.
