The Dark Side of Democracy

The voices of Democracy have spoken this week in Kansas City, and a new transit system will be implemented in a very small part of the downtown area.  According the Kansas City Star, voters approved, by a margin of 344 to 198, a 25 year property tax increase to fund a $100 million, two mile long streetcar system.  One might think that the only thing smaller than the size of what's being called a transit system is the voter turnout that approved it.  That turnout however, is not the result of voter apathy, but instead the result of what some might consider an abuse of the democratic process which created a 'special downtown tax district' to achieve its ends.  All well and good you might say.  If locals want to tax themselves for capital improvements of this nature, it's their right to do so.  Would you consider it equally fair however, if you knew that this property tax, and the 1 cent sales tax increase that's the other part of the funding for this project, could only be voted on by residents of the tax district? 
Then again, according to the KC Star piece, this isn't going to cost that much anyway.  "The owner of a $200,000 condo will pay $266 in additional taxes. That’s an 8.7 percent residential property tax increase.  Commercial property owners will see their property taxes go up an additional $1,500 for every $1 million in market value on their property. That’s a 5 percent commercial property tax increase.".   It's a song we've heard sung before.  Of course many of those residents voting were more probably tenants rather than owners, who though living in the special tax district would not be subject to the property tax imposed (at least, not right away).  Is it fair to you that owners of businesses in this new tax district, most of whom do not also live on the premises of the business they own, were not allowed to vote on the tax that was about to be imposed upon them?

Would you find the whole process disingenuous then, if you realized that the burden of the sales tax as well would fall far more on industrial and commercial enterprises selling in the district than on residents, who still had the freedom to purchase outside of the area where the tax will be imposed? Would it likewise be considered voter disenfranchisement where KC residents outside the district were concerned that they weren't allowed to vote for the $2 million dollars annually that the city says it will now be contributing to the operation of this 2 mile transit system.  How about the fact that the city's water utility system, which like so many other metropolitan systems around the country is suffering from ill-kept and horribly out-of-date infrastructure, has announced that it will be contributing $4.5 million to the construction of the system?  When does a water department need to contribute to a transportation system, rather than their own desperately needed infrastructure improvements?  Why is it permissible, at a time when they are raising rates, for them to invest in anything other than their own needs?

But wait, there's more!  Without knowing whether this 2 mile system will garner any ridership, let alone enough to be able to come close to paying for itself, local politicians are already looking at expanding and incorporating this toy train system into a proposed $650 million dollar plan for two commuter rail lines to connect outlying areas with downtown.  These elected officials are right now pushing for yet another vote, this one for a county-wide 1 cent sales tax which could help pick up the slack (and spread the burden) of funding for these first street cars, with future tax revenues to provide a steady revenue stream for more to come. And of course, as with all public transportation systems, the federal government is supplying funding as well, contributing an initial investment of $18 million so far in (you guessed it, taxpayer funding) to prime the pump; something which none of the rest of us were allowed to vote on.

Now remember that this is a part of the city which currently has public transportation in form of buses.  All of the money being spent for this change will not provide something that currently does not exist, but merely a shinier version of it for a neighborhood.  And while each step of this process could ostensibly be considered the use of the democratic process to achieve a desired goal, somehow it feels like there's a taint to this particular use of the process that can't be easily removed.  While in theory nothing done has been illegal, what has been done cannot easily be considered admirable either.  Worst of all, the fact that a special interest group has successfully crossed over to the dark side of the democratic process here will no doubt inspire other groups to similar efforts in imitation of this twisted process.

I can't help but wonder if even the over 300 that voted for this toy transit system into being this week won't feel some doubts about it in the days and years ahead?  I wonder how thrilled they'll be while their streets are torn up and access to homes and businesses are restricted and the city attempts to lay track?  I wonder what commitment to upkeep and repair such street cars will continue to provide if the system remains an isolated anomaly and doesn't get to expand throughout the rest of the city?  Will this form of transit ultimately add or subtract to the value of homes and businesses in the area?  How happy residents will be with it, knowing that this performance of their civic duty will mean living in the highest tax district in the city?  Mostly however, I wonder if in the years to come, they and the city will be proud of the path that they've forged this week; or will they simply feel that they've sold their souls to the political Sith lords on the dark side of democracy? 

 
                  

A Curious Celebration of Democracy

While many us have been focusing on the frenetic movement of the stock market, the dwindling value of our retirement portfolios, and the rising national debt; yet another movement has been afoot almost out of sight to subvert the intentions of the Founding Fathers. As reported by McClatchy Newspapers in the Kansas City Star, California Governor Jerry Brown on Monday signed legislation that could potentially place Founders' view of the Electoral College in dire jeopardy. 

How can this be, you ask?  Isn't the Electoral College specified in the Constitution under Article II, Section 1, Clause 2?  (I know, you didn't have a clue how the Electoral College came about.  Fortunately for you, I carry a leather-covered pocket edition of this document with me at all times.)  In fact this bit of the Constitution does address how many Electors each state gets, and allows each state legislature to decide how they are chosen.  There are subsequent entries in the 12th and 23rd Amendment covering other aspects of the College.  How those Electors vote after a national election is held however, is something entirely different.

Electors are in fact free to vote for anyone eligible to be President.  Traditionally, Electors vote in proportion to the popular vote of their respective states or for the winner of their respective electoral district (at least on the first ballot).  The idea that the Founders proposed with the formation of the Electoral College was much in keeping with their thinking behind the bicameral legislature created in the same document.  By using the Electoral College as a buffer, they hoped to provide some form of balance between the more populous larger states and smaller ones.  Using the electoral system has allowed swing states like Ohio (20 electors) or Michigan (17 electors) to play at least as much a role as Florida (27 electors), Texas (34 electors), or California (55 electors).  (The fact that none of these states existed at the time that the Constitution was written speaks volumes as to the wisdom of their decision and the Founders ability to deal with future eventualities.) 

Of course the interstate compact now signed by Governor Brown we are told, "would take effect only if states controlling a majority of the nation's electoral votes agree."  I guess that this would make this the a 'pile on the winner' law allowing the votes of other states to influence the electoral vote of CA. Eight states and the District of Columbia have now signed on to this potential compact, an agreement which the article goes on to point out now encompasses "almost half of the electoral votes proponents need".  Certainly this legislation has the potential to create more direct ties to the popular vote ( which is a good thing if you're a state with a population the size of California's).

Now there have been calls to do away with the Electoral College before, most recently after the election of 2000, when George W Bush failed to gain a plurality of the popular vote.  Opponents of the Electoral College claimed that election results like that of 2000 subvert the democratic process and fail to provide a true popular mandate for an elected leader (though it must be admitted that they did at least provide us protection against a potential President Al Gore).  What they fail to point out or perhaps even recognize, is that while we do have the popular vote, the United States is not and never has been a Democracy, but a Representative Republic. The Electoral College was just another in a series of well-thought-out concepts to protect the minority rights in this country from being trampled the 'will of the mob'. (Something that this measure might be overlooking, if not actively subverting.)

California's interest in throwing its 55 vote weight around should be of no surprise to anyone, as they have long felt slighted by the national voting process.  Having their polls closing 3 hours after those of the East Coast and with election coverage by 24-hour news networks calling states while CA is still voting has sometimes caused this bastion of the progressive thinking to find itself extraneous to the decision-making process.  

It's interesting however that these so-called Defenders of Democracy see this as progress towards portraying the will of the people.  If this legislation is followed through on, it would in fact allow California to, "award the state's electoral votes to the candidate winning the most votes nationwide, regardless of which candidate California voters choose".  One might think it a rather curious contradiction that California and it co-signers would seek to extol the value and virtues of true democracy by potentially subverting the will of the popular vote in their states.

 

The Value of Democracy

This being an election year, we are confronted once again by candidates for office standing before a microphone and talking about Values; or more specifically, either "Family Values" or "American Values". No one seems to want to define exactly what these values are or why we should want them to have them, but they want to make sure that you understand that they believe in them. 

Now you may think that such discussions and debates have been going on forever in politics, but this is actually a fairly recent development. Historian Gertrude Himmelfarb (yes, that's her real name) tells us that it began in 1983 in England when Margaret Thatcher embraced the accusation that she favored Victorian Values. She of course won that election, and doomed the rest of history through her success. The doom that Prime Minister condemned us to was visited upon us by conceding the use of the word Value in the discussion, when in fact what she favored was Victorian Virtues. Words do mean things after all, and Value does not have the correct meaning in this regard. In fact, the closest that the dictionary comes is: ... something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable Virtue on the other hand, means something entirely different:

... a commendable quality or trait
... a particular moral excellence  

A Value, while something that may be even considered desirable, is something that has no judgment attached to it for the individual or for society. In fact, anything can be a value regardless of where it fits on the moral compass. For example, Greed, Avarice, and Selfishness can be said to be values, but I think we can agree that none of these traits are something to be aspired to. 

Both Thomas Jefferson and Stalin had a set of values, but I suspect that few would judge the values of these two men to be of equal worth. A Virtue, on the other hand, is something that should be weighed by the judgment of the individual and of society. Traits like Self-sufficiency, Charity, and Self-sacrifice are things that we can all agree are not only values, but worthy aspirations. They are the inspirations upon which the United States was founded, the qualities that we admire greatly in our Founding Fathers, and the traits that we celebrate in great leaders and individuals down through history. 

We have likewise taken some of the meaning out of another word that is key in this discussion, Democracy. We have taken any moral or ethical judgment out of this word when using it as an adjective (especially in defining the afore mentioned Values). In our haste to remain what we choose to call democratic in our judgments of Values we have allowed ourselves to establish a moral relativity on the subject, where every Value is equal in the eyes of society. In this egalitarian paradise, we have not only eliminated Evil from our frame of reference; but any notion of Good as well. In an act of almost national cowardice, we have allowed a moral equivalency to prevent us from calling anything Right or Wrong, Good or Bad, Virtuous or Evil. If all Values are viewed as equal in the eyes of this democratic society, then there can in fact be no Good and Evil. 

It's time to re-establish the concept of Virtues vs Values in the political discussion and in America as a whole. It's time that we make some kind of a judgment on the range of values and decide what it is that we believe in, and what inspires us. We also need our candidates to step away from the concept of non-judgmental Values of recent history and tell us what Virtues that they aspire to for themselves, and for the country. 

Now they say that in writing, brevity is a virtue (It is also the sole of wit and the essence of lingerie), so I should probably wind this up. The next time you hear a candidate talk about "Family Values" or "American Values" however, I would challenge you to substitute Virtues in its place. Then listen to the rest of what that candidate says and judge for yourself whether the principles they are talking about are something that the country should aspire to. Ask yourself carefully whether these Values are indeed Virtues.