Be warned: this is quite long and it is basically me thinking out loud about political stuff.
I just watched a Channel 4 documentary, “The Dirty Race For The White House”. Peter Oborne concluded that democracy in the US has gone horribly awry.
His structure was drawn from the Gettysburg address, where Lincoln spoke of “government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Instead of government of the people, the US Presidency is determined by small voting blocs that live in the right swing state. Appeasing these small groups is of crucial importance, so government serves their interests disproportionately.
Instead of government by the people, the election is corrupted by nominally independent organizations that do the dirty campaigning so the candidates don’t have to.
Instead of government for the people, the election has little connection to the plight of the poor, particularly minority groups.
It wasn’t a well-made argument, but it was compelling nonetheless for many individual moments of insight. I was uncomfortable, however, with the angle Oborne took on the 527 groups – independent organisations with a political message. The Republican example was the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group attacking Kerry’s military credentials. I never looked too hard into the Swift Boat Vets or their claims, because sources I find reliable have exposed the group as a dishonest political tool spreading misinformation. Like Oborne, I see this group as a sign of how far democracy has gone astray in the US.
Then, however, Oborne turned his attention to MoveOn. MoveOn is a large network promoting grassroots activism for the general left-wing cause. It was founded during the Clinton Presidency to provide a response to the incessant, desperate hounding of President Clinton over allegations of sexual transgression. (Hence the name: “can we please move on to more important things now?”) In 2004, they operate transparently with millions of online members working together to support the Democratic party.
Oborne’s case against MoveOn was: they receive a lot of funding from the Democrat elite; and they produce sophisticated, manipulative attack ads so Kerry and Edwards can stay aloof from the dirty work of politics.
I think it’s somewhat disingenuous of Oborne to paint MoveOn and Swift Boat vets for truth as equivalent examples. To my eyes, the groups are very different.
Thinking further, though, I started wondering whether the differences are really so large after all. Which led in turn to a bigger question: how can we evaluate the different voices in an electoral campaign?
Clearly, context is important. When the political parties speak, we hear their message with full context. They are electioneering; they are trying to say their guy is great, the other guy is terrible, and they have a certain amount of leeway to do it. Neither side will ever do justice to their opponent; when we listen to these messages, we keep this in mind.
(Not that we are as good as evaluating this stuff as we think we are, by and large; but I’ll leave that aside for now and assume we’re all good rational logical folk.)
Other groups that add their messages to the noise of an election come without that clear context. How much will they be bending the truth? What will they be omitting in their message? If they’re outright lying, who will challenge them, and how do we judge the challenger?
I approve of the principle of anyone with something to say being able to stand up and say it. Obvious imbalances will result, of course. If access to media is governed by wealth (and it is), and those who have wealth tend to support conservative political strands (and they do), then the independent voices in any election will be biased towards the conservative side.
(Kiwi readers will happily call to mind all the occasions the Business Roundtable has pushed media campaigns against left-wing initiatives such as proportional representation and promoting such shibboleths as the ‘brain drain’ as a way of undermining the left-wing government.)
These imbalances are inevitable given the way access to media is channelled, but they are worth putting up with for the greater principle.
The real problem in the US is that any ‘independent’ voice will be seized on for its utility to partisan politics. True independence isn’t really possible for any group with a political stance – if an organisation supports a political position, the party of that position will find a way to deliver support back to them.
Republicans recognise the value the Swift Vets and support them; Democrats recognise the value of MoveOn and support it. Does this hurt democracy? Where is the line? And are the SwiftVets and MoveOn two points on the same continuum, or are they different entities entirely?
I feel they are different categories, as much as categorisation is ever possible in the real world: one is legitimate and the other is illegitimate.
But I can’t come up with the basis of the categorisation. I’ve been sitting here for half an hour trying. It just isn’t coming. Everything I try, I can quickly falsify. Even the notion of “truth” as a barometer is tricky – is the outright dishonesty of the Swift Boat Vets really so different from the lies-of-omission used by both Democrats and Republicans? Is it really so far from the emotions-not-facts school of political campaigning? Is there such a difference between old men saying Kerry’s a liar and sinister music playing over judiciously-edited clips of Dick Cheney being scary?
Perhaps the true test of legitimacy for any independent group with a political message is simply this: the extent to which citizens can inform themselves about the group. If this is the case – and I’m starting to think it is – then that lays yet another burden on the voting citizen. The urgency of educating people in comprehending the media seems more and more essential every moment.
Consider it. The test of legitimacy for an independent group is its transparency.
And the test of legitimacy for a political party is the extent to which it empowers its citizens to serve as its watchmen.
Perhaps the real difference is tactics. Do they go for the gut or the head? Do they use the truth (manipulating it) or abuse it?
But nahh.
At the end of the day they are all lobby groups, all are partisan (why would you expect independent ones?) they all have a political agenda they want to push.
I don’t think it’s really possible to have independence in politics, and I am not sure it’s even desireable, not in lobby groups anyway.
The media however is a different story, they should be striving for independence. Not that it happens, because in the end they are owned by people with politcal ideas and so for.
You wrote: “And the test of legitimacy for a political party is the extent to which it empowers its citizens to serve as its watchmen.”
In the ideal democracy this would be the way it would go, but in reality no political party really wants this, especially in the American system. They want to serve whatever interests put them there rather than the people.
Man, all this politics talk is bringing out the cynic in me…
Very good blog. I admit I will be watching the US elections closely today. I know who I want to win but don’t actually go around saying it often. Especially not telling my American friends how they should vote, that’s up to them.
I do feel sorry for American voters though. There is so much pressure and attention from right around the world to vote and vote in a particular way. And from speaking to a number of them they don’t really see one candidate is better than the other. There is so much information and mis information flying around that they almost feel like they are going to be voting for who they feel is the lesser of two evils.
The thing is it’s a democracy so they really should take the opportunity to vote. The biggest difference between democracy in America and other democracies in the world though is that their vote has a huge influence (more so than most other countries) on World Politics.
It is a heavy load that the US voters must bear. It comes with being the bosses of the world, I guess.
I absolutely believe this election will determine the course of global history on a grand scale. The Middle East drives global politics right now, and Bush’s neocon PNAC puppeteers have a clear agenda there. It is an agenda I think is profoundly dangerous for pretty much everyone. But you’ll have gathered that by now 🙂
Matt says “In the ideal democracy this would be the way it would go, but in reality no political party really wants this, especially in the American system. They want to serve whatever interests put them there rather than the people.” No surprise that I agree absolutely. I think the message that my conclusion sends is that we should start demanding this, under and alongside everything else we demand of our political leaders: “give us the tools to watch over you” should be our overwhelming cry. They will resist this at every turn, because that is their nature, but the cry should continue. Revolutions do happen. The slaves were freed, the voting franchise was extended.
Hmm. Not quite convinced myself yet. I need more time to think this through.
MoveOn is effectively a political party that doesn’t run any candidates; it’s a membership-based organisation that encourages broad participation and whose members are actively involved. SBVT OTOH is just a funnel for rich men’s money.
The problem is that I’m not sure that you can make any principled distinction between the two. It’s all political pseech (some of it loathsome), and therefore has to be put on an equal playing field.
As usual, you crystallise the issue way better than me. I *feel* there are different categories, but the only basis is my evaluation of the participants’ integrity, which doesn’t count for much as a general rule. My feeling doesn’t get me very far.
I’m quite enamoured of the test of legitimacy being transparency, however. Enforcing it is challenging – in theory the media is already doing this.
The general principle is that if enough citizens ask the right questions, the right information will be disseminated. If we allow the media and the groups themselves to pose and frame the questions, we’ll get no further than now. The biggest means of control is not controlling the answers we receive, it’s controlling the questions we think to ask.