Normally this would be a “comment,” but I spent so much time on it, I wanted it as a main heading. I apologize in advance for my vanity.
Jonah says re-calls are “too democratic”:
The recall, in my opinion, undermines the accountability of voters, telling them in effect that they can have a do-over whenever they mess things up by electing the wrong guy.
and further…
That may sound like a joke, but it’s actually a central tenet of democracy.
This is absolutely false. If he was just a comedian making a joke, then we could forgive his moronic comment concerning the nature of “accountability.” But he’s a well travelled and well educated man, and should know better. True, he does think that re-call votes are “democratic.” However, he back tracks from this by calling them “too democratic,” which is an absurd notion. Here’s why:
A re-call is one of only a few mechanisms of accountability that citizens have. There are many forms of democracy. American democracy is unique in that a “no-confidence” vote can come directly from the citizenry, whereas in most democracies (which are parliamentarian democracies), no-confidence votes can only originate from the parliament (what would be “congress” in the American system). Therefore, the re-call is as central to democracy and as much a mechanism of accountability as the non-recall vote of general elections.
Further, Jonah says:
Politicians and parties must be held accountable for their past mistakes if they are going to be relied upon to fulfill their promises in the future.
Yes, that is a fundamental premise of accountability. And this is exactly what a re-call vote can do.
Jonah does not define what he means by “too democratic.” Would he have one of the few mechanisms of accountability taken away? I suppose he means that re-call votes undermine his version of “democracy.” Please consider this: we live in a country where incumbents seeking re-election win about 90 percent of the time. We should be thankful that re-call votes exist as a direct form of accountability. Re-calls serve as an indirect measure, too. Political science theory suggests that incumbent behavior is linked to the fear of losing the next election (sort of strange considering their very high re-election percentage). Re-call votes add an additional fear element to incumbents who might now be more inclined to act more responsively, more often, and not just in the liberal hour.
Re-call IS democratic and there can be no such thing as “too democratic.”
p.s. The “liberal hour” refers to the short period of time right before a general election. Incumbents seeking re-election at this time are more apt to vote on legislation that redistributes money to social welfare causes such as raising minimum wage, spending money on welfare programs, etc. This is a well-known finding and it applies to both conservative and liberal incumbents.
There very well can be an “excess of democracy,” such as when the majority attempts to implement a change that is ultimately very wrong, like everyone voting to abolish paper money and trade only in cathode-ray tubes. Democracy isn’t an intrinsic good; it needs to be tempered with a rigid backbone of rules and laws, like our very own Constitution, otherwise it simply becomes mob rule.
As far as I’m concerned, the direct form of accountability comes in the shape of a ballot box. The notion of a do-over in the form of a gubernatorial recall is every populist moron’s dream: we fucked up by electing the same type of liberal idiot time and again, but now we get to try some other idiot halfway through.
Elected officials with term limits have to be belt-and-suspenders types of people; despite the high probability of reelection, who wants to take the slightest chance of losing? And it makes perfect sense that in the “liberal hour” they’d pander to the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder by making noises about implementing all manner of charitable government programs; poor people vote with their hearts and not their brains.
I’m more thankful for things like the Electoral College, the Bill of Rights, and the “You finished the iced tea, you make it” rule than I am for gubernatorial recall elections.
Amen Brother David.
Just like when you left thin, brown iced tea rings in the old apple juice bottles, you’re wrong here, too.
You say:
There very well can be an “excess of democracy,” such as when the majority attempts to implement a change that is ultimately very wrong…[joke].
What is considered right and wrong legislation is determined by majority rule. Like it or not, that IS democracy. Implementing changes such as trickle down economics, cutting education budgets, and not raising the minimum wage in 6 years are ultimately very wrong, yet both democratic and republican congresses and administrations have done these things. And they did it with “mob” or “majority” or “whatever you want to call it” rule.
Democracy relies on a division of labor wherein we elect politicians to represent our interests. True, some of those interests are mandated directly from the citizenry, but many political decisions are COUNTER to the citizen mandate. These latter type of political decisions can be representative, as well, if we define representation as politicians acting in the best interests of the citizenry. Californians elected a guy who ran a huge deficit; Gray Davis did not act in the best interests of the citizenry. Because he acted neither through citizen mandate nor through any sense of the word “representation,” and because this is an emergency situation, Davis deserves to have the citizens of California level this measure of accountability.
What of impeachment? Is THAT not a form of accountability? Just because Clinton diddled an intern, THIS is an acceptable form of accountability? Impeachment, no-confidence votes, re-call votes, general elections… these are democratic. These are our only measures against politicians who DO NOT act in a representative manner. If a republican led coalition wanted to impeach Clinton, or the citizens of California wants to re-call their governor… these are obviously well within the bounds of majority rule and well within the confines of democracy.
It seems as though the problem here is semantics, or at least the definition of democracy, whether too much or too little. Majority rule/Democracy/Mob Rule is tempered by the Constitution in this country, no matter what people are voting for or attempting to implement.
We also run into the definition of “very wrong” as being subjective as well, because I don’t agree with the examples you put in (trickle down economics, not raising minimum wage, etc) as being very wrong. Clearly, our representative government doesn’t feel that way, either.
Yes, it sucks that the people we vote for don’t do what we want them to do when we want them to do it. I agree that the vast majority of politicians do not act in the best interests of the citizenry; the very nature of government jobs (elected or otherwise) precludes the solving of problems, because once a problem is solved, the solvers have then put themselves out of work.
The fact that Gray Davis did what the people of California elected him to do (piss away huge sums of money and screw up everything) doesn’t mean that he intentionally committed a criminal (and therefore recall-worthy) act (unlike ex-President Clinton, who lied under oath). As such, I think it’s a little too late for Californians to begin whining now; lots of elected officials do appallingly shitty jobs, but don’t get recalled because of it. Several states in the U.S. don’t even HAVE the ability to recall gubernatorial elections, going on the assumption that the voters won’t make the same stupid mistakes that California did, and even if they do, will suck it up and vote someone in who’s less incompetent during election years.
Our government may be representative of interests. The question, really, is “whose interests are being represented?” Gray Davis represented NOBODY’S interests. The sad truth is that a significant proportion of Americans are not politically active enough to discern one politician from another. Want to know the scariest statistic in American politics? Here it is:
According to studies over the last 20 years, MOST people think congress is doing a terrible job. According to those same studies, MOST people think THEIR CONGRESSMAN is doing a GREAT job. How can this be? The general stupidity of the American voter? These are representative samples, including the lower and middle classes as well as the upper classes. To say the poor act with their asses and not their heads (or words to that effect) is misguided. The middle class is just as politically apathetic. The upper class is also largely politically apathetic, but they tend to vote more often for the politicians that pander to the interests of the upper class. Who can blame them? Unfortunately, what politicians regard as “representative” is contrary to the needs of most Americans.
What you are calling “semantics” I call the basic definition of accountability and representation. There is no doubt that the recall is a mechanism of accountability. Now, I never said how effective it is as a mechanism of accountability. No matter who the Californians elect, it will be a rich white man who panders to the upper classes just like most politicians.
By the way, the ice tea is sooo easy to make. You just take two chemically engineered iced tea crystals housed in convenient packet form, pour them into an old apple juice bottle, add water, shake well, and place into the refridgerator. Why you would rather leave a brown ring is beyond me. I know I have never ever done that.
Well, on this we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
That is, you’ve left the brown ring at the bottom of the iced tea bottle PLENTY of times, and it’s not so easy to make, you know.