MiP 2 – Money and Citizenship

George Orwell – Author series (Photo credit: New Chemical History)

Part 2 of the series Money in Politics.

“The ruling power is always faced with the question, ‘In such and such circumstances, what would you do?’, whereas the opposition is not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions. Where it is a permanent and pensioned opposition… the quality of its thought deteriorates accordingly.” – George Orwell, “Rudyard Kipling” from Fifty Orwell Essays

—–

Democracy has at its core the equitable consideration of the needs of all of its citizens. An a moral level, this recognizes their individual worth. At a practical level, this provides an institutional outlet for citizen’s frustrations, thus keeping the people from resorting to violent revolution. A defining feature of democracy is the loyal opposition, which challenges the ruling interests in the hopes of one day gaining control of the government. The governing coalition will naturally portray each of its policies as a successful step forward for the country, so the depth and rigor of the public discourse is primarily determined by the opposition’s reactions to government claims. If the opposition resorts to mudslinging, little constructive discourse can be found; if it engages the substance of the government’s position, then the necessary groundwork for political vitality has been laid.

Mubarak’s Reform will open “new doors” for political participation (Photo credit: Hossam el-Hamalawy حسام الحملاوي)

It is also a feature of modern democracy that not everyone is a political actor. The logistical struggle of a national referendum on every major issue is simply too costly to serve as an administrative system. Instead, we elect representatives and join political parties, with a vote for a candidate or party usually interpreted as a broad endorsement of its policies. Consequently, we rely on the institutionalized opposition to provide a serious alternative to government policies.

The democratic check on a shallow opposition, as well as the defining feature of democracy, is the promise that it may one day inherit the reins of government, with all the responsibility that entails. When it comes time to rule, the opposition must have a workable plan, or else it will fail as a government and be booted out of office in the next election, its reputation seriously, perhaps permanently, damaged. When apolitical actors like corporations and unions (neither of which can hold government office) become politicized, this check ceases to function, as attacks on the ruling coalition need no longer be grounded in reliable alternatives to achieve the actors’ legislative goals.

Raise A Finger (Photo credit: boris.rasin)

It does not take a pessimistic view of society to believe that hyperbole and misinformation can skew electoral outcomes. Regardless of how much a candidate’s policies benefit me, e.g., by guaranteeing affordable healthcare, I am unlikely to support him if I cannot trust his character, for example, because I believe that he is a radical Islamic militant bent on global domination. The Republican party establishment could never get away with repeating claims with no grounding in policy or in reality, though admittedly a handful of Republican candidates do. Apolitical organizations, those that do not hope to ascend to power, have no such inhibitions because they will never be held electorally accountable. Such attacks, do, however, serve to ingratiate the candidate or party that they aid, allowing these near-libelous organizations additional access to candidates, and perhaps winning benefitting candidates’ support for some narrow policy goals, like lower corporate taxes or protectionist labor laws. This is why the Koch Brothers can get away with bankrolling Tea Party nonsense like the dribble above, and why the Democratic Super PAC, Priorities USA, can get away with implying that Mitt Romney made his fortune killing workers.

A left-wing apolitical actor. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Independent contributors’ evasion of electoral accountability might yet be remedied if speakers were at least subject to public scrutiny. However, inherent in speech is the idea of a speaker, and the political nature of speech depends upon publicly claiming ownership of one’s ideas. Absent an identifiable source to clarify and defend them, ideas remain too nebulous to constitute political discourse. While an idea presented anonymously may be taken up by a political actor,  until such a time as a political actor claims the idea it does not constitute a form of speech, much less a form of political engagement. Thus, while media pundits like Rachel Maddow (left) and Sean Hannity (below-right) remain apolitical in their official capacities, subject to economic markets and not political forums, their concrete identities at least enable them to become political agents. Anonymous contributors lack even this possibility.

A right-wing apolitical actor. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Moreover, unlimited campaign expenditures can crowd out speech, amplifying a few voices but diminishing or eliminating others. Speech requires multiple points of view because, though it is caused by a person, speech can exist only between people. “You have Fox and I have MSNBC” does not create discourse, because discourse requires a bilaterally accessible medium of communication. It is in the interest of democracy to create such a forum by ensuring relatively equal access to speech from all citizens. Equalizing economic conditions within politics promotes a meritocracy of ideas better than a system that equates economic success with political profundity. Only this meritocratic system ensures the ultimate stability of democratic states.

While a political sphere entirely separated from the economic sphere may, in fact, contain some inequality – e.g., in speakers’ background knowledge or rhetorical skills – these skills are at least political in nature, relatively amenable to self-improvement, and relevant to political processes. In contrast stands wealth accumulated by the selling of products or services, which entails no such persuasive prowess, but, indeed, quite the opposite: profits, the surplus wealth of business, arise from the brute force of desire compelling economic activity. In no event should the public welfare be conflated with this private satisfaction of desire, as public legislation deals necessarily with emergent societal needs that lack microeconomic analogues. Neither should matters of public welfare necessarily be subject to the wills of the economically successful, as the selflessness of authentic public service transcends the personal enrichment inherent in capitalistic enterprise.

Democracy exists only where opposition forces guarantee a high-quality political discourse. When we surrender that discourse to apolitical, economic actors, democracy itself must surely suffer.