When Democracy gets stuck

There was an excellent essay in the Economist last week about democracy. It acknowledged many issues with where democracy has failed its subjects over the last few years, and also recognizes that China has challenged the notion that other systems are doomed to fail eventually. But the main point was to take a longer perspective, and see these as cyclical rather than fundamental. Democracy has had ups and downs before, but tends to win out in the end.

I found that message reassuring, for at times I do despair of the current state of large democracies. Still, perhaps the conclusion that all will end well is a little complacent. So perhaps there is value in having a rant, looking at what may have changed to cause the problems, and seeking possible solutions.

We might characterize democratic failings as falling into two opposite camps, the Do-too-much camp and the Do too little camp.

Do-too-much tends to happen when one party manages to grab all the power levers at once, and, often slowly, starts to damage the institutions that offer checks and balances. South Africa, Turkey and Hungary are good examples. I could also quote Russia and other quasi-democracies, but I find it better not to classify these as democracies at all. Of course, the end state for a Do Too Much democracy can turn out to be a quasi-democracy, so the distinction can be moot.

This type of failure has always existed. Nazi Germany is an example from an earlier time. On this type, I am quite optimistic, since globalisation and technology tend to make sustaining such abuse harder than before. Mr Erdogan in Turkey, initially a benign and effective leader but perhaps with a dark side, seems to be finding life a bit tough just now. Even thirty years ago, he would have had it easier for longer.

I am more interested in the opposite problem, that of Do-too-little, for I think I live in the prime example, the USA. This is a newer phenomenon, and I am concerned that it is less likely to self-correct than Do-too-much.

At the federal level, the US congress passed almost no laws of note in 2013, and it looks like it might repeat the feat in 2014. Since 2009 only two bills of note have been passed. The first was the stimulus package to respond the financial crisis of 2008. The second was Obamacare. It is instructive to look at both, and also at bills that have not been passed.

The stimulus bill gets a good press, as a solid response to a crisis. Here, congress had the advantage of an obvious and immediate crisis to galvanise it. It was clear action was required, and the urgency prevented too many vested interests having time to get in the way.

Obamacare got through because essentially it had the mandate of a referendum to carry it over the line. It was the centerpiece of Obama’s first election campaign. But what passed in the end was a pretty ugly compromise. The bill was supposed to deal with two massive pressing issues – the uninsured and spiraling costs. In the end, it did some good in both cases, but did not fully solve either.

Budgeting has been a disaster. Brinkmanship led to the closing of the federal government and almost to a debt default. Before that an “impossible” “too horrific to contemplate” sequestration provision came into effect and is still operating. All agreements have been minimal. Last week Obama and the Republicans made budget proposals ignoring most key issues and with zero chance of enactment.

Meanwhile, on other issues no laws have emerged at all. Despite periodic massacres, gun control cannot make progress. Immigration is stuck. Unaffordable welfare trends go unaddressed. Crime policy is a generation out of date. Everyone can see it yet nothing is achieved.

These are just the visible and obvious issues. What about the truly complex and difficult ones? Euthanasia? Transitions from work to retirement? Climate change? Forget it! Democracy in the US has got stuck.

How has this happened? There are a few causes. Some are to do with the political system. Scandalous gerrymandering has meant few congressional districts are competitive between the parties, so the real goal of a congressman wanting to stay in power is to avoid being outflanked by one’s own party. And “citizens united” and other rulings have spawned lobbyists and interest groups of enormous power.

A recent example in Florida (also from the Economist) is telling. Many elderly Canadians like to winter in Florida. It would make sense to change the law to offer an extra month or two per year. No-one objects. The economy overall would benefit, and lives would be improved. But getting a law approved seems to be impossible. Why? It is because no lawmaker wants to be associated with increased immigration.

Here is the rub. Lobby groups have managed to make many areas toxic. Many negative ads lead with something like “In power, X voted to increase taxes for ordinary Americans Y times”. There is no context, no recognition that choices are always required, just a destructive statement. Taxes in the statement could be replaced by jobs (destroying), regulation (bad for business and jobs), immigration, welfare, guns (freedom), our military, American allies (usually meaning Israel), and nowadays Obamacare (it is not clear why this is bad, nothwithstanding its botched implementation, but it has become toxic anyway), and even just Obama.

All these issues are complex. All involve trade offs, pros and cons. Yet each is reduced to toxic sound bites. The result is that congressmen avoid passing any laws at all.

Of course, money makes this much worse. Even before a lobby group gets you with the voters by smearing you, they capture you by cutting off the funds, or reminding you where the funds came from in the first place. They might as well wear sponsored shirts these days.

Now here is the sad part. We, ordinary people, let this happen. Despite the wealth of information available through better education and the internet, we choose to accept this rubbish. Our attention spans are so short, our apathy so great, our desire for simplicity so overwhelming that we lap up this claptrap.

We can blame Fox News, and I do. We can blame the Koch brothers, and I do. But in the end these groups only succeed because the people let them. In Hungary, the people vote for an active dismantling of democracy out of fear and bigotry. In the US, they disable democracy too, but passively.

Who benefits? Well, that is obvious. Reactionaries throughout history have tried to slow down progress. Elites and special interests are the beneficiaries. Nothing suits them better than a disabled democracy. Each year, inequality becomes a little worse, the old steal a little more from the young, and the advantaged avoid yielding to the rest.

It is worth pointing out that in some ways the US does well. Wherever lack of legislative action can be a good thing, the US gets in the way less and progress is quicker. It also manages to devolve more issues to states, who compete with each other and sometimes make sensible law. But neither of these advantages excuse the tragedy of lack of federal progress.

The Economist argues for patience, saying the democracy usually gets it right in the end. I am not so sure. It also argues for commonsense reforms to the systems – but of course these will not happen except in genuine crises (look at what happened to poor Nick Clegg and his eminently sensible systemic reform proposals in the UK). Usually I come with my own solutions, but here I am bereft. I fear that the US will only become more stuck and that other mature democracies will soon become stuck too (Italy?). I don’t like to think of the long-term consequences. And it is all our fault.