An Inconvenient Form Of Democracy

In all of my years, I don’t think I’ve heard or seen as much talk about democracy as I have over the past couple of years. Even my ancient history prof didn’t talk as much about it when he was droning on and on about the ancient Greeks and he was very good at droning on and on.

Everybody, well almost everybody, seems to have an opinion about democracy and those opinions, often including my own, are about how it’s being undermined. In Canada, the liberal media are positively beside themselves over how the Conservative government is a threat to democracy and people on social media are positively poetic (in a very loose definition of the term) in their outrage about it.

At its simplest, democracy is simply government by the people for the people and government is formed based on elections where the majority rules. This, of course, is agreeable to everyone until their particular candidate, political party or issue loses and then democracy becomes quite inconvenient.

At that point we start hearing phrases like “tyranny of the majority” and accusations of undermining the democratic process. When those fail to work out to well for those who have their underwear in a twist because their side lost the election, an allegation of political corruption or electoral fraud always seems to gather some momentum.

It is no secret, if you are a regular reader of this blog, that I have very little respect for the political process in general and politicians and their strategists in particular. I consider political parties to be the greatest threat to our democracy because they are not about governing; they’re about winning and holding power.

But, we the people are willing contributors to the erosion of our democracy because we the people don’t respect the democratic process any more than political parties and their Slick Willies working the phones in the war rooms out back. We the people prefer a convenient form of democracy; one that gives us what we want and screw everyone else.

Unfortunately, democracy is a messy business and it’s hard. It takes effort and, sad to say, more than just a little thought; more thought than many are willing to bring to the table. Consider these two examples.

In the United States, a recent poll clearly showed that more than 60% of Americans believe the United States is on the wrong track and it needs to change direction in order to recover. One would tend to believe that would be a pretty strong indictment against the current administration, whatever administration that might be.

You’d be wrong.

In fact, the latest electoral polls show the current administration leading in popular support and that would be a basis for criticism of the American system if it wasn’t for the fact that Canadians are even more confused.

The current Conservative government was elected with less than 45% public support and is routinely attacked in the media and online for being undemocratic and a threat to the fabric of Canada (whatever that might actually mean). This despite the fact that:

This government has piloted the country through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression landing Canada at the top of the G7 in terms of economic stability and prosperity

Canada is ranked #2 in the world in terms of wellness, health and satisfaction according to   Deepak Chopra's  latest Gallop study

Of the ten cities in the world with the cleanest air, eight of them are in Canada

Despite allegations of electoral fraud, the only charges that have been laid for breaking the rules were laid against the opposition parties. The Conservative government has been charged with nothing.

Introduced a motion to recognized Quebec as a nation within a nation and not only restored the cuts to health care funding by the former Liberal government but has provided a long-term guarantee of annual payment increases.

A majority of Canadians are quite unhappy with their government nonetheless and continuously castigate it for its nefarious ways even though they are living in the most stable country in the world because of that government and there really aren’t any nefarious ways over which to be all that upset.

It is democracy, however, and we the people are entitled to voice our displeasure, no matter how irrational that displeasure may be. It appears that both Americans and Canadians never seem to have time to step back and actually consider the contradictory nature of what they want and what they say they want before they form their opinions or vote.

A majority of Americans don’t believe they have what they want or need but appear to be doggedly determined to on voting for more of it by supporting the administration that provided caused that dissatisfaction. Canadians, for the most part, have pretty much what they want and need but would like a different government anyway.

I believe this is what happens when thinking is replaced by feeling; when the ability to think critically, objectively or analytically is overruled by emotional knee-jerk reaction. Feeling is easy because it happens naturally. Thinking is hard because you actually have to make an effort.

Sometimes it's the result of focusing on a single issue without any understanding that in today's economy, all issues are inevitably linked at some point.

Americans like Barrack Obama. He’s charming most of the time, somewhat hip and cool, fairly intelligent, witty and he’s African-American. He’s stands as a symbol that their country has finally overcome the racial divide, at least politically and that anyone can, indeed, become president. The fact that he is an incompetent leader who has put America on a track with which a majority of Americans disagree is irrelevant to how the majority seem prepared to vote.

Canadians do not like Stephen Harper even though he is competent, focused, reasonably intelligent and efficient. He has provided solid leadership on most files anticipates events well and is consistent. But, and there is always a but, he isn’t very friendly, can be quite vicious in his attack on his political opponents, has the charisma of a tax auditor and his hair never blows in the wind. If Canada were a two party system, Mr. Harper would lose the next election despite his good governance and solid performance.

We don’t stop there, however, in our never ending search for convenient democracy. The definition of the democracy we want shifts from issue to issue.

We all claim to want our elected representatives to vote their conscience and that of their constituents rather than the party line but, as we saw recently with the vote in Canada on a motion to examine when life begins, that idea of democracy becomes quite inconvenient.

Rona Ambrose, the Minister for the Status of Women, voted her conscience. She voted in favour of the motion. This has outraged the Sisterhood who, even though the motion was soundly defeated, are calling for the minister’s head or at the very least, her resignation from cabinet. Winning the vote wasn’t good enough, the mere fact that Minister Ambrose voted in favour of something with which the Sisterhood disagreed is sufficient to toss the idea of democracy aside and gather the lynch mob together for a hanging.

It's pretty confused democratic activism that fights for the rights of women and then get's it's lingerie in a twist when one of them actually exercises that right and votes against how the Sisterhood thinks they should. The fact that the Sisterhood doesn't speak for all women, let alone all Canadians and that this is a democracy, is quite irrelevant to them. It is democracy at its most inconvenient so just grab the rope and find a tree.

Teachers’ unions in Canada and the United States have thrown their support, sometimes quite aggressively behind this this political party or that, in order to provide better education for the children through higher salaries and benefits to teachers. When the cupboard is bare and the existing government they supported introduces the concept of economic reality to them, teachers take to the streets and then throw their support to the next party only too willing to promise them a piece of the moon if they’re elected. What the government may have done in a broader sense is irrelevant. Teachers vote en mass against the government that is now undermining the classroom by freezing teachers' salaries or not providing them with the raises they want.

And that, Kids, is what we call convenient democracy. The idea of we the people agreeing on something by majority rule is only convenient when our team wins, or in the case of issues like ‘when life begins’ not even when our team wins. Then it isn’t enough that ‘our side’ won the day, there has to be repercussions against those who exercised their democratic right and voted against us.

Even children have a better understanding of democracy than we do but then, children aren’t as sophisticated as we are and they have too much integrity to understand the intricacies of the real world. For kids, it’s about forming a consensus, making a decision and getting on with playing; either that or simply throwing a hissy fit in order to get their own way.

And doesn’t that last bit sound like a lot of what the big folks do these days?

For grown up kids now, it’s about throwing a hissy fits when we lose the vote and then hammering away at every issue until the resolution is convenient for us. The problem, of course, is that when that happens it becomes quite inconvenient for someone else and so we start the silliness over again.

Perhaps one day we might learn that democracy is at its best when we recognize that it is not always convenient but that the decisions taken by the majority are necessary to move us forward as a nation. Until then, I’m afraid that for many of us, democracy will be little more than a hammer to try and force others to our way of thinking at worst and a parody of a results show for American Idol or X Factor at best complete with screaming fans, lots of television coverage but unfortunately without the charm of Simon Cowell.

© 2012 Maggie's Bear

all rights reserved

The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

Follow The Bear on Twitter: @maggsbear or become a friend on Facebook: Maggie's Bear

The Not Quite Knute Rockne Moment Of The Romney Campaign

"Play like you're positive on the victory, even though
they're leading big now." 

- Knute Rockne

In sport, the coach usually has an inspirational talk with his team before sending them out on the field. Typically, he and his assistant coaches have also spent more than just a bit of time pumping up the media and fans before the big game.

In that vein, this letter has been sent to the mainstream media and other interested parties by the Mitt Romney campaign in advance of the first Presidential debate. Give it a read and then we’ll chat.

From: Beth Myers, Senior Adviser

To: Interested Parties

Date: September 27, 2012

Re: 2012 Presidential Debates

In a matter of days, Governor Romney and President Obama will meet on the presidential debate stage. President Obama is a universally-acclaimed public speaker and has substantial debate experience under his belt. However, the record he's compiled over the last four years – higher unemployment, lower incomes, rising energy costs, and a national debt spiraling out of control – means this will be a close election right up to November 6th.

Between now and then, President Obama and Governor Romney will debate three times. While Governor Romney has the issues and the facts on his side, President Obama enters these contests with a significant advantage on a number of fronts.

Voters already believe – by a 25-point margin – that President Obama is likely to do a better job in these debates. Given President Obama's natural gifts and extensive seasoning under the bright lights of the debate stage, this is unsurprising. President Obama is a uniquely gifted speaker, and is widely regarded as one of the most talented political communicators in modern history. This will be the eighth one-on-one presidential debate of his political career. For Mitt Romney, it will be his first.

Four years ago, Barack Obama faced John McCain on the debate stage. According to Gallup, voters judged him the winner of each debate by double-digit margins, and their polling showed he won one debate by an astounding 33-point margin. In the 2008 primary, he faced Hillary Clinton, another formidable opponent – debating her one-on-one numerous times and coming out ahead. The takeaway? Not only has President Obama gained valuable experience in these debates, he also won them comfortably.

But what must President Obama overcome? His record. Based on the campaign he's run so far, it's clear that President Obama will use his ample rhetorical gifts and debating experience to one end: attacking Mitt Romney. Since he won't – and can't – talk about his record, he'll talk about Mitt Romney. We fully expect a 90-minute attack ad aimed at tearing down his opponent. If President Obama is as negative as we expect, he will have missed an opportunity to let the American people know his vision for the next four years and the policies he'd pursue. That's not an opportunity Mitt Romney will pass up. He will talk about the big choice in this election – the choice between President Obama's government-centric vision and Mitt Romney's vision for an opportunity society with more jobs, higher take-home pay, a better-educated workforce, and millions of Americans lifted out of poverty into the middle class.

This election will not be decided by the debates, however. It will be decided by the American people. Regardless of who comes out on top in these debates, they know we can't afford another four years like the last four years. And they will ultimately choose a better future by electing Mitt Romney to be our next president.

It’s a damn good thing that Ms Myers is not a football coach because Knute Rockne she ain’t. Imagine any football coach contacting the media and advising them that his team was probably going to lose on Sunday because the other team had better coaching, a better quarterback and….well….were just better at it the game than his team even though their record sucked.

While she did take the obligatory shots at the record of President Obama, she spent as much time positively fawning over his rhetorical and debating skills, even detailing his past successes.

Everything Ms Myers wrote is true. President Obama is an experienced debater and an excellent orator. It is equally true that his record in office is one of the worst in modern history. It seems to me that if you want to win the election, you just keep pounding away on that record rather than laying down in front of the world and admitting that your ‘boy’ doesn’t stand a chance in the big game. You might just as well toss in the towel and admit that your campaign is done.

I’m  wondering why in hell anyone would be supporting someone they think is going to get the stuffing kicked out of them in a debate with his opponent. Does Ms Myers lack confidence in her candidate to the point where she believes he is incapable of holding his own against President Obama? If that is the case, how could she possibly believe he could hold his own with Congress or world leaders, especially with the likes of the President of Iran? (I’d use his name but I can’t pronounce or spell it properly.)

What would ever possess an election campaign to publicly undercut its own candidate and lower expectations of his performance? I suppose some will think that it is a devilishly clever strategy to create a bit of over-confidence in the Obama ranks with the intent of blind-siding him during the debate. Give me a break. If that was the strategy it was clearly poorly thought out and the result of desperate over-thinking…..or perhaps not thinking at all.

I’m also wondering how Mitt is feeling after this underwhelming public endorsement from one of his senior campaign advisers. Imagine that metaphorical football coach getting the lads together in the locker room and telling them they were about to get the Bejesus kicked out of them on Sunday because they weren’t as good as the other team. That’s definitely not one of those inspirational speeches that gets recorded for posterity or that drives a team to strive for victory.

Hollywood doesn’t make too many movies about coaches who announced in advance of the big game that their team didn’t have the experience or measured up to the other team; so for pity’s sake, don’t expect much from them.

It continues to amaze me at just how bizarre this election campaign continues to become.

Personally, I think the entire problem with elections is exemplified by this presidential campaign. There is too much money, too much spin and too much strategy. What is lacking is a rational discourse on the record of the current president and specifics about policy to get America back on its feet from his challenger. Somehow that doesn’t seem important though. There is so much focus on winning that the actual purpose of the election has been long forgotten.

It’s more of a popularity contest now than a process to select the best person to govern the country. It’s like an America’s Got Talent audition without the good will, the humour or the talent but an overabundance of stage moms behind the curtain.

Churchill was right. Democracy is the worst form of government, it’s just better than all the rest. Isn’t it a shame that it’s the best we could come up with? I hate to admit it but some days, dictatorships and monarchies start to look attractive to me. Even if kings, queens and dictators didn’t govern all that well; we wouldn’t be any worse off than we are now and at the very least we wouldn’t have put up with a year-long circus of division and stupidity at horrendous expense.

I think we should just elect a king or a queen and divide the $10 billion being wasted in this election campaign amongst everyone. Those in favour raise their hands and say aye. Those opposed can go ahead and tune in to the debates next week although we already know who will win; the Mitt Romney campaign has made that clear.

You don’t think Ms Myers actually is a Democrat do you? Nah, me either…but….

© 2012 Maggie's Bear

all rights reserved

The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

Follow The Bear on Twitter: @maggsbear or connect on Facebook: Maggie's Bear