Ted Grimsrud—March 12, 2024
The more I learn about the history of the United States, the more I question whether this country has ever had an actually functioning democracy. In the mid-19th century, abolitionist leaders Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison argued with each other about whether the problems with the then oppressive American slavery-embracing nation-state were due to roots found in the Constitution or more in spite of the Constitution. About 100 years later, a similar debate emerged between Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X. I find myself inching in the direction of Garrison and Malcolm and their views that the Constitution is a much bigger part of the problem than the solution.
Regardless of what we think about the original intentions of the Constitution, though, the facts seem to be that it has failed to prevent the emergence and growing reality of an American oligopoly characterized by the rule of a wealthy (and ruthless) elite at the expense of the wellbeing of the mass of the nation’s population—in defiance of the actual will of the people. I suspect that the US has always by and large been an oligopoly and that the myth of popular self-rule has always been mostly untrue. Nonetheless, things seem to be getting worse, and we currently face an extraordinary crisis with no hint of a creative way out of it.
An election for a failing empire
After the recent spate of “primaries” on March 5, what has been apparent for a long time has now essentially become official. Our choice in the upcoming presidential election is between two of the least popular presidents the US has ever had. The Republicans at least have had an illusion of an open nominating process. It does appear to be the case that Trump has the support of most in the Party, and it is hard to see anywhere a possible different Republican candidate who might value actual democratic processes more. For the Democrats, the party bosses have been remarkably successful (and oblivious to democratic processes) in making the renomination of Biden a fait accompli without any significant dissent—apart from hundreds of thousands of rank-and-file members who have underscored Biden’s unpopularity by voting for “None of the Above” or, in our case here in Virginia, for the now withdrawn candidacy of Marianne Williamson.
So, not only are we stuck with two candidates who are clearly unprepared for and uninterested in leading the nation in effectively addressing its dire problems (e.g., the climate catastrophe; the untrammeled and destructive rule of the corporatocracy; unrestrained warism leading to extraordinary disasters in Ukraine and Israel/Palestine; the ever-deepening problems of poverty, unavailable healthcare, and environmental breakdowns; and a profoundly violent and devastating criminal justice system just to mention the most obvious). We have no inkling of how things could get much if any better. The only trajectory seems to be down, down, down.
What to do?
In face of this despairing reality, I am not quite sure what to do. I can imagine several possible options. One is to keep our head in the sand, accept the corporate media’s propaganda and think it truly does matter who wins this election with the understanding that the victory of the wrong person would be an unmitigated disaster (and not recognize that the victory of *either* one will be disastrous, with only slight differences in the types of disasters that will ensue). Another option would be to work within the system to reform it—most obviously for progressives to keep appealing to Democratic Party leaders to embrace the “progressive” Democrat agenda of people such as Bernie Sanders and the Squad. We might recognize Biden’s limitations and even decide that we can’t support him. But we still think the system can be fixed. A third option would be give in to the despair, say a pox on all sides, and simply live out the remainder of one’s days with as much comfort as possible—including the comfort of exiting partisan politics altogether.
I am trying to imagine a fourth option. Working to understand the failures of the American empire as best as possible—partly with the assumption that that would help us imagine alternatives for after the inevitable downfall of the Empire. With the education (and awareness of the death-spiral for the Empire that seems irreversible) would come a commitment to seek to fan sparks of life wherever they may, in whatever small way, be apparent. It’s kind of a think global, act local strategy.
Thinking Pacifism 
This also raises the vexed question, which is d’actualité here in the UK too, of how on earth to vote when there is no party or candidate that represents your convictions in a remotely adequate way (or worse: when voting for any of the available options would mean backing at least some policy stances with which you strongly disagree).
A very much related question is whether citizens have a duty to vote – or, to turn it around, whether there’s a valid and responsible moral case for not voting (or, as I prefer to think of it, choosing to withhold one’s vote). I happen to think there is, but I suspect I’m very much in the minority and have on occasion been aggressively taken to task by Christians for whom the idea of not voting is akin to rank heresy (something of which I’m no doubt guilty in their eyes anyway, so what the heck).
It is a dilemma and I respect different thoughtful responses to it. I do vote with the idea that not voting may be seen as apathy while a protest vote shows unhappiness with the duopoly options. I look for alternative candidates, and when I don’t find them may write in where that is allowed (it isn’t in primaries in this state which are often the key elections since I live in an essentially one-party area). Sometimes I don’t write in a person’s name but a slogan that indicates an area where I disagree with all the candidates, like “Stop The Wars” or “No Trickledown Economics.” This assumes it will be clearer about at least part of my objections than writing in a name they won’t recognize.
Living in an essentially one-party area where the key election for partisan races is the Democratic primary, I am a registered Democrat because all those not registered this way do not have the right to vote in the closed primary system. The general election is usually not treated with much importance here because only in exceptional cases does a Democrat get less than 2/3 of the vote and for a number of offices there is no candidate except the Democrat.
Thanks, Rob and Bill. I resonate with both of you. I have often struggled with what I think about voting (and have written several blog posts about it over the years). I have hardly ever felt *good* about whoever I was voting for. I’m getting pretty tired of that and pretty discouraged about American “democracy”.
Thanks, Bill, for your thoughtful reply.
Ted, I can understand your discouragement. Beyond the faltering democratic process, I do wonder what the way forward is for the USA, and whether the inevitable collapse of US hegemony can happen without unleashing hitherto unprecedented levels of domestic strife and turmoil.
Thanks, Rob. I’m afraid that the strife and turmoil are as inevitable as the collapse. Hard to see much hope, though for the world’s sake the collapse seems necessary. I do believe that trying to follow Jesus’s way is always the best response.
Agreed, Ted.
Where is the root of this? When Europeans came to this continent, it was inhabited by millions of people organized in societies (called nations or tribes) with their own civilizations, cultures, and governance system. They did not come as immigrants, who seek to be admitted to the current society. They came as colonialist settlers who engaged in genocidal attempts against the indigenous population which decimated the population and seriously damaged the cultures.
The mindset of those who established the USA was that the indigenous population and the African slaves they forcible brought to this continent didn’t count. It’s not a democracy when large groups of people are excluded. The founding documents were created by groups of mostly elite white men (all white men and most elite). The nation state was not founded through democratic process. Some steps have been made since to amend the Constitution to make it less undemocratic but there is still no guarantee of democratic process written in our Constitution and our election systems largely fall far short of democratic standards.
Good to get your thoughts on possible responses to failing empire (and ailing “democracy” – worse than it’s ailed all along, except for perhaps the Civil War period).
I’d like to suggest a combination of your #2 and #4 options. That is, as in #4, to “fan the sparks of life wherever…”. And indeed, it must be local, in many places at once, as well as national, at least in certain critical aspects.
And I’ll invoke #2 in terms of believing “the system can be fixed”…. As long as “the system” refers to central constitutional principles such as free and fair elections (for ALL), a balance of individual rights and the common good, and does allow the continuation of the three branches of government as basically structured now.
In other words, the general structures the constitution lays out can remain, making the “reform from within” MUCH more doable than if it needed constitutional amendments; or if things came to such a serious breakdown that interpretation and application (enforcement) of the constitution or other laws was impossible. BTW, I do fear that we might be as close as one election away from that last possibility. So sustained action NOW is imperative, in my view.
Now, many things within “the system” (i.e., subsystems) must be changed, and perhaps most centrally, the two party duopoly. To summarize greatly a much broader strategy, let me focus on this and a couple related dynamics critical to it. We do not need to directly attack the two-party system (nowhere mandated formally). We just need to push it aside as a result of gaining truly representative government AND accountability. This will not be easy but it IS FEASIBLE. The mechanisms have been studied for decades and many of them proven in action.
Here are the more prominent and/or larger of many pertinent organizations working on reforms of our system. It is well worth becoming familiar with some of them if not joining and supporting their work. [Continued….]
… [continued from above, last paragraph repeated. Was apparently too long for a single comment]…
Here are the more prominent and/or larger of many pertinent organizations working on reforms of our system. It is well worth becoming familiar with some of them if not joining and supporting their work.
“HUBS” or NETWORKS of many organizations doing similar work:
Braver Network (part of Listen First Coalition, which has significant Christian [non-
Trumpist] involvement)
Bridge Alliance (fully “secular” large set of actively transpartisan orgs)
Generate Democracy (An inter-movement of pro-democracy/reform movements)
INDIVIDUAL ORGS:
Braver Angels (nationwide org of a few years which promotes structured dialogs
between equal red/blue participants)
Represent.us (state-by-state anti-corruption and legislative, electoral reform org, across
the political spectrum)
Rank The Vote (rankthevote.us – Ranked Choice Voting nationwide org)
OpenPrimaries.org (org educating about and promoting primaries allowing all voters, in
all 50 states)
A NON-PARTY “PARTY”:
Forward Party (.org) – Unique approach, NOT fielding “Forward Party”
candidates but aiding the selection of any-party candidates in sync with certain
basic principles not aligned with any particular party; working toward electoral
reform. Founded by Andrew Yang (out of deep learning from his presidential run) and
several other bipartisan or transpartisan leaders.
There is nothing in the Constitution calling for free and fair elections. That is why, for instance, the Supreme Court rejects challenges to gross gerrymandering of districts. It’s not fair, but there is no Constitutional basis to challenge it.
Stop with the hand-wringing.
Incumbent presidents always win re-nomination. That’s almost a given. And both Bernie and “the squad” are Biden supporters. Maybe listen to them and stop doom-scrolling polls this far out. A lot of Biden’s disapproval is from the left and they won’t be voting for Trump. Trump is basically peaking right now since he isn’t that much in the news. The more people see of him the more they dislike. And they will start seeing a LOT of him this summer and fall.
In any event, whoever wins will be an instant lame duck and the race for 2028 will literally start up in months. Congress is likely to be obstructionist and gridlocked no matter who wins since most presidents only really accomplish major legislation in their first term, and usually the first two years of their first term. And there will be a bunch of senators on both sides of the aisle gearing up for a 2028 run and uninterested in doing hard and consequential legislation in 2025. Which is another reason Congress is unlikely to accomplish much. Mostly they’ll just roll over budgets through endless continuing resolutions and shutdown threats just like the last years of the Obama Administration when the GOP held Congress.
2028 will actually be the consequential election for the future since all the candidates will be new and from the younger generation. And whoever wins in 2028 will have the inside track for an 8-year run. Paradoxically the party that loses in 2024 will have the advantage going into 2028 since not much change is likely due to an obstructionist Congress and people will be sick of whatever party is in power.
Your 4th option is to stop paying so much attention to national politics and start looking for how to make your local community better.
Kent, you make some good points. But even if I’m wrong, along with a whole lot of people, including many committed conservatives – often lifelong Republicans – that Trump is truly dangerous to democracy in a number of ways, I’m fed up with a continuation of politics as they are; as in our dysfunctional two party duopoly.
It’s hardly a secret that the orgs I listed above exist, the small (generally, except ranked choice voting) ones and the slightly larger ones. But them getting traction IS extremely challenging. That’s despite their generally having common sense and doable projects. And lots and lots of effort. I hope you’ll join us!
Incumbent Presidents usually, but not always, win renomination. LBJ wanted to run again but dropped out because he didn’t think he could win the nomination.
Left people critical of Biden will not vote for Trump. However, you’ll probably see a larger proportion than in the past voting for alternative candidates – this year, that would be Cornel West, Jill Stein, or even Kennedy (who is a weird ideological mix, but it looks like he’s going to aim more at getting voters who would otherwise vote Republican).
There will never be a meaningful 3rd party in this country without replacing one of the other two. It has been that way for 230+ years. And that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it is just the system we have. Step back and look at the big picture and what all democracies have in common whether parliamentary multi-party systems or 2-party presidential systems. The all share the following characteristics:
1. Legislation requires majority votes to pass. Nowhere in the world can you pass new laws with a minority of votes. You need a 50+1 majority or sometimes more.
2. Leaders require a majority of votes to win. Whether in direct presidential elections, through our convoluted electoral college system, or in parliamentary systems where people don’t vote directly for prime ministers but there needs to be a working majority in parliament in order to elect leaders and a government.
The only real difference between the 2-party system in the US and a multi-party system in a country like Germany is where the negotiation and coalition-building happens in order to reach 50+1 to elect leaders and pass legislation. Here in the US, all the coalition building happens within the parties. The Democratic and Republican parties both try to build a big enough tent in order to elect majorities in Congress and elect a president. So Democrats have environmentalists, immigrants, civil rights workers and minorities, union members, etc. Republicans have evangelicals, pro-business types, libertarian types and so forth. All of the coalition-building happens within the party while building an electoral majority.
By contrast, in Germany they have a dozen or so small parties. They are all “purist” in that they reflect narrow interests. But none of them have a working majority. So they end up having to form working majorities in the process of forming a government AFTER everyone has voted. It is all smoke-filled back rooms and wheeling dealing between party leaders without the public involved. One party says they’ll join a coalition government if they get their person appointed foreign minister or whatever.
In both systems, exactly the same thing is happening. Coalitions are forming in order to reach 50+1 majorities to pass laws and elect leaders. However here in the US that coalition building process happens much closer to the public and involves the public more directly in party primaries. In parliamentary systems with “pure” parties it all happens after the election and the public is frankly not at all involved.
In my mind, the messy system of party primaries and the building of party coalitions is actually MORE democratic than the process of government formation in parliamentary systems that doesn’t involve voters at all.
But either way, it is just two different ways of reaching 50+1 in a democracy which is always going to involve compromise and coalitions.
I’m not sure, Kent, if you were replying to my last comment, given the stacking, but I’ll presume so.
First, you know a lot about the main democratic structures here and abroad… probably more than I do. You gave a good summary. I probably created a misconception via some poor wording as to our two party system. I didn’t mean to even imply, and didn’t state that I’m looking toward, or favor a third party coming to prominence. I agree that that’s probably not happening and wouldn’t necessarily change things for the better.
I also should have mentioned the term “deliberative democracy”. Under that term/concept, or related ones, one can find pretty in-depth analysis and some “proofs of concept” as to key principles and processes that can be implemented in our current system or others.
A place to get some good explanations and outlines is the article on it on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy
I have no issues with the theory of deliberative democracy. But it is really about local and at best, state level decision-making. Which is exactly where I advised that Ted place his focus. It is where I put the bulk of my thoughts and energy.
But Ted’s post was about national politics and the presidency. The stakes are too large and the country is far too vast to contemplate doing any of that sort of thing at the national level for the presidency, or even for Congress.
That said, people should understand that here in the US, governing majorities are built within the parties rather than between them as is the case with European parliamentary systems. So all one accomplishes by supporting fringe 3rd party efforts is to undermine the coalition party that is closest to your point of view and bolster the coalition party that is most contrary to your point of view. But either way, both in the US and Europe, if you want to have any influence at all, you have to be a part of the governing coalition, not outside it. Also bear in mind that the orcs are always at the door so to speak. The struggle is constant and always will be. No party will ever capture a permanent governing majority. The closest we ever came was the New Deal and governing majorities under FDR and Truman only lasted 20 years. Since then the longest any party has held power was 12 years (Reagan Bush from 1980-1992)
The other reality of American politics is that all change is incremental. People who expect anything else are naive and bound to be disappointed. A lot of activist types eventually find this out the hard way and grow disillusioned. The only contrary example to that truism is the Civil War. And that was the most violent and destructive episode in American history.
The fact is that in more democratic countries when there is great dissatisfaction, new parties or independents (like Macron in France) spring up and can be a catalyst to bring about change. The political elite in this country has set things up in this country so that is almost impossible to happen. That has led us to where we are.
I won’t try to “speak for” Ted, but I think you’re right on his national level focus, mainly, here and in other posts. That may be because of his anti-empire focus. We do need voices speaking particularly to that, so I’m not trying to persuade him as to changing focus, but I confess I may be trying to with you. We do line up in our thinking pretty well, and I AM a kind of activist (actively but not “in the streets”).
That’s not just for deliberative (or more effectively “direct”) democracy at any level, but primarily local-to-state. However, there IS a connection to national level I won’t go into explaining here, but it has to do with working within the 2-party system you probably rightly state will not be changed much anytime soon. If you’ve not read “Forward” by Andrew Yang, I’d recommend it, and at least the final 2 chapters where he gets specific and fairly detailed, mentioning deliberative democracy (as a “named” movement/theory) and with focus on mechanisms to help empower more people in elections and civic engagement at all levels… open primaries, ranked choice voting, etc.
And if you, Ted, are “listening in”, I’d add that fostering “dialog-across-difference” mutual-respect groups operating nationwide is, in fact, one mechanism to help diminish the acrimony between partisans (and change the dynamic of partisan conflict in government broadly). And, further, to increase citizen input on imperialism also. And, ultimately, create accountability for congress on issues like that, with everything else.
The two-party system is not what obstructs political change in this country. It is the presidential system and 2-chamber legislature. Parliamentary systems are more amenable to change because there is no separation of powers. Any coalition of parties that can achieve a working majority in a parliament can push through changes because the executive and legislative branches are one.
In the US any meaningful change requires 60 Senators, 218 Congressmen, 1 President, and 5 Supreme Court justices. That is a very high bar, far higher than in parliamentary systems. Whereas all opponents need is control over one of those things to block any progress. And having more small parties isn’t going to change that math in the slightest. It is also the reason why you should never believe small parties like the Greens or Libertarians when they talk about their platform and ideas. It is all just fairy tales and fantasy until they get to 60/218/1/5
And we have anachronisms like the Electoral College that were designed to protect slavery. Fixing any of it from the structure of the Senate to the Electoral college requires constitutional amendments which means it will never happen.
I’m not naïve about any of those things. They are just part of the ecosystem in which we operate. But Americans have accomplished great things, even within those constraints. And I believe we still can in the future as well.