Horse Sense: Mid-term Democracy

In November the GOP is sure to lose a number of seats in the biggest anti-incumbent vote since 1994. Of course, the possibility won’t sneak up on Republicans the way it did on Democrats back then; and Republican gerrymandering has erected structural defense against typical, mid-term winds of change. Losing power is unlikely for Republicans in either House, unless political backlash comes to resemble Hurricane Katrina force winds; that is to say, unless voters evince only once-a-century intensity of political fury. While possible, it’s unlikely. There aren’t many contestable seats in this year’s election, making it hard for Democrats to net the 15 House seats or 6 Senate seats needed. The wildcard is Iraq, and news from that front will have direct bearing on the election at home. News of the death of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, as well as the treasure trove of intelligence recovered recently about Al-Qaeda, may actually turn the tide in Iraq—it surely provides the political cover essential, to start drawing troop levels down before November or to make an announcement to do so next year. There’s no question too, that regardless of the physical situation, the tide of information has turned from all bad to, well, much better. From this standpoint, there’s only four months to go before the mid-term elections—Republicans only need the hundred yard dash, i.e., a short-run politically speaking. The marathon comes later, and Republicans will worry about the presidential race later. Indeed, they must. Expected Democratic gains in November are most likely going to increase political gridlock, not break it. In all likelihood, this will set the stage for watershed elections in 2008.
Now then: a word or two about the state of our “democracy,” much less our Republic. In the U.S. House there are only 30 out of 435 districts that are truly competitive. According to James Bovard in his book, Attention Deficit Democracy (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), the politicians have picked the voters they want, rather than the other way around! Bovard argues that elections now resemble “reverse slave auctions,” whereby largely clueless voters select which gang of politicians to control their lives. Hey I’ve got my favorite gang, and you probably do too, but his point is worth considering. I remember studying U.S. and Southern history. It was fascinating to discover a tremendous variety of conditions and situations possible under nineteenth century slavery. In some places, the institution was far less oppressive than in others. Though always backed by violence or the threat of violence, there was a certain “freedom within slavery” possible, such that, slaves formed a unique culture, had families and practiced religion, even fished and performed the jig. Moreover, in my travels around the world I’ve discovered freedom in oppressive regimes as well—pockets of private space, as well as practical accommodations between rulers and the ruled, by virtue of power and of interest. A separation of powers principle indeed exists in many countries around the world, not just in so-called democracies. The point I’m making implicitly is that what we now call freedom in this country is to some extent an illusion, or at least it is no more substantive than the practical freedom experienced by slaves, who have no theoretical rights left under a living Constitution, at least none that our masters are bound to respect.
Much of what government does today is done covertly. Covert governments require no accountability; and if they have elections, it is a formality. Does anyone seriously believe the president or Congress actually wants to discuss the war, NSA spying, or prisoners held at Guantanimo? Had they wanted to persuade us at all in the first place, or merely trick us into going along? We consider ourselves free now because almost everyone is entitled to vote, but I sometimes question what we’re voting for. Few have the slightest idea of freedom, property rights or the Constitution’s limits on state power. According to Bovard, “The less people understand about how government works, the easier it is to get them to focus on promised results rather than actual procedures. Due process becomes a mere phrase, or even a pointless distraction in the pursuit of a Great Protector. This is reflected by the tacit acceptance by many Americans that an election victory entitles a politician to ‘do what he thinks right.’” Thomas Jefferson thought that politicians had to be bound down by the chains of the Constitution. He never once placed his faith in guaranteed rights on the momentary whim of fifty-one percent, or the bare majority of a minority who bothered to vote. Our democracy today resembles the inhabitants of George Orwell’s 1984 more than the independent-minded and resolute individuals, who fought for liberty and established an American Republic 230 years ago. Mid-term elections in 2006 bode no serious philosophic change, only a shift in the crop of rascals in Washington. People are sadly content with the general outlines of a welfare-warfare state, and while the election of 2008 is bound to be “watershed,” “what for” remains to be seen.
_____________________
Wesley Allen Riddle is a retired military officer with degrees and honors from West Point and Oxford. Widely published in the academic and opinion press, he ran for U.S. Congress (TX-District 31) in the 2004 Republican Primary. Email: wes@wesriddle.com.

*Emphasis mine