Find Insurance Online

I  ran across a poll that showed the ranks of the independents growing.  Not coincidentally, movements independent of the two major US parties seem to be springing up.  The Tea Party amd the Coffee Party are just a few.  Remembering back to Ross Perot’s movement in the early 1990’s, I must admit to a tendency to consign the movements of 2010 to a similar “wave” pattern.  However, there might be enough independents relative to the two parties that one or more of them could be around for awhile and make a difference beyond one or two election cycles.  My sense is that they will not, but independents factor could mean that my projection is too pessimistic.

In any case, there are doubtlessly many American citizens annoyed at the office-holders representing the two major parties for being inordinately interested in serving the moneyed interests at the expense of the public good and too interested (relatedly) in getting reelected.

The question is perhaps whether We the People can muster enough power to change the equation.  We are far-flung and each making up our own minds, while the moneyed interests are getting ever more concentrated (and this reflects on their ability to influence our representatives).  The deck, as it were, is stacked against us.  Yet somehow my faith still lies with the little guy—that if enough of us stand up to greed and power we will be able to exercise our own and take back the government for the People.

Of course, there are citizens whose beliefs and values dovetail with the entrenched moneyed interests, so it is not so simple as to claim that the People are alienated from our government.  I think perhaps the US is rather unique in the world for the proportion of its citizens who support the interests of the financial elite.  There was even a book whose thesis was that what was good for GM was good for America.  The citizens whose ideologies match that of the major corporations and banks, the two parties are probably performing just fine.  Even some of the independent movements, such as the Tea Party, might have an agenda that dovetails with the corporate interests (e.g., lower business taxes and less government spending on the People).

So I don’t think I can generalize my position to say that “the People” are frustrated with the influence of the moneyed interests in our government.   Even so, I look back to US Presidents like Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt, the former taking on the banking interests and the latter taking on the giant trusts such as Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, and I wonder where those leaders are today and whether a sufficient number of supporters exist to put such leaders into office again.  It would be presumptuous of me to claim that such a mandate would be that of “the People,” though I do think it would be in line with “We the People.”

So here are some questions for your consideration. Do the entrenched vested interests of the status quo (i.e., those in line with the moneyed interests) have an exaggerated following among citizens in the US?  If so, how real, or deep, is the support?  Are those people simply being manipulated without them realizing it?  If their concurrence is superficial, can it be made transparent?  If we do not awake to the danger of “systemic risk” and “too big to fail” after having experienced the financial crisis of September, 2008 and its after-shocks, will we ever?  Or will the financial consolidation just have to take its course, capturing the US Government as it gains even more power?  We may well have a sizeable “the business of America is business” electorate that is not so because we are being manipulated by ads.  If so, it will be difficult for movements independent of the two major parties to wrestle the government from the grips of the titans.

Mark Meckler, a co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, read the lame-duck session of the Congress at the end of 2010 as an exercise of presumptuous. According to Meckler, "For them to legislate when they've collectively lost their mandate just shows the arrogance of the ruling elite. I can't imagine being repudiated in the way they were and then coming back and saying 'Now that we've been repudiated, let's go pass some legislation. . . . I'm surprised by how blatant it was." Meckler was undoubtedly reflecting a view of human nature with respect to the urge to power that was expressed by Anti-federalist opponents of the U.S. Constitution as it was being ratified in the several states.  Brutus, for example, writes, “This principle, which seems so evidently founded in the reason and nature of things, is confirmed by universal experience. Those who have governed, have been found in all ages ever active to enlarge their powers and abridge the public liberty.” (Brutus, Letter 2, 2.9.25).  Brutus continues, "power, lodged in the hands of rulers to be used at discretion, is almost always exercised to the oppression of the people, and the aggrandizement of themselves; yet most men think if it was lodged in their hands they would not employ it in this manner." (Brutus, Letter 4, 2.9.54). In other words, there is not only a tendency in human nature to overextend political discretion; there is a built-in presumption whereby the drive is blind to itself. Presumption may be hardwired in human nature, such that we unknowingly walk on stilts made of empty straws.

With regard to Merkler's remarks, it might be countered that the 2009-2010 Congress was not beholden to the election of 2010--that the repudiation applied to the next Congress. That is to say, an election is not retroactive. Furthermore, it is not likely that the Democrats would agree that their party was totally repudiated.  It could be argued, for instance, that the moderate or conservative Democrats lost while the liberal Democrats such as Barney Franks and Dennis Kucinich survived. Nancy Pelosi was handily re-elected. Was she to view her votes in the lame duck session as inherently presumptuous? In other words, the foray of the Democratic Party onto Republican turf was pushed back--the Republicans taking back more of the Red states. To be sure, the Democratic Party certainly did not gain ground. At the same time, the resulting party may well be more coherent and thus on message. Meckler was referring not only to the Democrats, but also to the Republicans who "caved" to them. "The Republicans, frankly, have been a disaster," he noted. Even so, according to the NYT, "Tea Party pressure prevailed in blocking the Senate from passing a $1.2 trillion spending bill." However, such influence had to be limited; the 2011-2012 Congress would include a Democrat majority in the Senate (and a Democrat President). 

In short, while Meckler is undoubtedly correct that elected representatives are beholden to their constituents ultimately only by the threat of being voted out, he overstates the repudiation "message" of the 2010 midterm election. In general, so many factors go into elections that it is difficult to gleem one message from the outcome--especially if there are many races. Even if all politics is not local, there are sui generis factors in any race; voters vote for a variety of reasons, even in one race. Superimposing one as a mandate may well be artifice.  Even so, Meckler can be forgiven for responding on the basis of the view of human nature espoused by the Anti-federalists, for hard constraints are undoubtedly necessary to hold people holding power to account. In a republic (or a republic of republics), the possibility of being voted out of office is the stick that even the most powerful representatives must heed.

The Anti-federalist Brutus wrote back in 1788, "Perhaps no restraints are more forcible, than such as arise from responsibility to some superior power.--Hence it is that the true policy of a republican government is, to frame it in such manner, that all persons who are concerned in the government, are made accountable to some superior for their conduct in office.--This responsibility should ultimately rest with the People." (Brutus, Letter 16, 2.9.197, p. 187) Therefore, the mandate of repudiation is that of no longer being in office, yet even here the reasons for one's defeat are not always evident. The will of the people may well be a misnomer; they may be many.

Sources: Kate Zernike, "As New Congress Begins, Actions of G.O.P. Leaders Anger Tea Party Activists," The New York Times, January 2, 2011, p. 13.
Brutus quotes: Herbert J. Storing, ed., The Anti-Federalist, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.