Section
Pepperdine Links
Online Publications
One cannot get very far in contemporary current events without a discussion of the merits of democracy. On the international front, the Bush Doctrine’s relentless push for the democratization of the Islamic world has been an indelible aspect of both the highs and lows of the region over the past five years. But recent fulminations in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, while easily the most volatile instances of dysfunctional democracy, illustrate an age-old tension that is playing itself out, even as we speak, right here in California.
Through years of government by initiative, referendum, and even the occasional recall, the word “Republic” on the Golden State’s flag seems to have become a tad superfluous as of late. The state has ignored the “Federalist Papers’” warnings that direct democracy is a surefire recipe for short-sighted, impetuous, and downright illiberal decision making. This disregard has consistently shirked the responsibility to make crucial decisions by invoking the mantra of “the voice of the people.” The results have been predictably irresponsible.
To illustrate the vagaries of popular decision making on complex issues, let’s use a quick exercise. I turn my personal finances over to you, the reader, and ask you to make a decision on how much of my monthly budget I should spend on groceries every month. However, your decision is limited exclusively to groceries, without any reference to my other expenses. Believing that basic foodstuffs are an essential part of anyone’s existence, you peg the number at 40 percent of my monthly budget.
But a host of questions quickly arise from such impulsive decision making. What if I could adequately feed myself with only 20 percent? What if a more balanced, nutritious diet could be had for a much lower price? What if there was a sudden change in my monthly income that forced me to dramatically reprioritize my spending? To which you would answer on each count, “You will spend 40 percent of your income on groceries.”
If this seems far-fetched or irresponsible, it’s because it is. If it seems familiar, it’s because it’s exactly the decision that California voters made when they decided to dedicate 40 percent of the state’s budget to education with the passage of proposition 98 in 1989. The results? A ranking of 46th for the Golden State in the most recent survey of state education systems and deficits that can’t be overcome because 70 percent of state expenditures are predetermined before legislators even get a shot at the budgeting process.
Government, especially in regard to matters of finance, is a woefully complex subject matter. If questions of public policy seem rudimentary upon reading an article in Time magazine, that’s probably because the author has pared it down to a form considered digestible for the lay reader, a cardinal sin that is both cause and effect of the state of our democracy.
But let’s not pretend that education is a silver bullet for raising the tone of the vox populi either. The root cause of many voters’ indifference is what economists refer to as “rational ignorance.”
That is, it is simply not worth the time of most Nordstrom’s employees to spend the five hours they have between the end of the work day and going to bed attempting to understand the distortionary effects of marginal tax rates or the respective merits of employment-based and individual-mandate health care models. The few who do go to such noble strides are model citizens. They are also consistently outnumbered by voters who have never considered the ballot proposal in front of them before they’ve stepped into the booth at their local polling place.
Resolving this dilemma is thorny to say the least. No elected official wants the charge of being anti-democratic hung around their neck, and the cold reality is that direct democracy may only be mitigated if voted out through direct democracy. But while governments have a fundamental responsibility to be responsive to citizens, they also have a duty to transcend myopic, prejudicial interests.
One possible solution? Prohibit any ballot initiatives or referendums involving any large-scale effects on the state’s budget. This would alleviate the structural difficulties of governing California, while not completely stripping the people of their electoral heft. Indeed, direct democracy could be beneficial on social issues, as a reversion to federalism on controversial topics such as gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action and stem-cell research could allow more local, heterogeneous communities to march to the beat of their respective drums, once and for all defusing the powder keg of the “culture wars”.
Until that day, citizens who want to make a difference for the good have a simple mandate: if you don’t understand an issue, don’t vote.
Submitted 8-28-2006
MALIBU, CA
