Brad writes:
>Of course Clinton and Blair believe deeply in democracy: it has been very
>good to them, and must therefore be the best of all possible forms of
>government.
Clinton believes in the kind of democracy that works according to the one
dollar/one vote principle, as indicated by the massive haul that he made
for his party at a fund-raiser last night (and will reward him with
millions of dollars of speaker's fees once he retires). (Contrary to press
reports it might not have been a "record-breaking" haul, but of course the
newspaper didn't correct for the effects of inflation. Also,
under-the-table "contributions" can't be counted.) He also believes in the
two-party duopoly, that insures that none of the major issues are really
contested or debated, so that in effect, it's a debate within a one-party
system. (The analogy is with Mexico's PRI, not the old CPSU, since the
latter ruled a completely different kind of system.)
I don't know about Blair, since I don't know that much about how English
politics works. They probably have different mechanisms to makes sure that
the capitalist elite dominates.
>I, on the other hand, face every day the results of the California voter
>initiative process...
I live with it too. It shows that increasing democracy can work poorly in a
place where money-politics dominates.
However, contrary to much liberal opinion, it's not an argument in favor of
weakening democracy (by getting rid of the initiative system). Rather, it's
an argument for getting rid of the role of big money in politics. Of
course, the California state legislature isn't going to do that, because
it's just as beholden to the power of money as the initiative process.
They're part of the same problem. The way to counteract the power of money
over both the initiative system and the legislature (not to mention the
governor) is to build up the Green Party, the Peace & Freedom Party, and
similar opposition groups on the grass-root level.
One argument is that the right wing can use the initiative process (and for
those who don't live in California, the right wing, though prosperous,
isn't the same as big money: they're conservative upper-middle-income white
home-owners in Orange County and the like). But to use this argument seems
to be simply an argument against democracy _per se_. People who push this
argument are showing absolutely no respect for their opponents' rights.
(After all, we're not in a civil war of the sort that encouraged Lincoln to
suspend _habeus corpus_ and similar democratic rights.)
This is not to say that the California initiative process is perfect and
needs no reforms. For example, the passing (by a simple majority) of laws
that require a super-majority (like 2/3 of the vote) to repeal is
irrational. The court system has failed us by not knocking down such
craziness.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
