The political obligation: constructive or not?

30 Jan 2010

Are we obligated to be politically involved? Does being a citizen of a republic impart on me an ethical obligation to vote, to be politically informed, and to communicate with others about such topics? Certainly public awareness and discourse is improved by that kind of activity, but the question is whether it’s ethical to impose it on other people.

This is a particularly relevant question right now because of the mass political ignorance we see around issues like health care. The BBC has a great article on this, explaining some of the psychological reasons that the Democratic strategy hasn’t worked:

If people vote against their own interests, it is not because they do not understand what is in their interest or have not yet had it properly explained to them.

They do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best.

Of course, the current reform proposals do not presume to know what’s best for every individual person. That’s why they leave open the option of choosing where you buy your insurance plan from, something that I believe to be ultimately wrong. I see the purpose of health care reform to be laying the stage for an eventual progression towards single-payer.

But that’s neither here nor there. Where I disagree with the article is in what the ultimate problem is. It’s an uninformed electorate. In a healthy, functioning democracy, people have every right to disagree with the government, and to vote it out of office. In fact, that’s what we did in 2006 and 2008. Overwhelmingly, voters in this country voted out the Republican ideas that had run the country straight downhill. And if in 2010 they want to do the same thing for Democrats, they will. That’s how democracy functions.

Of course, it becomes more complicated, when you have a GOP propaganda machine busy undeducating everyone as fast as possible. The equation’s different when the minority party is deliberately lying to the public about what it is they’re opposing (and why they’re doing so). Frankly, given the Democrat’s historical and current inability to accurately and clearly explain their stances to voters, it’s even more amazing that we won so decisively in the last two elections. People must have been *really *fed up.

But go back a second. What’s the real issue here? I argue that it’s the nature of Democrats’ stances that they can’t be easily explained. And I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Yes, we’re losing the message war. That’s because economic stimulus is complicated and “five-year across-the-board spending freeze” is easy. “Free market” is easy and the subtleties that make it inapplicable to health care are complicated. “Soft on terror” is easy and criminal law is complicated.

So what do we do? Do we dumb down to face the increasingly ignorant electorate? No. We pass something that has tangible, immediate benefits, and we campaign on it. Because what does the country see right now? They see Democrats with a giant majority still not getting anything done. If we can break that view, we’re golden. In the political free market, political capital is allocated to whoever shows than use it to get results.

And that’s as it should be. We can decry public ignorance all we want, but ultimately, a voter shouldn’t have to have intimate knowledge of congressional politics in order to hold an opinion. I’m not condoning total ignorance of the way the government functions, but if we apply some kind of moral standard for what constitutes “enough” knowledge to be involved in politics, we’re setting a risky precedent. Remember poll taxes and literacy tests? That’s what happens when the government makes a decision on who deserves to be involved in the democratic process.

Political ignorance is a constitutionally protected right. But that doesn’t mean we have to assume it is a necessity of the political system. We need to be fighting two battles at once. One, to get our legislation passed, so we have something to campaign on. Two, an agressive information campaign in the form of TV ads and public speaking engagements. The fact that Democrats have been completely disconnected from voters has harmed us. We’ve seemed like aloof liberals who know nothing about the plight of ordinary people. We need to show the public that we are the party with their interests in mind. In other words, show people why our proposals will help them. “Oh, you’re having trouble getting insurance because you have a pre-existing condition? The legislation we’re passing will prohibit that. And you know what? The GOP used to agree with us, but they’re voting against it now to score political points. You can’t afford your premiums? Let me tell you about how our legislation will help you. And you guessed it, Republicans are against that too.”

We’re losing the information war right now, but that doesn’t mean we should dumb down. Yes, the bill is ridiculously long. For crying out loud, it’s federal policy. This is not simple stuff. Let’s not capitulate to the GOP’s dumbed-down message. We should be speaking to voters as equals, not pretending that we’re dumb and confused like congressional Republicans are doing. It’s stupid, degrading, and ultimately unproductive.

If the GOP wants to win elections, they’re on the right track. If Democrats want to, we need to change course. And we can’t pass health care without winning elections.