Published: September 23, 2009 09:28 am      

LION AND THE LAMB: Choosing our U.S. Congress members

Every few years we have an opportunity to choose people to serve on our behalf and to represent us in the U.S. Congress. Before we decide to vote for them, it is important that we have an opportunity to discover what their experience, abilities, values, and commitments are, to give us an idea of what kind of representation we will have through them.

It is always satisfying when people we prefer are elected. We expect them, once elected, to continue conversing and dialoguing with their constituents, seeking out their viewpoints and ideas. But we do not want them to disregard their own conscience. We do not want weather vane persons always aligning with the prevailing winds.

We call this kind of government "representative democracy"—a government that represents the people and is responsive to their best interests (always a controversial subject).

Today, however, we are becoming increasingly aware of the flaws in this kind of democratic system. The present health care debate in Congress and in our nation is an example of this. National polls indicate that a majority of the public favors a "single-payer" (or at least a "public option") approach because of its lower cost and greater inclusiveness.

The corporate health care and pharmaceutical industry, however, opposes this approach, and has spent millions of dollars in political contributions, especially to key members of congressional committees working on health care legislation (and even to Obama in his presidential campaign).

The Center for Responsive Politics reports that as of mid-August 3,300 lobbyists (six lobbyists for every single member of the House and Senate) have been trying to influence health care legislation, and that $263 million has already been shelled out on this issue. This is why the main committees working on this legislation are disregarding single-payer and public option approaches.

We have seen this corporate influence locally, too. At the public forum that Lincoln Davis held at the Palace Theatre several weeks ago, people opposed to government involvement in health care arrived by bus several hours before the 5 p.m. forum to fill the theater. Several who remained outside with signs mentioned that they had been given $100 to come.

In a sense, our democracy has become more representative to the power of corporations and money than to the people themselves. A person running for office cannot campaign without huge amounts of money, and cannot remain in office without raising huge amounts of money. And once that becomes a fact of life, such a person is beholden to that influence rather than to the influence of the constituency that did the voting and electing. In this stage of development, our democracy has become a plutocracy—government by the wealthy.

The big challenge before our nation at this point is how we can become a "participatory democracy." Somehow we need to make the political process less plutocratic and more egalitarian. It would be great to make it possible for people to run for office without spending money (some countries make this possible), and carry out their political stewardship without being under corporate control.

And real participatory democracy could call for grass roots discussion of major legislation such as on health care. A proposed health care plan could be sent out to neighborhood groups that would be organized all around the country. Each neighborhood group could study the proposal and then send back to the legislature (perhaps through a state coordinating committee) its support or suggestions for changes and further development of the proposal. That would also help prevent all the public fear-ventilating about impending enforced euthanasia of grandma, the loss of medical choice, and other such hobgoblins.

What are your ideas about making our democracy more participatory?