Why vote for the US President?

Why should you vote for the President of the United States of America?

Most of you will never set foot into a city or county council meeting. In these forums, you generally have face to face access to policymakers that you directly elect. These men and women have a significant impact on essential aspects of your everyday life, particularly in areas like school funding, access to fire and rescue service, water and sewage policies, zoning, annexation, local tax rates, and so on. Yet, we hardly ever never rock the county or town council vote – indeed, in most cases, I bet county council debates hardly make it onto the radar compared to the hoopla surrounding the quadrennial presidential elections in the US.

The important point about these local elections cannot be stressed enough: i). You can go meet these policymakers and talk with them about issues of concern to you and your community and possibly persuade them on some matter; ii). They are directly elected by your vote and are therefore accountable to you and the coalition of voters of which you are a part.

In terms of the US president, however, the story is very different. The chances that you will ever meet the next US president (or any US president ever, for that matter) are slim to none – especially now with the intensified security practices surrounding the President following the events on 11 September 2001. Even when the fear of communist sabotage and the threat of Soviet nuclear weapons (which still exist, by the way) stalked Americans’ imagination during the Cold War, citizens were able to arrive early in the morning, wait in line outside the White House gate, and get an escorted tour of the public areas on most any day of the week. That type of open and symbolically more accessible attitude has evaporated over the past decade in regards to the President and the White House. In its place is an increasingly complicated, surveillance-intensive, and selective bureaucratic process that distances the office and the office holder from those that vote.

Even less likely are we, as average citizens living in Shepherdstown, WV, or any particular town across America, able to meet and meaningfully discuss, much less influence, the president on any issue of concern to you or your community.

On top of that, your vote, which millions of American citizens will cast in November, does not elect the president of the United States. To the surprise of many, no doubt, the US Constitution establishes an Electoral College [read here and here] with this authority. Who is the Electoral College? Robert Dahl, the distinguished professor of comparative democracy at Yale University, says that members of the Electoral College usually consist of a relatively unknown and partisan group of party loyalists.

The Electoral College, a fundamentally non-democratic and elitist feature of the US Constitution that insulates the president from the popular will, has created a dilemma for American politics that has played out on four different occasions in our history. Most recently, we saw the consequences of this Constitutional dilemma in the 2000 US election. In that instance, George W. Bush was elected to the highest office in the land because he won a majority of Electoral College votes; Al Gore won the majority of votes from American citizens, but lost the election. All in all, Dahl says that one out of every three US presidents has won with only a minority of voters’ support.

I want to bring the dilemma of our democracy home to you by asking you to reflect on your behavior.

Why should you vote for the American president? Or, if you think that you shouldn't vote for the US President, why shouldn't you vote? And, perhaps more importantly, why don’t you vote for the city and county council members? Do you know your council members?

American Politics and Totalitarian Politics

We've been talking about totalitarian politics. Recall that we discussed some of the ways that totalitarian politics become embedded in everyday life for people -- changing flags, changing forms of greeting, changing calendars, removing dialects, publicly placing Mussolini's mottos and statues, etc.

Totalitarian politics have been a topic of public discussion and debate in America in the past. In the 1930s and 1940s, news papers and prominent officials and popular media all thought about the possibility of totalitarian politics in America. Elements of totalitarian politics were creeping into the everyday life of Americans -- and those politics were supported by certain elements of the population. I used to assign It Can't Happen Here, which was originally published in 1935. It represents the fears of totalitarian politics that some people had. Famously, one character in the book says something like: "When fascism comes to America, it will be holding a cross and wrapped in the flag." That same book was re-released in 2005 and, similar to the late 1930s, people have once again started to discuss the possibility that American politics are becoming totalitarian [see this, this, this, this, this]. Some people are concerned that totalitarian politics unique to the American situation is creeping into everyday life.

Look over some of the weblinks above. Reflect a moment. Write a bit.

What do you think about this possibility? Is it possible that American politics are becoming totalitarian? If you think there is a possibility, what do you think totalitarian politics would look like? What are some examples you might look out for? Or, if you think that this is just crazy talk and that totalitarian politics are definitely not creeping into American politics, why not? What do you think prevents totalitarian politics from creeping in? Why do you think these other folks are miss-reading the situation in America right now? 

Individualist Versus Collectivist Politics

This week we are shifting gears and talking about totalitarian politics.

We've been talking about Libertarianism. Libertarianism is about the celebration of the individual and their rights against the control of the government. The government is an expression of the collective. One of the issues we discussed in class has to do with the tension between the individual and the collective. Libertarian leaning Republicans, for instance, argued against disaster relief for New Jersey after Hurricane Sandy.

Totalitarianism is basically the opposite of libertarianism. Totalitarianism is about celebrating the collective (and the government that is an expression of the collective), not the individual. For totalitarianism, the emphasis is on one strong and unified nation lead by a strong leader. The emphasis is on conformity, or finding freedom by submitting one's self to the collective. Nazi Germany under Hitler is one prominent example of a totalitarian politics. The National Fascist Party lead by Mussolini is another example.

What do you think?

Is the individual more important than the collective? Or, is the collective more important than the individual? What is the proper balance between the individual and the collective? Where do the rights of the individual end and the responsibility of the collective begin? In other words, where do your individual rights end and the rights of the American people begin?