> ELECTION DAY: A Means of State Control
> http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a397a31fb52f0.htm
> Source: Chronicles http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/
> Published: November 1996 Author: Robert Weissburg
> Election Day
> A Means of State Control
> Interpreting elections is a national spectator sport, offering as many
> "meanings" as there are board-certified spin doctors. Nevertheless, all of
> these disparate revelations, insights, and brilliant interpretations share a
> common unthinking vision: elections, despite their divisive, contentious
> character, exist to facilitate citizen power over government. Whether
> ineptly or adeptly, honestly or dishonestly, government is supposed to be
> subjegated via mass electoral participation. This is, it might be said, The
> Great Democratic Belief in Popular Sovereignty.
> Less understood, though hardly less significant, is that control flows the
> opposite way: elections permit government's effective management of its own
> citizens. The modern state's authority, it's vast extractive capacity, its
> ability to wage war, its ever-growing power to regulate our lives, requires
> constant reinvigoration via the ballot box. Moreover, and even less obvious,
> properly administered elections promote cohesiveness, not acrimonious
> division. Indeed, the periodic reaffirmation of the political covenant may
> be election's paramount purpose, relegating an artificial choice between
> Tweedle Dee [Gore], Tweedle Dum [Bush] to mere historical details. Like the
> atmosphere, this phenomenon appears nearly invisible, escaping both popular
> attention and scrutiny from talking-head television pundits. Even scholars,
> those investigating civic matters of profound obscurity, with few exceptions
> (particularly my former colleague, Ben Ginsburg) are neglectful. Put
> succinctly, marching citizens off to vote -- independent of their choice --
> is a form of conscription to the political status quo. Election day, like
> Christmas or Yom Kippur, is the high holiday, a day of homage and
> reaffirmation, in the creed of the modern state.
> Those at the Constitutional Convention well understood this conscriptive
> function. Though the Founders are now fashionably branded as
> unrepresentitive elitists who distrusted the downtrodden masses and
> oppressed women and toilers of color, what they never doubted was the
> political usefulness of elections. James Wilson and Elbridge Gerry openly
> acknowledged that a vigorous federal government required extensive popular
> consent, freely given by the ballot. Voters could not, and should not guide
> policy, but without periodic popular authorization, how could the national
> government efficiently collect taxes, compel obedience to its laws, solicit
> military recruits, or gain loyalty? This is what "no taxation without
> representation" is all about: the ritual of consent. Elections, however
> tumultuous or corrupt, bestowed legitimacy far better and more cheaply than
> brute force, bribery, appeals to divine right, or any alternative.
> Opposition to the direct election of senators, predictably, arose from state
> sovereignty advocates -- allowing citizens to vote for such a prominent
> national office would only enhance centralism.
> Elections as a means of state agrandizement, not popular control of
> government, was clearly grasped during the 19th century's march toward
> universal sufferage. Today's liberal vision of the common folk clamoring
> "empowerment" via the vote is much overdrawn; extension of the suffrage was
> often "top-down." The modern, centralized bureaucratic state and
> plebiscitary elections are , by necessity, intimately connected. To Napoleon
> III and Bismark the freshly enfranchised voter was the compliant participant
> in their push toward unified state authority. Casting the national ballot
> liberated ordinary citizens from the influence of competitors -- the church,
> provencial notables, kinfolk, and champions of localism. Elections soon
> became essential ceremonies of national civic induction, a process
> ever-further extended as wars evolved into expensive million-man crusades.
> Modern dictatorships are especially taken with elections, typically combined
> with some form of compulsory voting, as means of state domination. The
> Soviet Union's notorious single-party elections with 99+ percent turnout are
> the paradigmatic but hardly unique example. Many African nations boast of
> near unanimous turnout to endorse their beloved kleptocratic leader. The
> Pinochet government of Chile even went so far as to make nonvoting
> punishable by three months in prison and a $150 fine. While it is tempting
> to dismiss such choice-less, forced-march elections as shams, the investment
> of precious state funds and bureaucratic effort confirms that elections are
> far more than mechanisms of citizen control of government.
> In general, the electoral process, whether in a democracy or a dictatorship,
> performs this citizen domestication function in many ways, but let us
> examine here only three mechanisms. To be sure, the connection between state
> agrandizement and elections is not guaranteed, and much can go astray.
> Nevertheless, over time the two go together. The first mechanism might be
> called psychological co-optation via participation: I take part, cast my
> vote, therefore I am implicated. All of us have been victims of this
> technique beginning, no doubt, as children. Recall, for example, when mom
> wished your acquiescence to visit hated Aunt Nelly. Despotically demanding
> compliance, though possible in principle, was too costly. Instead, mom
> "democratically" discussed alternatives with you, including cleaning house
> or going to the ballet. Given such choices, you "freely" opted for visiting
> Nelly, and your subsequent complaints were easily met with "you freely
> decided."
> Such co-optive manipulation extends beyond devious parenting; it is the
> essence of modern management psychology. Beginning in the 1920's, industrial
> psychologists realized that "worker involvement" usefully gained
> cooperation, especially when confronting unpleasant choices. Let workers
> conspicuously offer their "input" and they will be far more malleable.
> Internal "selling" to oneself flows from public choice. Personal
> participation need not even occur -- it is the formal opportunity to add
> one's two cents, or the involvement of others, that is important. Provided
> executives define the range of options and control decision-making rules,
> this "worker empowerment" benefits, not subverts, management. That
> manipulative inclusion can be labeled "democratic" and "enlightened" and
> flatters "worker insight" is wonderful public-relations icing on the cake.
> This process applies equally to elections. Recall the 1968 presidential
> contest -- a highly divisive three-way race of Hubert Humphrey, Richard
> Nixon, and George Wallace in which the winner failed to gain a popular
> majority. Nevertheless, despite all the divisiveness, Ben Ginsberg and I
> discovered that views of national government, its responsiveness and concern
> for citizens, became more favorable following the election among voters than
> among nonvoters. This was also true among those choosing losing candidates.
> Involvement transcended and overpowered the disappointment in losing. Even a
> nasty, somewhat inconclusive campaign "juiced" citizen support for
> government. The pattern is not unique -- the election ceremony improves the
> popularity of leaders and institutions regardless of voter choice.
> Elections are also exercises in "Little Leagueism" to help prop up the
> political status quo. That is, potentially dangerous malcontents are
> involved in safe, organized activity under responsible adult supervision
> rather than off secretly playing by themselves. All things considered,
> better to have Lenin get out the vote, solicit funds, ponder polls,
> circulate petitions, or serve in Congress. This is equally true in
> democracies or dictatorships -- regular electoral activity facilitates
> "conventionality" (regardless of ideology) among those who might otherwise
> drift to the dangerous, revolutionary edge. This is especially true where
> bizarre groups overall constitute a relatively small minority. At a minimum,
> humdrum details and ceaseless busy work hardly leaves any time for sitting
> around a cafe plotting revolution.
> Even if all potential revolutionaries are not "domesticated" via the
> election process, the easy availability of elections helps keep the peace.
> Why risk mayhem when public employment by stuffing ballot boxes is so
> simple? In the 1960's Black Power movement is the perfect poster child. The
> urban guerilla movement back then seemed imminent -- the infatuation with
> Franz Fanon's celebration of violence and similar mumbo-jumbo rhetoric, the
> macho allure of the automatic weapon, and the gleeful, "in-your-face" public
> paramilitarism demeanor. Urban riots were everywhere; Newark and Detroit
> became virtual garrison states. Comparisons with Northern Ireland or Lebanon
> were not absurd.
> Nevertheless, the pedestrian seduction of public office easily overcame this
> intoxication with violence. The Malcolm X Democratic Club and similar
> entities suddenly materialized while numerous cleaned-up revolutionary
> agitators entered "the system" as "progressive Democrats," often occupying
> positions set aside for minorities. The "Black Mayor" became
> institutionalized. The passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, its
> extensions, and generous subsequent interpretations made black electoral
> mobilization a national government priority. The federal registrar served as
> the neighborhood convenience store for "selling out." Within a decade, the
> once-familiar "revolutionary" agitator spewing forth cliches about
> insurrection was a political antique. By the 1980's, it was impossible for a
> "take-to-the-hills" Black Power revolutionary even to think about competing
> with elections.
> The transformation of revolutionary Black Power into humdrum conventionality
> highlights the third way elections domesticate potential disruption:
> tangible inducement (or bribery, in plain English) to malcontents. The
> "cooling out" via granting a piece of the action is a time-honored American
> tradition, from 19th century populists and socialists to the 1960's antiwar
> movement. Entering "the system," at least in highly permeable American
> politics, wonderfully corrupts revolutionary ardor. At a minimum,
> rabble-rousers in remission must come out of hiding to collect their salary,
> sit in their offices, boss around subordinates, issue press releases, accept
> financial contributions, and, if necessary, bounce a check. If Maxine Waters
> (D-CA) seems like an out-of-control ballistic missile, imagine her unchecked
> by the obligations of high public office. As a comfortable congresswoman,
> she is far more constrained than if preaching the street-corner
> revolutionary gospel or a tenored professor with an endowed chair. Ditto for
> the thousands of others contemplating revolutionary violence but who now owe
> their prestige and income to elective office. let the most ambitious attend
> endless dull committee meetings. The very existence of this electoral
> opportunity, apart from the bodies enrolled, is critical -- the prospect of
> a few well paid prestigious sinecures, like playing for the NBA, can work
> wonders on millions.
> This relationship between rising electoral involvement and the demise of
> 1960's style revolutionary radicalism helps to explain our collective blind
> eye toward the extensive corruption in "minority politics." Why do the
> Protectors of Democracy, from the ACLU to Common Cause, seem so unconcerned
> with racial gerrymandering, districts composed largely of illegal aliens,
> abuses of absentee ballots, outright selling of votes, and other nefarious
> customs when such practices bring blacks and Hispanics to office? More must
> be involved than just having Third World standards. The answer is simple,
> though seldom articulated: rotten boroughs, our versions of autonomous
> homelands, are part of the bargain to guarantee domestic peace. The actual
> outcome is irrelevant; what is important is that up-and-comers, would-be
> "community leaders," are brought into "the system." Fundamentally, shipping
> a few dozen would be agitators off to legislatures of city councils, even
> felons and dope addicts, hardly puts the national enterprise at serious
> risk; consider it midnight basketball for the civic minded. If Washington,
> D.C., can survive Marion Barry, the entire nation is bulletproof.
> Elections are but one of many tools of social control and, as with all
> tools, mere use does not guarantee success. Critical details of
> administration and organization must be attended to -- matters of timing,
> sufferage, modest enforcement of anticorruption laws, countervailing power
> within government, and so on. Nor do elections come with an unlimited
> lifetime warranty to remedy deep political problems. It is doubtful whether
> elections would solve much in Bosnia or Rwanda, while the jury is still out
> for Russia and South Africa. Elections are wondrous, circuitous devices, but
> not all powerful magic.
> Having described this little understood but critical purpose, what lessons
> can be learned? Two in particular stand out. Most evidently, if one wishes
> to maintain one's ideological purity, remain uncontaminated in the quest for
> a higher truth, avoid elections. Those seeking to transform society via
> "playing the game" will inevitably be metamorphosed by the game itself. This
> lesson should be heeded by everyone from fundamentalist religious groups to
> those promoting the redistribution of political power in the United States.
> Purity and empowerment via elections do not mix. The loss of revolutionary
> zeal among the formerly faithful, an inclination towards "wheeling and
> dealing," and being comfortable with petty enticements need not result from
> flawed character; pedestrian opportunism comes with the territory. If this
> seems farfetched, one only has to review our history: virtually every
> splinter group, no matter how idologically noble or distinct, that ventured
> into the electoral arena, has been mainstreamed and today exists as a
> domesticated, digested fragment within the Democrat and Republican parties.
> The surrender of purity via electoral absorbtion need not, despite evidence
> to the contrary, be a particularly good deal. There are costs, and no
> guarantee of gain, for getting into bed with the state. You might even get a
> serious rash. Groups that have devoted themselves extensively to electoral
> achievement, especially for economic advancement, have seldom, if ever,
> accomplished much beyond politics itself. This has surely been the case with
> black infatuation with electoral success since the mid-1960's. Despite all
> the voting rights laws, federal court interventions, registration drives,
> and elected black officials, blacks as a group continue to lag behind whites
> on most indicators of accomplishment. In some ways, conditions have
> deteriorated. By contrast, Asians and Indians have made remarkable strides
> without any electoral empowerment. Like polo, electoral politics may be a
> worthwhile sport only after first becoming economically successful. How this
> plunge into electoral politics will play out for today's moral issues --
> abortion, pornography, religion, sexuality -- remains to be seen.
> The second lesson is the converse: if domestication is the objective, get
> the would-be revolutionaries, extremists, grumblers, and malcontents
> enrolled. Are anti-government militias posing a problem? Take a clue from
> the Motor Voter bill and allow voter registration at all firearms and
> survival equipment stores. Voting, even corrupt voting, should be as
> convenient as possible. Rig the district boundaries so that leaders must
> serve time in their state capitals and Washington, D.C., consorting with
> generous lobbyists. Make those with talent precinct captains, election
> judges, convention delegates, county commissioners, and paid advisors to
> established political parties. Within the decade the militiamen will be as
> threatening as an agitated American Legion post forced to give up its bingo.
> In sum, as we observe the 1996 campaign, we should not be distracted by the
> details. Far more goes on than selecting candidates. Despite the acrimony
> and divisiveness, all the talk of a people freely exercising soveriegnty, we
> are witnessing a ceremony for reinvigorating the covenant between citizen
> and state. All sorts of would-be trouble makers are being domesticated and
> brought into "the system." Those who attempt to escape will be brought to
> the attention of the Department of Justice.
>
> FReepers, I commend to you this eye opening article which I first read back
> in 1996. It changed the way I view elections forever. Perhaps it will change
> yours as well.
> This thread is dedicated to all those who believe that elections are only
> the means by which the citizens control the state and have never considered
> the fact that they are also one very important means by which the state
> controls US!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 24 2000 - 22:28:15 CUT