In Praise of Political Parties

In this space, I’ve documented how a single Democrat donor—Alida Rockefeller Messinger—has leased Minnesota’s politics for the past decade or so for the bargain-basement price of $1 million per year, give or take.  Perhaps she is ready to pass the porch to another donor.  The names may change at the top of the table, but the party label does not.

The vehicle that Messinger has used to secure power in our state has been the Alliance for a Better Minnesota and its fundraising arm, WIN Minnesota.  Both entities are organized as 501(c)(4) tax-exempt charities.  According to its most recent publically-available IRS income tax return, Messinger serves on WIN Minnesota’s board of directors.
 

Order of the Joyless

“Every nation that has ended in tyranny has come to that end by way of good order."

--Alexis de Tocqueville   Democracy died a little last night in St. Paul, Minnesota. The new Democrat majority in the Minnesota House of Representatives passed new rules early this morning to limit the ability of the Republican minority to offer amendments to bills under consideration.  It seems that the Democrats are not content to merely impose utopia on an ungrateful populace:  they insist on doing so as unimpeded as possible.   Meanwhile, the concerted effort continues apace between Minnesota's Democrat party (styled DFL--Democrat-Farmer-Labor), the political charity Alliance for a Better Minnesota, lefty bloggers, and local media to "Clear the Playing Field" in advance of the 2014 elections.  Apparently, the idea is to insure the 2014 re-election of Governor Mark Dayton and U.S. Senator Al Franken by pre-destroying any and all plausible Republican candidates in early 2013.  That way, resources can be fully devoted over the next 20 months to preserving the DFL majority in the Minnesota House of Representatives (the state Senate is not up for re-election until 2016).   Earlier in the day, in the state Senate, a bill was introduced (SF356) that would allow a local school board to simply extend an expiring voter referendum, without going to the trouble of putting the question to the voters.  After all, there is some chance that the voters, given another go at the question, may provide the "wrong" answer.  Proposals like this are ten a penny--but during times of one-party rule, you can't discount this bill's chances of becoming law, especially with two Education Committee members as co-sponsors.  (A committee Vice Chair is a co-sponsor of the House version, HF234.)   The theme for the day is the state Democrat party and its progressive allies pressing home a temporary political advantage in a manner that would make Machiavelli proud.  The DFL knows that the TMZ voter will never hear of what went on today.  As the saying goes, our character is what we do when we think no one is looking.   Small "d" democracy is often messy, and it does not always produce the outcome the ruling cabal would prefer.  But it is still our system, and I believe it is still worth preserving, protecting, and defending.

David Strom on Voters and Democracy

My friend David Strom has a piece in the Capitol Report under the headline "Voters get no respect."  The link is to a subscriber only page.

Science Versus Democracy

I've added a new essay reviewing (deconstructing, actually) a recent talk given by local author Shawn Otto.  Sorry about the formatting, the problems that appear on the page do not appear in the editor tool.

Those Opposed to Democracy

A pair of columns skeptical of democracy dominated the Opinion page of Sunday's Minneapolis Star Tribune.  Columnist Lori Sturdevant decries the surplus of democracy in Minnesota, ("Punting the tough issues to the people:  Is there such a thing as too much direct democracy?  Ask California.  Ask schools.")

Her thesis is that referenda on school levies and stadium taxes show a failure of leadership by elected officials.  To be clear, by failure she means the failure to raise taxes, writing, "This is a case of legislators running amok with their desire to dodge blame for higher taxes."

As readers of this blog will know, I favor direct democracy.  Yes, we have a Republic, with representative democracy.  But whenever the people vote on an issue, I believe that the outcome is, by definition, the "right" outcome.

Former third-party candidate for Lt. Governor, Jim Mulder, writes about the redundancy of all the overlapping levels of government in Minnesota.  I am very receptive to arguments in favor of government redesign.  But I think that Mr. Mulder is attacking the problem from the wrong end.  Basically, Mr. Mulder thinks we have too many counties, with some including more than a million people, but some with just a few thousand.

He makes some good observations regarding overlap.  I have often wondered why we have local Soil and Water Districts and a state Board of Water and Soil Resources.  However, he believes archaic the "Jeffersonian principle of democracy--that no one should live more than a day's horse ride from the county courthouse." 

The implication here is that any political arrangement supported with an argument related to horse travel must be discarded as hopelessly out of date.  Well, how about this, political boundaries should be small enough that the people governed together are likely to know one another.

My county, Hennepin, holds more than 1.1 million people.  I cannot believe that densely populated neighborhoods in Minneapolis share much in common with semi-rural areas at the County's western edge.  Yet all are governed by the same County board.  I would argue that residents would benefit from having the jurisdiction split into three or four entities, grouping populations with like interests.

The actual Jeffersonian principle has nothing to do with horse travel but that "the government closest to the people is the most responsive" (1787).  Mr. Mulder would have the government move away from the people, trading responsiveness for some notion of "efficiency."

Democracy is Dead, After All

An update of my post yesterday.  It seems democracy is dead.  Greece caved into European demands and dropped the idea of a national referendum on the bailout.  Although the stock market liked it, Walter Russell Mead thinks that it reflects badly on the ability of European institutions to cope with the crisis.  Mead writes,

"Europe’s institutions cannot cope.  Decades of building intricate rules and complicated institutions have failed to create an institutional architecture than can resolve basic disputes."

Are Greeks Ready for Democracy?

Not if you believe European Union's leadership. 

Daniel Hannan, a British Member of the European Parliament, is on the case.  Today on his blog, Hannan takes them to task (reprinted on the pages of the Daily Telegraph), opening with,

"Shall I tell you the truly terrifying thing about the EU?  It’s not the absence of democracy in Brussels, or the ease with which Eurocrats swat aside referendum results.  It’s the way in which the internal democracy of the member states is subverted in order to sustain the requirements of membership."

On Monday Hannan wrote about the initial reaction to the news that Greece would hold a referendum on the European bailout,

"I wish I could convey the sheer writhing horror that George Papanderou's referendum proposal has provoked in Brussels.  Eurocrats instinctively dislike referendums.  They feel that their work is too important and complicated to be vulnerable to the prejudices of hoi polloi..."

Today's Wall Street Journal sees the benefits of this referendum in an editorial.  The Editors write,

"As for the rest of Europe, they may eventually come around to thanking Mr. Papandreou and the Greeks, even for a no vote.  Today's conventional wisdom is that a Greek default would spread contagion, never mind that past bailout packages for Athens haven't exactly contained it...A Greek default would provide a lesson in what happens to countries that can't live within their means."

Even if the Greeks vote no, at least they will have chosen their own fate.  The only cure for the excesses of democracy, is more democracy.

Follow the Money: Complete Streets

Most of these "Follow the Money" posts have dealt with private foundation grants to non-profits (NGO's), but the flow of taxpayer funds to non-profits should not be ignored. 

Case in point:  Minnesota environmental non-profit Transit for Livable Communities (TLC) is administering a 7-year, $28 million federal grant to fund biking and walking projects in the Twin Cities area.  Not all of these projects have been well-received by the local community.  One controversial project, on St. Paul's Jefferson Avenue, has attracted a good deal of attention.  The City of St. Paul has pulled back from the Jefferson Ave. project, because of complaints from local residents that they were not involved in the planning process for a $1 million project that would have rerouted traffic and converted a road into a "bike boulevard."

In fact, the St. Paul Pioneer Press reports that local residents "have said that Transit for Livable Communities has come across heavy-handed.  In discussions with the city, the nonprofit at times has threatened to block funding for a [second] proposed $400,000 bicycle boulevard".

Local radio host Joe Soucheray, also writing in the Pioneer Press, asks the common sense question, "They're our streets.  It's our money.  So why isn't it our decision?"

Soucheray adds,

"Let us understand our civics, shall we?  The people who pay the bills, the taxpayers, watch, seemingly helplessly, as millions of dollars in federal funds - their money - is won by outfits like TLC to finance projects that the residents not only do not want but that also apparently circumvent the electoral process."

In this instance, we have a non-profit corporation (TLC) spending taxpayer dollars in ways that, literally, transform neighborhoods.  How I live my life, get to work, walk around, interact with my neighbors will be impacted by whatever this non-profit decides is best for me.

Here is my concern with this funding approach.  If I don't like the way in which a city is administering federal funds, I can complain to the city council and the mayor (and I have).  If it's a county, I can go to county commissioners.  The state, it's my local representative or senator.  The local office of a federal agency?  I call my congressperson or Senator.  The local school district?  A school board member.  Each of these persons will be held accountable to voters (like me) in the next election.

If I don't like the way a non-profit is administering funds, to whom do I complain?  To whom is the non-profit accountable?  Where on the November ballot does the non-profit appear?

Walter Russell Mead on the War Against Democracy

Walter Russell Mead adds his take on the growing war against democracy.

More calls for less democracy

I have to say that the more I re-read this editorial from the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the more disturbed I get.

On its surface, it merely calls for elected officials to make tough decisions regarding a new pro football stadium for the state.

Deeper down, it shows a profound distrust on the part of the editors for democracy and the ability of the people to govern themselves.

Take, as an example, this passage,

"You could make a long list of important civic projects that never would have happened if they had been the subject of a referendum."

Really, I'd like to see that list.  It probably contains a number of projects that should have never been built.

But check out the contempt expressed in these few sentences,

"That judgment is best made by elected officials with the benefit of time to deliberate and the widest possible array of information and knowledgeable advice.  They must ultimately answer to voters, of course.  But when voters decide such questions directly, it is too easy for short-term passions to take the place of calm consideration for the long-term interests of the entire community."

Of course.  In my view, the people themselves know the long-term interests of their community.  And they are not subject to pressure from special interests (like land-owning newspapers).  But the above passage is amazing for its show of faith in the political elite.

We Need More Democracy, Not Less

Peter Orszag, President Obama's former budget director, has a piece in the New Republic arguing "Why we need less democracy."

As I have argued in this space before, we need more, not less democracy.  Pollster Scott Rasmussen has tracked the differences in public opinion between "mainstream voters" and the "political class."  For example, he finds that "mainstream voters (84%) believe the United States is heading down the wrong track, while 50% of the Political Class believes the same."

Peter Orszag's defining characteristic is his membership in the political class.  So when he argues that America needs less democracy, what he is saying is that the political class don't like what the voters are up to. 

Writes Orszag,

"To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions.  In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic."

In other, other words, the political class is going ahead and doing what it was going to do anyway, whether or not you the voter agree.  And those "automatic policies" mean more debt, more regulation, and higher taxes.  Those "depoliticized commissions"?  Read "lobbyist field day".  The political class will figure it all out, no need to trouble your pretty little head.

More democracy.  More accountability.  More citizen participation.