Why Are People Afraid of Direct Democracy?

There were strange scenes inside the Congress last week as geriatric Senators suddenly stopped functioning. Dianne Feinstein, a 90 year-old Senator from California, seemingly confused and out of it, was told to “say yes" to the defense appropriations bill by a member of her staff.

Meanwhile, 81 year-old Senator from Kentucky Mitch McConnell looked like he suffered a stroke on the podium.

These two Senators are not alone in being very old. The age of Congress is going up rapidly.

This is not irrational. Everyone knows that the older and more senior a Congress-person is, the more power they have to influence policy and help their respective state. Seniority comes with connections and influence. Voters understand this and that's why the Congress is getting older. The problem is, who is doing the actual work of governing? The extremely old politicians are just there for seniority. The work of governing, research, policy work and finding out what voters really want is being done by 32-year-old staffers. These staffers run the government. Not the politicians.

Who are these staffers? I don’t know. They are not elected. They come and go. It’s a bizarre place American democracy has reached to be honest. But the gerontocracy is just one attribute of modern politics. There are others.

Polarization

Political polarization among Americans has grown rapidly in the last 40 years — more than in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia or Germany. In the 1980s, states such as Massachusetts and Connecticut voted for the Republican Ronald Reagan. Today the idea of either of them going Republican for president is preposterous. “In most of the 1980s, West Virginia was a Democratic stronghold, as it had been for half a century. Today the state is a lock for the GOP every four years. It’s not just that so many states have switched loyalties in the past 30 years. It’s that those loyalties seem utterly impervious to change any time in the foreseeable future.”

That’s the the tragedy of politics today. We have to choose between 100 percent right or 100 percent left. Instead of having policies 51% left & 49% right (or the reverse), which most people fall into that satisfy total preferences, we get outcomes that are 100% right or 100% left.

Think about how many elections you see these days end up being 51 to 49. It feels like every election is 51 to 49 now. And whoever gets the 51% gets winner take all. It seems to me that this could be destabilizing in the future. How much longer can we live on 51 to 49 with 2 percent points implementing their entire one sided policies?

Personally, when I look at the list of issues from the right or left I find myself wanting to vote for a certain combination from both sides. Those issues sometimes change. check how much one's belief cluster, particularly on uncorrelated matters.

But it doesn’t work out like that. I have to vote for a representative of a party who is going to only implement the policy choice of the party he represents. And those parties are getting further apart from each other every year.

The Modern Politician

This year in the NBA draft the number 1 player chosen was Victor Wembanyama. He stands 7 foot 5 inches and plays basketball like he is a shooting guard.

NBA players over the last 2-3 decades have gotten taller, heavier and they can all shoot 3 pointers and dribble well. Players are improving and becoming optimized.

The same thing is happening to politicians. The principal attributes & skills of the modern politician is that they are very good at being elected. The most common profession among members of Congress is being a career politician. More than half of U.S. senators previously served in the House of Representatives, for example. During the 1950s and prior, it was more common for individuals to have careers outside of politics before running for office. Back then, lots of "regular jobs".

What does a modern politician have to do to be succesful in America? Most importantly they need to be great at raising money from rich donors. Money rules in American politics.

Rich donors are interested in a relationship with the politician. They want to influence the politician beyond one policy. They may even cluster for influence with other rich donors and hold considerable leverage over the voting record of this politician. The voters aren’t even in the room or being thought about.

Politicians also have to worry about their life after politics. They aren’t going to get a normal job like you and me. They have to be engaged with the development of a political industry that includes the media, lobbyists, consultants, and think tanks because politics is their career.

Sometimes I feel voting for people instead of political policies is more suitable for tv talent shows, not for politics.

In This Newsletter

The United States is not a direct democracy. Laws are not made by majority vote of citizens. Some states have implemented referendums at local levels but it's only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. However, direct democracy is getting popular lately. Let’s explore this very Lindy model of government.

1) Why is Direct Democracy Popular all of a Sudden?

2) Why Do Conservatives Fear it?

3) What Kind of Conservative Policies have Passed in Switzerland and California With Direct Democracy?

The Sudden Popularity of Direct Democracy

In June 2022, The Supreme Court handed down a decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization to revert abortion law and regulation to states, erasing 50 years of precedent. In the aftermath of this ruling, liberal citizens started using direct democracy procedures in order to make abortion constitutionally protected in their respective state. This means they collected signatures on constitutional amendments, referendum and statutes to put on the ballot box for citizens to vote on.

Progressives have done well in recent years utilizing direct democracy in states for certain policies: expanding Medicaid, legalizing marijuana and increasing the minimum wage. That success continued in 2022, voters in six states—California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana and Vermont voted to uphold the individual right to abortions.

Republican states are fighting back against direct democracy ballot measures by making it more onerous to get referendums on the ballot.

Conservative Fear of Direct Democracy

Progressives are having success focusing on voters themselves and bypassing legislatures. Conservatives haven’t embraced any of this and now are playing defense. It’s even begun filtering into the conservative ideology machine. The National Review wrote an article against direct democracy.

Even Republican Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy posted against it.

This type of conservative ideology is fearful of the masses or of potential mob rule. It feels comfortable with an “enlightened elite” who can guide the nation correctly. The fear is they can’t compete for voters. That eventually direct democracy will lead to the mob taking your house, taxing you at 90% or removing prisons. Is that rational? I don’t think so.

The nation of Switzerland and the state of California are two places that use direct democracy extensively. They also happen to be the richest places on earth. When I look at their record I see a mix of conservative and liberal policies.

Conservative Policies in Switzerland and California

Subscribe to Premium Membership to read the rest.