Is the United States insane?

Many observers of US politics have in recent years asked themselves if the United States is losing its collective mind. I have to confess I'm frequently puzzled by the claimed "certainties" in US politics that are very often far from certain. One obvious example is the claimed "weapons of mass destruction" then-US President G W Bush asserted were possessed by Iraq. "WMD" drove US foreign policy toward Iraq for a year prior to the 2003 invasion...and proved to be fictional. Whether Bush believed they were there or not doesn't really matter for this discussion. Whether a dreadful mistake or a cynical lie, WMD (certain enough to wage war over) weren't there.

The US is still in Iraq as a consequence of this fiction that "everyone" believed was true. The public largely lapped it up, stoked by a media machine that didn't seriously challenge the many weaknesses in the supporting "evidence". One news story might report the gaps in the evidence and then five more, plus an editorial, would declare a strong case in favour of WMD and support for Bush's invasion plans. It was bizarre to watch at the time.

As further support for a case arguing the existence of false certainties, I suppose I can merely allude to the "birthers" who are convinced President Barak Obama was actually born in Kenya. A belief so strong (as with WMD) that no evidence can threaten it. The evidence doesn't even seem to matter.

Without going off at tedious length, this is the sort of thing that causes many to wonder if the whole country had gone la-la. It's just not rational as we understand rational, which is that conclusions should be based on verifiable evidence - tested and proven.

Without going through them all, I recognise there are many forces at work, cultural and social, in the US. It isn't a monolith. There are "red" states and "blue" states and people of all colours and political persuasions among and between. With all this in view, surely these diverse influences would be expressed (and mitigated) via a properly functioning, transparent and accountable democracy operating in the full glare of the light of day. So is the United States such a democracy? Does its ideological diversity find expression through its representative institutions? I don't think so. Here's why:

It helps understanding what is going on in America if we also understand that democracy there is barely functional and if often operates in form only, with function (meaningful/effective popular representation aligned with diverse public opinion and values) already degraded to the point of dysfunction.

For example, democracy implies some level of accountability to voters. Certainly, this still very much exists in the US Senate (2 per state, regardless of population, for a 6-year term). But there are really only two parties and they are very similar in most respects that matter, so voters can usually change Senate faces but have much more difficulty changing policies in many areas.

The House of Representatives is a different matter altogether. There are 435 representatives (same number since 1911, I think). A few of them can sit in the House, but can't vote, as they are from American territories that are not states: Puerto Rico, for example, with 4.5 million people and one non-voting House rep. They are elected every 2 years (says the US Constitution) from electoral districts the boundaries of which are defined by the relevant state legislatures. These legislatures generally 'cheat'. Legally, of course. They fiddle the district boundaries (gerrymandering) to favour one side or the other. The usual tactic is to split up areas where the other party has strength and tack the bits onto your strong areas. It can make a huge difference to the outcome overall. A good current example is the Republican Party-dominated Ohio state legislature is moving to eradicate the Cleveland district currently held by Democratic Congressman (and past Presidential candidate) Dennis Kucinich. They will be carving his district up and attaching the pieces to neighbouring Republican-held districts and expanding those. The voters won't be voting any differently, but the way their votes are converted into representation will certainly be changed and the Democrats will lose at least this one seat, just by changing the boundaries.

As we can see, if one party (both Republicans and Democrats do this) has the majority in the state legislature and the state has several districts (some have only one - so no cheating is possible). The result of this is your average House rep is elected from a district with an average population of 750,000 (some smaller, many much larger). To do this in every 2 years while spending most time in Washington takes an enormous amount of money to reach your 750,000 constituents. Something has to give...and it does: It's a recipe for pandering to a few wealthy backers....and that is exactly what has happened in many, many cases.

The result? Thanks to state legislature gerrymandering, the percentage of incumbents re-elected each two years now hovers around the 98% mark. That is BY FAR the highest incumbency rate in any Western democracy. Remember also there are only two parties and they are very similar. This environment allows for cronies to be cronies and transparency to be reduced and accountability to, generally, be the exception rather than the rule. I'll note this can vary widely from state to state, particularly at the level of state governments where devices like recall petitions and referenda can mitigate the worst effects of wht I have described to at least some degree.

Perhaps now it is understandable why so many people don't bother voting in the US. The "fix" is in and has been for well over 50 years. America is in dire need of reform of its democratic institutions in a serious and fundamental way. Unfortunately, they have been subjected to a non-stop stream of propaganda from childhood extolling the supposed virtues of their deeply dysfunctional system of government. Most lack the vocabulary and understanding to have a sensible discussion about democratic alternatives and are left tinkering with trivialities like campaign finance reform....as though that would change anything at all that really matters.

If you think America is insane, bear in mind this is the product of a poorly designed system incapable of seeing its problems and usefully addressing them. That must surely drive even good people - and most Americans are very good people - around the twist.

National: Errors, political capital and democracy

In 2004/5 George W Bush said he had political capital and he was going to spend it. In line with my hypothesis that National is just as blind as Bush was to the serious flaws in both their world view and the policies that extend from it, they appear to be determined to throw away the 3%-4% it would take to see them lose the Beehive in 2011. People who don’t like them should, I suppose, let them get on with that, though the downside is we all have to suffer the consequences of fairly obvious (to anyone but them) error.

Their series of errors in recent weeks (Mt. Albert, Waterview, mishandling of Auckland amalgamation) will take time to bear their bitter electoral fruit, but unless something major happens, that fruit appears to be programmed in.

As for the Auckland 'Super-Colider' being built to merge the existing municipalities into one, the government and the media have tended to characterise opposition as parochial special interests protecting their patch. Thay may well be true in part, but it is far from the whole story. For many people - like me - the problem with the government's plan is the degraded democracy in the intended model for the new city. I'm in favour of amalgamation, but see no reason why the new city can't also be more democratic and more genuinely representative than the the current plan will allow. My own submission to the Royal Commission recommended at least 35 councillors elected from multi-member wards by STV. The overall effect of that would have ensured all significant communities of interest were represented on the one Council.

The intended model offers twenty councillors where there used to be over 100, and 20-30 toothless community boards rendering a democracy gutted of subtance and quarantined. This is a major reduction in democracy - and thus accountability. Even worse, they will be elected by First Past the Post, which hands power to the largest minority. We may - and probably will - see a majority of the Council controlled by people elected by less than 30% of all voters. Hoorah!

I know the National Party is all in favour of a minority having absolute power, but I’m not and nor are many other people. This has nothing to do with parochialism. It’s democracy and representation at its most basic……and National consistently demonstrate they do not like democracy unless it only delivers power to them and their supporters. They are actively hostile to other people being represented. That means, they don’t like us. All of us. Including their own voters.

That the National party collectively have poor judgement is already obvious: Murray McCully, Tony Ryall and Judith Collins are all MPs and cabinet ministers. Little more need be said on that subject. Melissa Lee is just one more in a long series of examples of poor judgement.

At some future date, we may be treated to the bizarre spectacle of National party voters in safe Labour seats like Mana and Mt Albert voting against MMP in National's proposed referendum on the voting system. National's intention in holding the referendum is, again, to strip people they don't like of their votes and deprive them of their representation. National voters in safe labour seats would thus be voting to make their own votes worthless in future.

You have to be a special kind of crazy to hate your own vote. Your view of the world and understanding of democracy with respect to yourself must be seriously dysfunctional. That’s the sort of thing we see from Islamic extremists who vote the Imams into power so there won’t be any more elections. Faith over reason……Kiwi-style. An extreme metaphor, but it captures the sense of it. Yielding up future accountability in an irrational display of faith in those who stand before you today.

It remains to be seem how much political capital the government will have "spent" in the end, but at the rate they are going, doubts will be growing in more minds each day as to whether or not this government deserves any more time on the Treasury Benches than they now have. A government hostile to democracy is, in the end, the enemy of everyone.

(This was originally written as a comment over at the Standard, but I've expanded it and posted it here.)