The Health Of Our Democracy

The word democracy derives from the Greek word meaning "the power to the people." Because we treasure it so dearly we are constantly vigilant of threats to it. So with all the talk from conservatives about Pres. Obama precipitating the fall of democracy, I wanted to share my impressions on the current threats to democracy we are facing. I don't think democracy is in any real danger in the short term, but these are the issues I see as worth keeping an eye on, in no particular order:

Campaign finance laws

In the recently decided case Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, the Supreme Court struck down a law that limited the amount of direct campaigning that can be done by corporations and groups. The ruling allows special interests, lobbyists, corporations, labor unions, and the like to spend potentially unlimited amounts of money on political campaigning for or against individual candidates.

This means several things. For one, corporations are now able to buy candidates by promising them immense amounts of money in return for political favors. For another, candidates who speak out against corporations or special interests will be overwhelmed by the corporate money spent to have them ousted.

Because of the exponentially larger amount of money available through corporations, candidates will no longer see the necessity of soliciting funds from the average citizens, nor will they need to persuade an army of volunteers to help them through an election, which are fundamentally democratic ways of getting elected. The average citizen is now expendable. In essence, the Obama campaign strategy relying on millions of Americans donating and volunteering is a thing of the past, replaced by candidates relying on just a few corporations.

The supposed impetus of this decision is to protect political free speech. But the Constitution only protects the free speech of the people, and a corporation is not a person. A special interest is not a person. A labor union is not a person. If democracy is the power to the people, this decision, which takes away the power of the people and gives it to corporations, is the antithesis of democracy.

Lack of term limits

I've made my point about term limits known here. Without term limits in Congress we get an entrenched political elite with virtually no ties to the American people and no sense of urgency to solve the problems of everyday Americans. These politicians' first priority is to remain an elected official with all the power and fame that goes along with it. They are always in reelection mode and, indeed, over 90% of incumbents win reelection. With term limits we would get fresh ideas, fresh leaders, and more emphasis on the American people.

Widening gap between rich and poor

I went into more depth here about the widening gap between the rich and poor in America. Not since the pre-Depression era has the gap been so gaping. The top ten percent of income earners own a majority of the wealth in the United States, meaning of course that the 90% of the rest of us own less than half of the wealth. And it is only getting worse.

Wealth and power being accumulated by the elite very few is the death knell of a healthy democracy. We live in a political system where, increasingly, money, and money alone, talks. A family that has to worry constantly about putting food on the table, losing their home, the lack of affordable health insurance, and the like, will have less free time and mental and emotional will to get involved in the political process. They are also more likely to become jaded and disinterested in a society that is set up for them to fail. This is the new reality for the majority of American families and it is bad for democracy.

Filibuster

I remember back in 2005 when the Republicans were debating whether or not to employ the "nuclear option" and end filibusters on judicial nominees, and potentially ending the practice altogether, thinking that I wish they would go ahead and just do it. Where before it was used sparingly, it is now accepted that any bill in the Senate needs a super-majority of 60 votes to pass, where the Constitution only requires a bare majority. The filibuster is so plainly undemocratic, and potentially unconstitutional, that it should be ended. Here is a chart that demonstrates why now is the time to end the practice (from wikipedia):



Since the Democrats have taken over power in the Senate the use of the filibuster by Republicans has skyrocketed, and before that its use was steadily increasing. The axiom of "majority rule," which is the entire point of "the power to the people" has been replaced by "minority rule." Those that received fewer votes now have more power than those that received more votes.

Destruction of public natural resources
There is nothing more democratic than our natural resources. Everyone has free access to air. Everyone has access to our public lands. Everyone needs access to these things to reconnect with the earth and each other on a spiritual level. God created this world for our use and enjoyment, "for the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare."

But what happens when a certain few corporations are able to freely pollute our air and water, develop our last vestiges of wilderness, and profit from our communal lands? Is it democracy when a single logging company spoils old growth forest that belonged to the public at large? Is it democracy when a single oil refinery makes the air we breath harmful to our health? Our natural resources should be preserved for the people, for all to enjoy, and not managed for the profits of a few corporations. I don't think the destruction of natural resources is a direct threat our democracy, but I do think it is a apt barometer for the health of it.

I'm sure there are other legitimate threats to democracy that I have not named here, this is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but I think these are among the most important.

Suck It Up

Another set of local bills that stifle the transition from coal to clean energy sources recently surfaced in the Utah State Legislature. Sponsered by Roger E. Barrus (R - District 18), these three bills are focused mainly on the dissemination of power to the state legislature and the Air Quality Board in regards to pollution. Although a restructuring of the responsibility and oversight of these government agencies may seem like a good idea, the proverbial fine print speaks otherwise.

HB 190: http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/hbillint/hb0190.pdf
HB 191: http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/hbillint/hb0191.pdf
HB 412: http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/hbillint/hb0412.pdf

The Air Quality Board will be limited in entering interstate agreements, preventing the Governor to work in cooperation with other States to improve air quality. Instead of the Air Quality Board having oversight in regulating pollution, the state legislature will have control to dictate who and how pollution will be monitored. My favorite line is that the legislature will be allowed to "accept, receive, and administer grants or other funds or gifts from public and private agencies.." So unless you have the money to convince the legislature otherwise, big business (i.e. big desecrating business), will have a chance to spew more filth into the air. Take a deep breath Utah!

*cough*

The Sin of Driving an SUV?

As the Salt Lake Valley fills with air pollution due to the inversion to the point that you can't see any of the mountains that surround it, and these are nine and ten thousand foot peaks, I can't help but think of Moroni.

An inversion, by the way, is where cold air gets trapped closer to the ground by a cap of warm air. As a result, all of the pollution and smog gets trapped, in Salt Lake's case, in the valley. This can lead to serious health risks and a major deterioration of visibility, as well as being ugly to the point of depression. As you go up the canyons not only does it get warmer, paradoxically, but when you get above the inversion you can look down on a smog filled valley which looks like a bowl filled with the milk left over from Cinnamon Toast Crunch cereal. So, in one way at least, I was kind of happy to take the scouts out on winter camp last weekend. And I will say this about the inversion, it makes for beautiful sunrises. Just before dawn the whole valley is this thick, eerie blue, like in deep water where the sun just barely makes it through. Then, just as the sun rises, the whole valley turns bright yellow. Unfortunately, this lasts just a few minutes, then the haze unmasks itself and becomes whitish-brown and disgusting.

There is something vaguely just, however, about an inversion. Usually we create all this air pollution and it just gets swept away by the prevailing winds and we never have to deal with it, but during an inversion we are forced to live with it as it accumulates and we get to see just how much we pollute the air. In business speak I believe this is referred to as internalizing an externality. Here is a nice picture of it:



Anyway . . . Moroni was, of course, the last prophet of the Nephites, and the last living Nephite. He prophesied that the Book of Mormon would come forth in a pretty crappy time in Earth's history, which he described in great detail. Some examples of what would be going on when the Book of Mormon was revealed are that churches will seek for monetary gain instead of spiritual enlightenment, wars, earthquakes, pride, murder, stealing, lying, justification of sin, secret combinations, and you get the point. Here's another one Moroni snuck in there:

"Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be great pollutions upon the face of the earth."

I will leave it to the prophets to declare what is a sin and what isn't (and the title is obviously a joke), but it appears that polluting is frowned upon at the very least. Which makes sense when we consider that we were given this beautiful world and put in dominion over it. Polluting the earth seems like a poor performance of our stewardship when we know that there are plenty of alternatives in order to pollute less.

Keeping this short because I have a problem being concise, I just feel like if we believe that the earth was created for us, purposely made to be both functional and beautiful, we, as members of the church, and as always I implicate myself as well, need to make those hard choices which set an example of good environmental stewardship. If you are interesting in reading a little more about Mormonism and environmentalism, and I think you should, here are a few links:

Hugh Nibley:
Brigham Young and the Environment
Man's Dominion, or Subduing the Earth
Stewardship of the Air

Professor George B. Handley from BYU:
LDS Belief and the Environment

Here's a hodgepodge (that's right, hodgepodge) of references:
Mormon Environmental Ethic

The Church has no specific stance on modern-day environmentalism, as Prof. Handley notes. These links are not purported doctrine, or suggestions to the First Presidency or Twelve Apostles. What I want to propose is that a modern-day environmentalism is perfectly compatible with church doctrine and, in my mind, a good fit. The culture of the West, including Utah, has traditionally been one of extraction of natural resources and taming the wild, which makes sense given the history of its settlement. But we are at a time now where we need to make more long term decisions about how we protect the environment, and I think the Gospel lends a solid foundation.