A SHORT PRIMER FOR ABC ABOUT HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

Yes, I've stirred the pot, to be sure. But I watched ABC's debate last night not expecting a journey into the land of GDP for posters with fewer than 42 posts only. Sure, I've certainly enjoyed responding with sniper fire to BS from the Clinton hack threads started by "DUers" with 12 posts or less, but even I cringed when I heard the Bosnia question again. And Wright--really? Is there anybody left who hasn't already considered and reconsidered Wright? And Ayers? Sure, this was a new one for many voters, but is there no limit to the extent of the web of associations of any candidate to be explored?

So, I present here, for ABC, the assumptions on which the democratic process is based:

1. Candidates (minimum required=2) take up positions on policy.
2. Voters decide, based on the different positions on policy and the candidates' plans and abilities to implement those policies, which candidate they would like to represent them.
3. The candidate with the most votes wins, holds office, and then implements the policies (to the best of his/her ability) that he or she said they would implement before winning office.

Last night there was virtually no attention to #1 (with the possible exception of the huge newsflash that both candidates are pro-withdrawal and anti-Bush tax cuts). Therefore, there was almost no helpful information with regard to #2. Nor was either candidate EVER asked how they would implement #1 if/when #3 occurs.

Instead, there were a bunch of questions about whether one candidate (Obama) could indeed get elected. Note that perceptions about the ability to get elected do not fall in any of the three criteria above for democracy to work. In true democracy--and excuse the purity/idealism here--the only electability issue is whether a candidate's POSITIONS AND PLANS/ABILITIES TO IMPLEMENT THEM merit his/her electability so that he/she can in fact attempt to implement those positions. It sounds outlandish, doesn't it? It would have sounded slightly less outlandish before last night's debate.

By contrast, questions about whether you can trust a candidate to implement his/her positions ARE indeed fair, because democracy doesn't work if a candidate has a nice looking #1 but no intent to carry it out during #3. There were, of course, no questions about determining trust to carry out stated policy. Instead, we got a stab and twist at Clinton's general untrustworthiness. There were no questions on voting record, of either candidate (with the possible exception of the huge newsflash that both were pro-gun control), which would help voters decide if #1 was likely to match #3. If #1 and #3 don't match up, remember, democracy takes a hit. There was next to nothing to work with here, though, courtesy of ABC.

Questions and speculation about WHETHER a candidate can achieve the votes to carry out #3 are irrelevant to democracy. They're interesting to speculate about, and certainly the polls show Obama far more likely to attain the votes necessary to carry out his policies, but such speculation ITSELF has nothing to do with the democratic process and so the candidates' impressions about who is going to win isn't even tangentially relevant. Sure, it's relevant to us here, and to many voters interested in the process--but democracy itself isn't interested in it. In contrast, questions about HOW a candidate WOULD carry out #3 are paramount. Again, good positions (#1) and voter support based on those positions (#2) mean nothing if the candidate has no means to carry out #3. There were, of course, no questions about how either candidate planned to carry out his/her policy once in office. Nor were there any questions about either candidate's ability to carry out their policies once in office (experience, judgment, leadership, consensus-building ability, etc.)

But what about questions of flag lapels and angry preachers or both candidates' ties to people in the Weather Underground? Don't these things point to the issue of patriotism, and doesn't patriotism matter? Well, here's the crazy thing: YES. Yes, patriotism matters to the democratic process. IF it's tied to policy. There were no questions about how a candidate's patriotism related to their policies or plans/abilities to implement them once in office.

But doesn't patriotism matter in some other way to the democratic process? Yes, again. If either candidate plans to circumvent or disrupt the democratic process as a result of a lack of patriotism, then our democracy would suffer, and voters should consider that. We all know that last night's discussion of patriotism wasn't about the democratic process, though. It was about electability again. And as an Obama supporter, I for one am relieved the silliness over patriotism with Ayers and Wright was NOT balanced by Penn or Bill Clinton shilling for Columbia and mid-eastern countries--unless the debate moderators could have framed those issues around questions about actual policy. I'm certain, however, they wouldn't have been up to the challenge.

After deciding on a candidate based on policy, I've frequently made calculations based on pragmatic considerations about which candidate also is more electable vs. John McCain. And, I frequently spread the word about those calculations. And, I would argue, these calculations are: 1) especially necessary and crucial this time around for the good of the world, and 2) anti-democratic. I also admit I take heart in knowing, based on several trends, state-by-state polls, and some analysis of what Democratic defectors are most likely to do, that my candidate is more likely to beat McCain. (Furthermore, I don't believe in this day and age that either candidate can be "vetted" against the right-wing smear machine's imagination that operates without truth as its starting point.) Again, though, whenever I consider electablity, regardless of intent, I bring on a much smaller scale the same sort of anti-democratic cynicism that ABC brought for almost the entire first hour of the debate to millions of viewers last night--viewers who represent an electorate that is largely uninformed on the policies of the candidates. I understand many viewers are interested in tabloidism, but to devote half of a nationally televised debate on a major network to the front page of the National Enquirer and/or the splash page at FauxNews.com was on a grand scale a play to emphasize and stimulate the sort of pragmatic, Machiavellian calculations of the uninformed electorate that true democracy--good old outlandish real democracy--cannot sustain indefinitely.