夜神曦 的 Blog

版权声明：转载时请以超链接形式标明文章原始出处和作者信息及本声明
http://yagamilighto.blogbus.com/logs/20757780.html

Inequalities in economic resources to participate in politics effectively shuts the door toward making political change for economically disadvantaged social groups and continues to alienate and disfranchise a large proportion of voters in the U.S. , even though the civil rights movements has secured formalized equal rights. How Democratic is the American Constitution by Robert Dahl and Hitting the Lottery Jackpot by David Nibert both examine this problem.

Dahl makes a critical observation of the American political system. Dahl argues that there are three components of political equality, equal rights among citizens guaranteed by the formalized rule of law, equal opportunities to exercise those rights through democratic institutions, and equal resources to take advantage of those opportunities. Americans has widely accepted the equality of rights as a moral ideal since the Declaration of Independence, and the political system has evolved to include the suffrage of African Americans and women and endorse the civil rights of gays, union workers and minorities. The inequality of opportunities and resources, however, has remained impediments to a more democratic system.

Inequality of opportunities for participation, as Dahl describes, exist both in the written and unwritten Constitution. In the written Constitution, the equal representation of states in the Senate gives any give resident in small states tremendously more representation in the Senate than that in large states.  In the unwritten Constitution, that is, those rules about the political system taken for granted by Americans, the electorate college system makes different citizens’ votes count unequal in importance; The winner-takes-all elections dampens competition as politicians do not have to win the majority votes for election, and in Congressional elections favorable redistricting further drives out challenges; The Supreme Court by judicial review forecloses many issues arguably belong better to the political process. Those political institutions are structured with a mobilization of bias in favor of certain minority groups at the cost of the popular majority.

Moreover, Dahl says, prospect for change in the written Constitution is very little, since the favored geographical minorities would easily wager exactly those power to block any proposal for amendment. There is hope, however, in changing the unwritten Constitution.  The author suggested several alternatives to the electorate college, the winner-takes-all elections and a more confined role of judicial review. Nonetheless, each of those would also face much hindrance. The path to change, Dahl says, would start from the public gaining a critical view of the Constitutional system.

Even equal opportunity is achieved through improving those democratic institutions, Dahl points out that there is still the need for more equal resources for political participation.  Dahl gives an example of a town meeting where everyone has a free two minute speech, and each additional minute is auctioned off to the highest bidder. In this case the freedom of speech is meaningless unless one has the resources to afford the expense of making the speech. Yet the Supreme Court justices in deciding that the freedom of expression was infringed by the legal limits on political campaign spending failed to see regulating campaign finance as promoting the principles of political equality.

Nibert takes a sociological approach on this subject. Looking at lottery as a regressive form of taxation and a distraction from working, while doing little to fulfill the purpose of “financing public education”, Nibert raises the question why the state governments have promoted lotteries so aggressively. Nibert argues that the role of the state is not so much to promote public economic and moral good as to maintain and legitimize the American capitalism with its inequality of resources.  

Nibert thinks that the federal and state government has acted to contribute to the need for and the creation of state lotteries. Under the dogma of supply-side economics, the Reagan administration gave tax breaks to big corporations and affluent individuals, subsidized businesses which move their business overseas, and deregulated many industries, in the hope that “the whole pie will be bigger so that tax revenue will increase”.  The biggest beneficiaries from these policies are the corporate shareholders who are predominantly the rich, while hurting consumers who face less safe products and employees who see their jobs moved overseas or their paycheck stagnated or dwindled.  When the hope failed, the government is left with a huge budget deficit and a general anti-taxism among voters. The only option acceptable to the affluent and less resisted by the public is lottery, despite its many opponents for moral and economic reasons.

Moreover, Nibert says, the state not only imposes policies that are favorable to maintaining inequality, but also legitimizes those positions through educational, cultural, and social institutions. The family, religion, the schools, the mass media, the state, as parts of the superstructure perpetrates the general belief that opportunities are abundant and inequality results from rewards of individual talent and effort and is fair and equitable.  By making people think on such terms, they would perceive individual poverty as a result of personal problem rather than existing social arrangements and thus unwilling to expand the scope of conflict and challenge the status quo.  Consequently, the logic becomes that affluence signifies personal success and superiority, regardless of how the rich get there, while the poor are devalued and demoralized. Once one acquired great wealth, people would not pay much attention to how the wealth is accumulated but just take its legitimacy for granted. Lotteries, too, is portrayed by the system of legitimization as an instrument of equal opportunities that can lift people out of poverty, rather than a tax on the poor.

Nibert concurs with Dahl in that the undemocratic features of the American political system such as winner-takes-all elections has alienated many voters, in particular those of low- and moderate-income and prevented substantial policies reforms from occurring, while advocating for change to a proportional representation form of government.  Nibert also thinks that the current conditions make it unlikely that any significant change will take place in the American political system, but is more pessimistic to suggest the only possibility of such change is through a social unrest. Nibert recognizes the need for minimum resources in the form of more universal entitlement programs, on the grounds that such programs would reduce division of society and help the majority to recognize their common interest in resisting the policies favoring the economically powerful.

There are many kinds of ways to address the problem of unequal resources in political participation.  Their direct effects fall into two categories, redistribution and regulation. Redistribution policies endow the poor with the necessary resources to take part in politics or tax the rich on their excess resources. Regulation policies limit the role of leveraging wealth in politics in general.

Possible regulation measures include nationalize political advertising and allocate airtime more fairly. A less radical proposal is to reform campaign finance and place hard limits on the amount of spending.  

Possible redistribution measures include more universal entitlement programs giving the poor better access to education, healthcare, and housing, heavier taxes on corporate profits and capital gains, more progressive income tax code.

Policy choices abound in alleviating the economic inequality in political participation, but the potential resistance is almost certainly proportional to its effectiveness.  There is also the risk that policy reforms may be taken as expediency in the context of growing public discontent rather than a permanent solution to the problem. Only a systematic scheme that brings about a structural change in the economy, could then the superstructure be effectively remodeled to accommodate more voice for the poor.