Could Athenian-Style Democracy Work Today?

The government of the United States is technically not a democracy; it is a republic. We elect people to represent us, but we otherwise have no direct role in government.

The democracy of ancient Athens, however, was a true democracy. The assembly (ekklesia) basically consisted of all the adult male citizens who bothered to show up that day. The assembly was the Athenian legislature, responsible for enacting laws, declaring war, and bestowing citizenship. The council (boule) was like the executive branch; they carried out the laws passed by the assembly, but also decided what proposals the assembly would deliberate. The members of the council were chosen by lottery. Trials were all decided by juries of one's peers, again selected by lottery.

The setup worked fine for the ancient city-state, but wasn't practicable when the U.S. was founded. A Georgia farmer couldn't be expected to ride north for the capital every time the American Assembly met. Even today, flying or driving to Washington would be onerous for the average citizen. But now, we don't have to be there physically when we could be there virtually.

So how do we adapt Athenian democracy to fit modern times? The complex bureaucracy necessary for modern governing poses an obstacle. These positions require a technical expertise that we cannot expect every citizen to have. So let's retain the executive branch essentially as it is.

But let's completely explode the legislative branch. Every morning, a daily boule of 100 people will be selected randomly. (Or whatever number and frequency is most sensible.) Each person, if they wish, will be able to propose one law or proposition. They can come up with their own or use a suggestion from citizens who have not yet been chosen for the boule. The proposal can be as simple or as complex as the person wants.

Over the course of the day, every adult citizen can debate and vote on the boule's proposals. Comments can be shown with the proposal and top-rated ones can be shown first like on YouTube. By the evening, the votes will be counted and proposals with a simple majority pass.

It is then up to the executive branch to turn the laypersons' proposals into reality. If people disagree with the actions of those in the executive branch, then a member of the boule could call for a vote of no-confidence. If that official does not retain majority support, they will hold that office as a caretaker for a month while others campaign for it. All Cabinet-level positions will be decided this way.

An independent judiciary will be necessary to check the "tyranny of the majority," i.e. to prevent our assembly from depriving rights from a minority. For this reason, judges and justices cannot be removed by no-confidence votes. Whether they will be elected by the assembly or appointed by the president and confirmed by the assembly...well, I'm not sure which is better.

And what of that de Tocqueville quote? The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. Our system cuts out the middleman. If given more direct power over our government, will we use it responsibly?

Well, how responsibly is it used now? Senate Democrats don't want to propose a budget because "The Ryan budget is being so good for Democrats. Why mess that up?" Republicans are playing with fire on the debt ceiling due to their unwillingness to even hear the words 'tax increase.' Regardless of whether this is temporary posturing or permanent intransigence, both Congressional Democrats and Republicans are more interested in playing politics than, you know, actually governing.

Plus, it will be harder for moneyed interests to buy off members of Congress when essentially every American is a member of Congress. Granted, they can still use the mass media to sway the public, but that strikes me as more difficult and maybe even fairer.

But maybe you still have your doubts. So let's get together 10,000 people or so, a good cross-section of America, and do a practice run. After a year, compare the course our fake assembly has taken the country with that of Congress. And then we will have our answer.

What's Up With the Bailout?

Who knows? I've been reading almost every article I've come across and things are still a little fuzzy:

What's going on in Congress? On Monday, there was a tangible fear that a Congress pressured by Bush, Cheney, Treasury Secretary Henry "Hank" Paulson, Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, and SEC Chairman Christopher Cox would hurry up and pass a bill without holding hearings or bothering to think about granting broad new powers to the Treasury Department and expanding next year's deficit to $1 trillion. Newt Gingrich complained that conservative voices were "silent or confused" because this fiscally irresponsible, socialist (We are basically nationalizing the financial industry here.) plan was proposed by Republican leadership.

On Tuesday, Congress woke up. Bernanke, Paulson, and Cox testified before the Senate Banking Committee. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) asked if $150 billion would be enough for now with a promise of more to come later if needed; Paulson said that would be a "grave mistake." However, compromises were made. Paulson agreed to assistance for homeowners facing foreclosure, limits on compensation for participating firms' executives, and congressional oversight of the program. He balked at the idea that the government should receive stock for helping these companies so the taxpayers could recoup their investment, saying that companies would be less likely to participate if this stipulation was made. (Never mind that that was part of the deal with the savings and loan scandal in the '80s.)

The consensus seems to be that Congress will pass a bill, just one significantly different from Paulson's original proposal.

What's happening on Wall Street?

It seems like nobody knows what's happening. On Friday, the Dow rose nearly 369 points on news that a bailout plan was being suggested. On Monday, it fell 372 points supposedly because investors had a weekend to examine the plan and did not like the lack of details. On Tuesday, it fell an additional 161 points supposedly because investors did not like the details Congress was considering. (Today, it remained relatively stable, losing only 29 points.)

How is it affecting the race for president? Hoo boy. A mere yesterday, both Obama and McCain trod softly, reluctant to make the first move. Neither had given any word about how the expensive deal would affect campaign promises. But it was clear that the bailout was becoming increasingly unpopular; by Monday night, 44% opposed the plan compared to 25% supporting. It was less clear, but the economic mess seemed to help Obama in the polls; a WaPo-ABC poll showed Obama with the first statistically significant lead in the general campaign. (Both campaigns found it hard to believe that Obama could gain 11 points on McCain in one week.)

Yesterday night, Obama said the bailout would likely delay implementing his campaign proposals as president.

And if they were reluctant to make the gambit 27 hours ago, the chess pieces are flying tonight. (Perhaps you'd prefer a poker metaphor?) First, McCain said he'd suspend his campaign tomorrow and fly back to Washington. He also asked that Friday's debate be postponed. The two campaigns agreed to issue a "joint statement outlining their shared principles," which turned out not to say much. But Obama said he'd still want to hold the debate:

With respect to the debates, it's my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who in 40 days will be responsible for dealing with this mess. . . . In my mind, actually it's more important than ever that we present ourselves to the American people.

Are these gimmicks? Probably. But the issue could fundamentally alter the presidential race.

Gov't: "I'm Not Listening, La La La La La"

Members of Congress apparently do not heed the common-sense findings of non-partisan commissions, deciding instead to listen to special interests or just pretending that the problems will just magically go away. It's cute when this little girl does it, but not grown men and women entrusted with running the country.

First up, Medicare. A bill passed the House that would have put off a scheduled cut in payments to physicians who treat Medicare patients. To fund the measure, money would be taken out of payments to the Medicare Advantage program, which allows patients to receive insurance benefits from private insurers instead of traditional Medicare. According to an independent commission, however, these payments are overly generous and make Medicare solvency more difficult. But Republican Senators sided with the insurance agencies and the bill fell two votes shy of the sixty needed for cloture. Worth noting: Sens. Levin & Stabenow (D-MI) voted for cloture, as did Sen. Obama (D-IL). Sen. McCain (R-AZ) was absent, as was Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) who at least has a good excuse as he's still recovering from brain surgery and cancer treatment.

Secondly, levee systems. A recent opinion piece by Gerald E. Galloway, a civil engineer associated with the University of Maryland and the Army Corps of Engineers, again levels much of the criticism against Congress. Dr./Prof./Brig. Gen. Galloway led a White House study after major flooding along the Mississippi in 1993. The study found that jurisdiction over the levees was scattered among local, state, and federal governments and that many levees "were woefully undersized." But years past and Katrina hit and now the floods in the Midwest and still nothing has happened. Bush requested (and received, I think, the article isn't exactly clear) $30 million in 2006 for the Army CoE to inventory and assess the nation's levees. No funds have been granted since then. Congress passed the National Levee Safety Act in 2007, which formally establihed the assessment, but still has not allocated funds.

So what's Congress doing now?

RECESS!

Spending Priorities

Is it just me, or does Congress seem to be going backwards as far as public policy is concerned? The point of all public policy is to determine the best solution to the public's needs.  Well, after the national disaster and government humiliation of Hurricane Katrina, you'd think that the federal government would be doing everything possible to ensure that those affected by the storm in 2005 aren't suffering nearly three years later.  

But in its infinite wisdom, Congress is leaning towards allocating money for Iraqi refugees instead of those displaced by Hurricane Katrina.  One homeless New Orleans resident puts it nicely:

[Patrick Clark] said the government was all too willing to increase the debt with war spending but is turning its back on those most in need of help after Katrina.

While I have nothing against helping Iraqi refugees in a mess that we created, you'd think that as the richest country in the world, the least we could do is help the homeless population created by the equally-poorly handled disaster of Katrina.   What really gets me is that the $73 million planned for mentally disabled Katrina victims is probably going to be scratched over $150 million in funding for Jordan and Mexico's militaries.  Sure, let's promote military forces abroad while not paying attention to the long-term ramifications of 12,000 homeless people - seeing as how it is the government's responsibility to protect the well-being of its citizens.

Sex and the Kiddies

As the United States government is finally figuring out, abstinence only programs for teaching sex education clearly do not work. This should be no surprise but for those that couldn't see the obvious, even a quick analysis of other countries' policies would more than clear up the issue. For example, while the United States experienced its HIV/AIDS outbreak in the 1980s (with Ronald Reagan failing to attempt to act until 1985), other countries experience the virus' effects to a far greater degree and thus, their governments were under even more pressure to act quickly.

Take the case of Uganda. Initially, Uganda was active in efforts to stem the disease's devastating effects. However, after a change in administrations, the government cut back on comprehensive sex education and distribution of birth control methods. As one could expect, this lead to a rise in the number of people infected with the virus. However, when Uganda elected a new president, one who enacted comprehensive sex education programs and made combating HIV/AIDS a priority, the number of people infected decreased significantly. The United States government has all of this data, but President Bush's HIV/AIDS programs for Africa largely focus on abstinence only programs even though these are proven to be far less effective and with far greater costs to human life.

Classy as ever, Jon Stewart tackles the issue of providing an alternative solution that compromises between rigid abstinence only and comprehensive sex education programs.



Take a hint, Congress. Teaching the obvious, proven-to-work comprehensive sex education programs shouldn't be so difficult.

Headlines: 29 April 2008

• Democrats Divided Over Gas Tax Break
  

  Clinton wants to suspend the gas tax for the summer driving season. Obama argues that lifting the tax would remove the disincentive to pollute, take away money from maintaining highways, and save consumers little—about $30 over three months. Gonna side with Obama on this one.
  

• Cheney Lawyer Claims "Congress Lacks Constitutional Power" to Investigate VP's Role in Torture Approval
  

  Luckily, Cheney lacks the constitutional power to stay in office past January.
  

• Iranian President's Visit Tests India
  

  Singh welcomes Ahmadinejad to get oil and to prove his independence from the U.S. Not sure how I feel about this.
  

• Georgia "plans war in Abkhazia"
  

  Georgia and Russia point fingers at each other over a tiny breakaway republic no one has ever heard of.
  

• Obama's Wright Response
  

  Obama should clearly repudiate Rev. Wright after his crazy media tour:
  

Future of Tibet

Today, the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee of East Asian and Pacific Affairs held a hearing entitled "The Future of Tibet" where Sen. Barbara Boxer, among others, announced their plans to develop a plan of action to resolve the Sino-Tibetan Crisis.

While this meeting was overall a very productive dialogue on the serious need for a solution now, if the current administration does not act quickly to enact this plan of action (the Bush Administration has already failed to follow the recommendations the committee gave earlier in the year), the United States will lose some of the key leverage it has gained due to the Beijing Summer Olympics.

All of the witnesses provided excellent testimonies and there were many intelligent questions the senators asked. Among these were John Negroponte, Deputy Secretary of State; Richard Gere, chairman of the International Campaign for Tibet; Lodi Gyari, special envoy of His Holiness XIV Dalai Lama; and Lobsang Sangay of the East Asian Legal Studies Program at Harvard Law School. With the obvious, unanimous bipartisan agreement on the necessary steps that need to be taken to resolve this crisis within China, it is quite reasonable to expect far more genuine efforts on behalf of the Congress and the Bush administration to seriously address this issue and work with the Chinese government to create a mutually beneficial solution.

Part of the testimony, courtesy of YouTube and the Associated Press. For full coverage, see links below the video clip.


Click here for the Subcommittee's page for the hearing.

Click here to watch the hearing in its entirety.

Click here to read Lodi Gyari's full testimony.

Click here to read Richard Gere's full testimony.