Read it on Salon
Join HULU, SEINFELD and SALON to celebrate Festivus!
Sponsored Post
Tuesday, Jul 7, 2015 9:57 AM UTC
What Karl Marx got right about America’s twisted form of democracy
Bernie Sanders & Ted Cruz seem light years apart -- but the truth is that choice in politics is mostly an illusion
Topics: 2016 Elections, Politics, Karl Marx, political philosophy, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, News, Politics News
Karl Marx once said, “The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.”
As the spectacle of the presidential elections begins to heat up, and the apparent differences between candidates are magnified by the mainstream media, it is important to ask ourselves: Has much changed since Marx declared voting to be a largely meaningless endeavor? Does a vote in America really hold any sway, as it should in a democratic republic, or is it just part of the spectacle, a process that provides the illusion of choice?
If you’re a cynic, you’d say that voting is indeed a waste of time, and that every single politician who actually has a chance of getting elected nationally is bought and paid for by the ruling class. If, on the other hand, you’re an idealist, or someone who consumes cable news daily, you might assign great importance to the act of voting, and see only differences between the two parties. Realistically, it’s somewhere in between, though Marx’s words are much more accurate today than some would care to admit.
First, the differences (and there are many): In todays hyper-partisan political landscape, it does seem much of the time like Democrats and Republicans are living on separate planets. The most obvious divergences come with social issues, like gay marriage, abortion, civil rights, birth control, race relations, etc. These differences have been center stage as of late, with the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage and racial tensions that have followed the tragic massacre in Charleston. These are crucial differences, and anyone who claims that voting is a completely futile act should think about what America would be like if it was run by the likes of Mike Huckabee or Sen.Ted Cruz (R-TX). Other major issues include the environment, which Republicans seem care about as much as BP does, gun control, immigration, and economic inequality (although, barring certain progressives, Democrats do not seem much more eager than Republicans to truly address this issue).
These are not superficial differences — they matter for many people, and cannot be ignored. However, debate over these issues is also a part of a spectacle that helps many people look past the fact that our government no longer serves the interests of citizens, but the interests of corporations, billionaires, and American hegemony. An American politician who criticizes the American war machine and its imperialist tendencies is a rare breed indeed. Even Bernie Sanders has some hawkish qualities, especially concerning Israel; but to his credit, he voted against the Iraq War and has been outspoken opponent of Middle Eastern imperialism.
However, the overwhelming majority of people in Washington, both Democrats and Republicans, are proud supporters of global capitalism and the imperialism that goes along with it. And why wouldn’t they be? Money and American politics is like space and time, they just go together. Today, if a brave soul attempts to get elected without courting big corporations or wealthy individuals, there is almost zero chance that they will get elected — and that is exactly how the ruling capitalist class wants it to be. Sure, there are important differences between many Democrats and Republicans; but ultimately, they operate within the same rigged system.
A lot of this has to do with how the United States political system was designed. America is one of the few modern democracies that has a winner-takes-all (first past the post) electoral system (for Congress), meaning voters have only one vote, and the candidate who receives the most votes, even if it is a slim majority, wins the whole shebang. The election of the president is a bit different, requiring an absolute majority – though not from the people, of course, but the electoral college. This system inevitably results in a two-party rule because of the risk that comes with voting for a third party candidate, commonly called the spoiler effect. The danger of this system was perhaps most notable in the 2000 Presidential election, when third party candidate, Ralph Nader, most likely contributed to the election of Republican George W. Bush. An alternative would be an instant runoff voting system, where each voter can rank their preferred candidates in order, without fear that their support for their favorite candidate will end up electing the candidate they dislike most. Additionally, proportional representation systems, in which legislatures mirror the voting percentages, are found in most first-world democracies. This electoral system results in more parties, fairer representation, and it is less prone to corrupt strategies, like gerrymandering.
Most Read
