Politics & Political Participation at New Lows

Modern politics – by which we mean the election of representatives and the debates over how to
use government to solve social problems  – seems increasingly polarized, nasty, and
undemocratic. In recent years, Congress, once known for its bipartisan comity and ability to reach
consensus, has had to hold civility camps so members can get basic lessons in how to get along.
The political scientists Benjamin Ginsberg and Martin Shefter have wisely observed that political
elites no longer seek to exert influence the democratic way – by mobilizing citizens – but instead
seek to win by smearing and investigating and prosecuting the opponent. In this “politics by other
means,” the average citizen becomes an irrelevant bystander as leaders wage nasty wars through
distant institutions – the courts, Congressional committees, the big Washington bureaucracies, the
national media, and so forth.  It is no wonder citizens tune out.
What is more, modern political campaigns often seek to depress participation, rather than increase
it. The method of choice: attack ads on television and radio designed to alienate the opponent’s
voters. While these candidates often win by driving voters away, our society pays a hefty price.
When candidates do try to mobilize citizens, the campaigns usually target the most likely voters:
people who are educated, married-with-children, white, well-off, and middle-aged or older. These
are the folks toward whom countless polls, focus groups, television ads, direct-mail appeals, and
campaign stops are oriented. The millions of other Americans  – many of them young people,
singles, non-whites who might vote if somebody asked or truly cared – are simply written off. In
the misguided world of modern politics, voter apathy is not an urgent, unanticipated problem, but
rather the intended consequence of campaigners’ cynical choices.
The campaign finance system is a big part of the problem. Changes in the technology of
campaigning have placed new demands on candidates either to have or to raise lots and lots of
money. Not surprisingly, a system that is heavily reliant on major contributions is tilted toward
individuals and organizations that can give big. Access to money plays a key role in what kinds of
candidates run and what kinds of candidates win. Indeed, the nonpartisan National Voting Rights
Institute has labeled our candidate-selection system the  “wealth primary” because it is nearly
impossible for qualified candidates of middling means to mount a competitive campaign. The
electoral system’s excessive reliance on financial capital also determines what kinds of interests
get heard, and what kinds of policies get passed. Seeing politics as hopelessly skewed toward the
well-off and the organized, middle America has come to see individual acts of political
participation as pointless. And so, a vicious circle emerges. As money appears to control politics
more and more, fewer people seek to influence politics by voting or contacting their legislators,
which in turn amplifies the influence of those who give money.
For that reason, the system of campaign finance, perhaps more than any other facet of
government, is most in need of radical repair. Common Cause reports that, in the first 18 months
of the 2000 Presidential campaign season, the two major parties used legal loopholes to raise a
staggering $256-million in  “soft money” contributions from corporations, political action
committees, and individuals to promote candidates’ campaigns. That figure represents an
astonishing 82% increase over the soft money contributions raised during the comparable period
of the 1996 campaign, leading Common Cause President Scott Harshbarger to observe that,
“While average citizens sit at home, disconnected from politics, wealthy special interests will
have access and influence at the national party conventions due to their huge soft money
contributions.”
1
 Or, as political scientist Robert Putnam notes: “The bottom line in the political
industry is this: financial capital—the wherewithal for mass marketing— has steadily replaced
social capital—that is, grassroots citizen networks—as the coin of the realm.”
2
 And as long as
money is in greater demand than volunteer time, politics will be biased toward the elite.