This is not a Pantisocracy

Put bluntly, I disagree with theories that suggest that universal participation constitutes either good democracy or good government. Instead, a thriving and enduring representative democracy demands only (at least for our purpose) limited and informed political interest and involvement, limited to those citizens who participate with information and free of emotional coercion. I would argue that universal political participation - while constitutional - does have detrimental effects on our political system as well as our methods. In the two most recently influential examples of widespread political participation - one involving a permissive abrogation of civil liberties, the second a hastily contrived and controversial healthcare plan - the American electorate chose first a president exercising unilateral power to force his own decision on the people (the ill-fated Iraq War), and then elected another president exercising unilateral power to force his decision on the people (poorly considered healthcare reform).

It may seem that comparing "Dubya's" War with Obama's healthcare may be counterintuitive, but in fact I claim that the motivations that allowed a plurality of the people to support both of these presidents (at least for a time) are the strongest argument against desiring universal political participation. To be sure, I value our Democracy/Republican form of government and have proudly stood in its defense. But the American electorate fall short when they force policy decisions based in part on fact and in part on emotions.

I take exception with theories that promote the idea of political education sprouting from the water-cooler crowd at city hall or at any other small private industry. Local political interest and participation educates participants only in local political participation at best, often with self-interests acting as the primary motivation for such participation. Granted, to a large degree self-interest also determines national political participation as well. My concern with attempts to suggest a possible translation of such concentrated local political education to the national arena is that the former requires, in truth, only limited political knowledge, whereas national politics demand compromise or, as Prof. Claibourn puts it, prioritization. This is something that the divisive American electorate has shown incapable of doing except in times of extreme duress.

I also agree with KIW4D in that voting for voting’s sake is not always good. I suggest that the plethora of issues turning the political wheel in America prevent well-informed political participation, and this is acceptable as well-informed need not mean subject-matter expert. But ideally the informed participant should at least understand the impact of policy decicions and elections on the Nation, although it seems many do not. To put this all simply – and to cut short my rambling – with so many voices in our electorate, with many of these voices believing they know best, the United States’ are served best if we do NOT encourage universal participation in the political process. The US is a representative Democracy, not a Pantisocracy. We need to trust our elected representatives to make the decisions which are best for an enduring State, and this means that not everyone's interests will be counted.