The readings for this week were really interesting for me, as a student coming from France, a « socialist country ».
Bartels explains in the first part of his text that the low middle class opinion is not represented by their senators:« views of the constituents in the upper third of the income distribution received about 50% more weight than those in the middle third”. Why? The most common assumption is that they don't vote and participate, so politics don't have to listen to them. For me this is really unfair, because the system is built in order to prevent them from participating and after we blame them for non participating. Indeed, the elite shaped the system so that you are more likely to participate if you have more money. In one of the first discussion class, we focused on money, time and civil skills as factors of participation in democracy. Nearly all of us agreed on the fact that money was the most important determinant to participate in democracy. In a system based on money (participation in campaigns..) how can we blame the low middle class if they don't participate?
Bartels suggests at the end of his essay that these people should non the less continue to vote. On the one hand a vote is a voice of course, so they must vote because it is the better way for them to express their opinion. On the other hand, the problem is that if they elect a candidate who doesn't promote their ideas when he is elected, can they really do something in order to punish him? If they voted for the democrats, they could vote for the Republican, but maybe it will be worst...
As a conclusion, I think that the low middle class in this biased system has not enough weight, and no means to change that.
While reading the article of the Financial Times, I was thinking about the differences between the U.S. and France, a « socialist country ». I think that in France, even if low middle class are still under-represented, they have more weight than in the US. In my opinion, it is not the social system that allow the low middle class to have more weight in democracy, but the political system. First, as France has a pluri-party system, if the middle class vote for a candidate that only listens to their voice when he is running for office and forget them when he is in office, they can “punish” him at the next elections by voting for another candidate (maybe from a smaller party). Moreover, as the campaigns are financed by the state, having money doesn't really matter if you want to help during the campaigns. The most important to participate seems to have time, but once again this is linked with the economic situation: if you have a good job you can afford to have time...at the end, we face the same problems.
I've really enjoyed some of the insights you've brought to class about France, providing a comparative account to both policy and citizen behavior in the United States. As we've mentioned before, we do not often consider how other democracies function. I wonder if political scientists think of democracies in other nations as too different from the U.S. to draw any adequate parallels and that for the most part, Americans think of our situation as uniquely American. Granted, our political system does have its own particular qualities, but when it comes to improving citizen competence and our democracy more broadly, we might take a hint from others'. Nonetheless, mention France and conservatives will usually throw out the "socialist" card, a near scare-mongering tactic to keep taxes low and government small, it seems. But some of the more socialist policies do seem to better serve a middle class, which as this readings' week demonstrate, is struggling in the U.S. more than they have at any other time in history.
ReplyDeleteI too have enjoyed the comparative perspective you have brought to class and to the blog. It is easy to get caught up in thinking there are no other options until you see different policies actually in action. I think Marion makes a good point about the restrictive nature of our government. If elections are one of the most convenient places for low income voters to participate (because other activities require even more time and money to participate), our system of government does not provide these people with many options. If we did have more Democrats and Republicans running on the final ballot, they would face more recourse if their actions did not reflect the desires of many more Americans than required today.
ReplyDeleteSome of the literature we have read thus far tries to prove that some people, even if given the time and financial assistance to engage in debate, will never reach a high level of participation in government. This claim would then also support the movement to give citizens more options on election day when these citizens may indeed decide to participate.
I like advantages you describe about France's pluri-party system and how it has helped the citizens and the country. It is nice that citizens can revoke their support for one party and have various other options to pick from. This is something that the United States sorely lacks. However, I just want to play devil's advocate here. I am from India, although let me just put a disclaimer and say that I have never lived there, simply born there. India also has a multiparty government and there are dozens of parties for the citizens to choose from. Unfortunately what can occur is a weak coalition government that incorporates some small parties. This government is ineffective and the people, while striving to change their support, have rendered the government incapable of progress. It seems that in some cases maybe America's 2 party system fares better. (Although there are many times, namely the present day, where our government cannot seem to get things done despite only have 2 parties.)
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to examine the other side to a multiparty government.