Money Makes the World Go 'Round (Unfortunately for Democracy)

In Larry Bartels’ “Unequal Democracy” writing he cites evidence that US Senators pay little to no attention to lower income sects of society, a trend that he suspects is applicable to the entirety of the US government. This claim obviously came as no surprise to me, as we have been often discussed the ways in which lower socio-economic strata of society are ignored by the government. However, what did come as more of shock to me, and what I find to be most depressing, was his assertion that even when lower income citizens inform themselves and participate politically (by voting), they remain almost completely unheeded. He evidences this claim by referencing the fact that in a previous election 60% of the “low income” voting bracket did indeed vote, though according to his Senatorial research their opinions were still not listened to by representatives. As if this information was not disheartening enough, Bartels further finds in his research that even when participatory acts are controlled for between the two economic groups, Senators maintain their exclusive focus on the middle to upper class sections of the electorate. As a result, his research makes relatively clear the idea that political representatives seem to represent their most affluent constituents, not because of any participatory differences between socio-economic groups, but instead because of a focus on possible campaign contributions (as the satisfaction of wealthier constituents are seen as more profitable for their campaign).

This hypothesis is not only discouraging in relation to America’s broad ideals of democracy (which many American citizens maintain to be the nation’s foundation), but is discouraging which respect to what our class has been discussing over the past months as well. We have asserted time and time again in class discussion, blog posts and midterm papers, that with more access to knowledge and a more robust participatory spirit, the lower strata of the US can not only voice their concern more effectively, but that these concerns will be heeded by representatives. According to this reading, however, this statement is utopian at best. In Bartels’ opinion, the best way for lower classes to effect change (even after becoming educated and participatory) is to “indirectly” affect the government through non-voting participation. I, for one, find this conclusion to be unacceptable for a nation that is supposedly founded on equality of citizens.

This statement then leaves us with the question of how exactly we can make lower socio-economic sects more politically efficacious. Up until this point in the semester I would have without a doubt argued for the empowerment of the group through education and civic skill acts. However, now I can’t help but feel that the only way to fix this problem lies on the side of the government itself. If money is the only way to be heard by representatives, it is clearly impossible for these “poor people”
to acquire enough money to gain political efficacy simply for the purpose of being listened to. Therefore I believe that the responsibility lies in the hands of the government that made the choice to ignore segments of the population to begin with. I cannot claim to have a plan laid out to bring about this change, but it seems that changes in how campaign contributions affect reelection, or caps on the amount of money that private donors can contribute could alleviate some of the pressure put onto politicians to cater to wealthier constituents. Generally, Bartels clearly brings to light one particularly dramatic problem with the image of citizen equality that pervades so much of our national rhetoric, and I believe that this problem inherently demonstrates a need for reform on the side of the government, not the citizens.