DIRECT DEMOCRACY-PART 1
Prologue, and Introduction. the Birth of the Progressive Movement
Prologue
I have undertaken an ambitious project, analysis, and exploration of Direct Democracy. What started as an article has turned into a book, or at the least, a serial pamphlet in the tradition of the Federalist Papers. I have no idea what the interest in this will be, or whether it will be of value to even a single other person. Fortunately, that is not why I am doing it.
I am curious, especially so for how things work. This inquiry started after my experiences with a local referendum on a land use decision reached through the traditional representative government model, the Valley’s Edge project here in Chico, CA.
That campaign opened my eyes to how the process can be abused and manipulated, and the low cost of submitting a matter directly to the voters, versus the very long and detailed process of concluding a significant land-use decision through that other process prescribed by land use statutes. In this case, it was a process that took decades to complete and millions of dollars of investments, all to be undone by a simple “thumbs down” from the voters. It was grossly unfair, and the long-term consequences are completely unknown. It will certainly have a chilling effect on similar projects.
That led me to look at other propositions. Proposition 47, the “Safe Schools and Neighborhood Act” with its misleading title and a 10-1 funding imbalance, has grown to be hated by almost everyone after nearly a decade of living with its terms and the companion initiatives that surround it. There are many others.
That led me to question where these powers came from, why they were initiated, who was behind them, and how they are used. That put me on a path that stretches back to the Constitutional debates captured in the Federalist Papers, the history of the Progressive Movement in America, and politics in the State of California, my native and current state of residence for the past 74 years.
In a break with my past practice, rather than submitting a single, long article, I will present this in installments that will take 12-15 minutes to read. I have written several parts so far, and hope to conclude in time for the November elections. I also hope that my other writing, lighter topics, and analysis of events in local politics can be squeezed into my schedule despite the demands of this project.
So, for what it’s worth here is Part I.
Introduction
Director Democracy is the power of Voter Initiative, Voter Referendum, and Recall. California adopted these powers in 1911, at the urging of our first Progressive President, Theodore Roosevelt. Even amendments to the California Constitution can be proposed and ratified by a simple majority vote. Since the first California Constitution in 1889, the California Constitution has been amended hundreds of times. By contrast, the US Constitution, which does not have a Direct Democracy power for amendment, has been amended only twenty-seven times.
Direct Democracy]It will be difficult to talk about Direct Democracy as a policy framework without first talking about the Progressive movement in America. The word “progressive” is often used as a trigger for characterizing something as positive, modern, and “evidence-based science”, or in the negative connotation, a synonym for “Socialism.” I distinguish political ideology from common usage by using the proper nouns. Rarely do we pause to consider the origins of the Progressive movement in America.
There are ample resources that examine the comprehensive history of the Progressive movement but that is beyond the scope of this series.
While defining terms, we had better address the meaning of “liberal” and “conservative.” Those words have all but lost any useful meaning, as have “Left” and “Right.” I avoid using those words, but sometimes it is unavoidable. I’m sure sometime soon, we will define better words.
I use “conservative” to mean “not Progressive,” and “liberal” to mean “not conservative.” Not all liberals are Progressive, and no conservatives are. Some Progressives openly advocate for socialism, while others might describe themselves as progressive, but don’t see or acknowledge the connection. All Socialists use the term “progressive” in the common usage; e.g. they are on the side of “progress,” as they define it. The fact I even have to write this paragraph illustrates just how corrupt our language has become. I don’t dare get into what “Socialism” and “Capitalism” might mean.
The goal of this series is to frame the discussion and historical origins of Direct Democracy powers and the role it has played in establishing the policies implemented through those powers. Direct Democracy powers had a specific birthdate and emerged in the social and political context as they existed at the turn of the century.
Direct Democracy powers were a product of the formal Progressive Movement that rose to prominence with the election of our first Progressive President, Teddy Roosevelt. To understand and create some context for our discussion, it is necessary to highlight two key policies that form the foundation of Progressive ideology.
The people should have direct control of the political process.
To accomplish this goal, a superior and direct power over the legislature and elections by popular vote must be created, bypassing the representative political process that has existed since the founding of our Constitutional Republic. The policy goal was to fight the corruption of corporate interests in the political process by strengthening the power of the people to initiate and override the legislature and elections after the fact, or to initiate new laws through a simple majority popular vote.
Modern society is too complex to leave in the hands of uneducated voters.
Progressives asserted that modern society had become too specialized and complex to be comprehended by the average voter. Therefore, the Progressives claimed, these complexities must be managed by highly specialized government agencies directed by scientific authorities. Policymaking should be left to the “experts” who have the necessary skills and knowledge beyond that which could be expected from the common man.
Through these conflicting principles, that the people should have superior, direct powers over the representative model, yet those same people were incapable of dealing with or even understanding the complexities of modern technology, Direct Democracy has been an essential tool put to effective use by the Progressive movement and its adherent politicians. Occasionally, conservatives also put forward initiatives, like Prop. 13 to control property taxes, but most of the major accomplishments of Direct Democracy belong to the Progressives, as we’ll explore later on.
Through the success of these tools, control of the political processes of elections and legislation, and the administrative state necessary to keep the system running, by 2024, have essentially managed to capture the entirety of social and regulatory institutions.
Through the rationalizations provided by these two conflicting principles, Progressives have designed and implemented policies that, they believed, were truly “best” for the People. In other words, the ends justified the means. Sometimes the legislative process was the best means to an end, and other times, Direct Democracy was the preferred pathway. The fundamental incompatibility of these two policy positions has not presented a problem and certainly hasn’t impeded success.
Establishing the policy framework of Progressivism is not enough. The System must be administered to implement and enforce the policies they enact. Since the people may not know what is good for them, the enforcement mechanisms must be effective and powerful. As the role of government expands to fulfill the goals of the Progressive agenda, the complexities of a technological society mean the capacity to administer that system must also grow (progress?).
California state government, the most Progressive state in the Union, currently employs about 13% (2.4 million) of the state’s total 18.5 million non-agricultural workers. Almost all state employees are represented by unions. If we include all government workers in the U.S., local, state, and federal governments employ 23.4 million people out of the 122.9 million workers or almost 20%.
The parade of Progressive Presidents.
The succession of Progressive presidential administrations each marks a significant inflection point in both the size and scope of national and state government. Here is the sequence of the most well-known Progressive Presidents:
1. Theodore Roosevelt: Often considered one of the most influential progressive presidents, Theodore Roosevelt pursued a wide range of progressive reforms during his presidency (1901-1909). His policies included trust-busting, conservation efforts, consumer protection, and labor reforms.
2. William Howard Taft: Roosevelt's successor, Taft continued many of the progressive policies initiated by his predecessor. He pursued antitrust cases and expanded conservation efforts. However, he also faced challenges from within his own party and was not as dynamic a figure as Roosevelt.
Woodrow Wilson: Wilson's presidency (1913-1921) saw significant progressive reforms, including the establishment of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Clayton Antitrust Act. He also advocated for tariff reform, labor rights, and women's suffrage.
Franklin D. Roosevelt: While FDR is often associated with the New Deal rather than the Progressive Era, his presidency (1933-1945) brought profound changes to American society and government. The New Deal included programs to combat the Great Depression, regulate banking and finance, provide relief to the unemployed, and establish Social Security.
Lyndon B. Johnson: Johnson's presidency (1963-1969) is noted for the passage of significant civil rights legislation, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. His "Great Society" programs aimed to combat poverty and inequality through measures such as Medicare, Medicaid, and federal aid to education.
Barack Obama: Obama's presidency (2009-2017) continued the tradition of progressive reforms, particularly in healthcare with the passage of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). His administration also pursued policies on climate change, LGBTQ rights, and financial regulation.
Joseph Biden: History is yet to be written about this administration.
The conflicting policies of Direct Democracy, vesting the ultimate wisdom in the voter and simultaneously claiming that scientific and technical complexity is beyond their capacities, cannot be reconciled. Logically, the lack of voter sophistication cannot justify reliance on “experts” yet also justify Direct Democracy as the means to correct those same experts. In politics apparently, such contradictions are not a problem.
Contrary to the stated goals of the early Progressives, the corruption brought about by special interests in politics has not diminished. If anything, it has increased. Special interest corruption was the reason Progressivism originally sprang into existence. Today, special interest corruption is a regular feature of modern political life. Individual liberty as described by our founding principles has been continuously eroded at least since the administration of Teddy Roosevelt.
Today, special interests are much less identifiable than the industrialists of the turn of the century. The Morgans, Carnegies, and Vanderbilts of the time were well understood to hold enormous influence on economics and politics. Today, those who call the shots in government are not so obvious, but their disproportionate influence they exert on policy is reflected in the same type of collusion between corporatism and politics that energized Progressivism in the 1900s. The important question is whether the obvious success of the Progressive agenda has made the quality of life in America better or worse. How is it that increasing “participation” in democracy has resulted in the problems that are obvious in every social institution today?
Conservative thought argues that Progressivism leads away from the Constitutional design that characterized American exceptionalism. Progressive thought argues the many social programs they have implemented in the past 120 years have improved our quality of life, and given enough time, they intend to perfect society and the people that occupy it. I would argue the measure of good policy is not by the problems they intend to solve, but the outcomes those solutions produce. By that measure, after over a century of “progress”, we have to ask if we are better off today, or if an approach that was more consistent with the founding design might have delivered better outcomes overall.
Today we are still told we must rely on “science” when it is convenient to justify favored legislative acts, or if judged to be the more effective route, to exercise our superior powers through popular votes on complex social policies under the theory that the ultimate power rests with the people through direct popular vote.
As we review a few specific products of California’s version of Direct Democracy, we can see deployments of deceptive campaign strategies, biased information dissemination, censorship, and overwhelming campaign finances deployed to secure the preferred outcome, whether by popular vote or lobbying efforts directed at the legislative process.
If we don’t know where we’re going, sure, any road will get us there. Where are we going and what road are we on? It is also true that we can’t know where we are if we don’t understand where we’ve been. So let’s review a little history in Part II.