Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Yet the media fixate on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, neglecting local elections and issue-based organizing.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

There Is More to a Democracy Than the Office of President

By David Sirota, Creators Syndicate. Posted August 22, 2008.


Yet the media fixate on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, neglecting local elections and issue-based organizing.
Advertisement

You have to hand it to John McCain -- his campaign ads are (inadvertently) the most incisive commentary on the death of Jeffersonian democracy ever broadcast.

Superficially, they lambaste Barack Obama's worshipful crowds and messianic promises that a heavenly "light will shine down" on his candidacy. But what the ads really lampoon is what Vanderbilt Professor Dana Nelson calls presidentialism: our paternalistic view that presidents are godlike saviors -- and therefore democracy's only important figures.

"The once-every-four-years hope for the lever pull sensation of democratic power blinds people to the opportunities for democratic representation, deliberation, activism and change that surrounds us in local elections," she writes in her new book, "Bad for Democracy: How the Presidency Undermines the Power of the People."

In a country whose anti-royalist founders constitutionally constrained executive authority, what explains the metastatic growth of presidentialism? The evisceration of journalism and social movements.

The media's Watergate triumph sired the current Age of Stenography. With personal glory the new priority, correspondents figured out that transcribing White House prognostication is a far easier way to gain notoriety than Woodward and Bernstein's shoe-leather investigations. The result is journalism run by grotesque sloth and vapid speculation -- the kind exemplified by The New York Times' top three political correspondents this week. As inflation hit crisis levels and the Russia-Georgia conflict inched the planet toward World War III, these "reporters" devoted a stunning 2,148 words to fact-free guesses about selections for vice-president -- a position with no power and zero impact on ordinary people's lives.

Media consolidation and cost-cutting have sped up this decline, turning many local news outlets into collages of wire copy and presidential punditry from D.C. bureaus. Meanwhile, the 21st century's most celebrated model of "grassroots" movement building is MoveOn.org -- a top-down group whose primary function is to land stories about itself in Washington gossip rags and send e-mail spam about presidential candidates.

The resulting noise reiterates one message: The only thing that matters is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Why is this dangerous? First and foremost, by ignoring local elections and issue-based organizing in favor of presidential politics, activists make presidential progress less likely. "Even the best presidents need social movements to accomplish transformational change," warns community activist Deepak Bhargava in The Nation magazine's latest White House-centric edition. "FDR could not have succeeded without the agitation of the unemployed workers' councils and the unions, and LBJ's greatest accomplishments were made possible by the civil rights movement."

Worse, presidentialism leads us to ignore the arenas where issues are already being sorted out.

For example, how many of the Democratic convention delegates incensed by the Obama-McCain energy brouhaha have any idea that just beyond Denver's Rocky Mountain horizon, a battle over Colorado's massive gas reserves will more immediately impact the national energy crisis than the inane presidential back-and-forth about offshore drilling? Better yet, how many Democratic enthusiasts donning Obama T-shirts know who their state representative or city councilor is -- or even what a state legislature or city council does?

In his upcoming book, "You Can't Be President," journalist John MacArthur ponders the depressing answers to these kinds of questions, reminding readers of Alexis de Tocqueville's 19th century writing.

"It is in vain to summon a people, which has been rendered so dependent on the central power, to choose from time to time the representatives of that power," he observed. "This rare and brief exercise of their free choice, however important it may be, will not prevent them from gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling and acting for themselves, and thus gradually falling below the level of humanity."

Published 168 years ago, the passage is a prescient warning as the upcoming Democratic and Republican conventions toast presidentialism's conquest of democracy in America.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: media, president, democracy, activism, sirota, local elections

David Sirota is a best-selling author whose newest book, "The Uprising," was just released this month. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network -- both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Revolution Won't Be Televised
Posted by: Age of Reason on Aug 22, 2008 3:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The distraction created by SOFCOM (Sanctioned Official Fawning Corporate-Owned Media) is no accident. There's a revolution going on...even within traditional political circles. So many are furious about their lack of representation by a corrupt congress that there are independent challengers in many Congressional Districts where they've rarely or never been seen before.

The "Ron Paul Phenomenom" of 2008 is also an example of this SOFCOM bias. There is still a huge base of populist support (watch what happens on September in Minnesota!) for this pro-Constitution, anti-war, sane congressman from Texas. But you'd never know it to watch SOFCOM. The filters by which we receive our inputs (news and otherwise) shape our thinking. Thinking people today have turned away from SOFCOM to sources such as Alternet, Truthout, Raw Story, bloggers and other independent outlets, and equally important - foreign sources - to get a glimpse of what is going on in the world. Remember the great Peter O'Toole in "Network?" It is worth re-watching that movie for his eloquent rant about television and illusion. "WE'RE MAD AS HELL, AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!"

And it's worth noting how often one reads about or hears about Nader, Barr, McKinney, or Baldwin on SOFCOM as well. One would hardly know that these alternatives exist if one gets all there news from SOFCOM.

Please follow along on Facebook as I attempt to unseat one of the most powerful men in Congress in 2010: Charles Ellis Schumer (D-NY.) I shall be running as a true independent, and I will win. The time is right, and I don't expect coverage from SOFCOM at all. (At least until they HAVE to!) No, I have tapped into a more powerful source of energy which will help me to prevail - the real power and real voice of "We, The People!"

Please check out Michael W. Lurie for U.S. Senate in 2010 (note: Facebook login required.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

McSame Vote
Posted by: EinMD on Aug 26, 2008 12:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't really give a damn what McCain or Obama or their surrogates say at this point.

I won't be voting FOR Obama, I will be voting against McCain. McCain has proven to me that he has no idea what to do, what's going on, what it's like to not be rich ( in his eyes, making less than 5 million a year ), how to break dependence on foreign oil, how to end the war or anything else that is of import to modern Americans. I'm sorry but "I was POW" is not the answer to every question, especially since the same shit he went through is now called "Enhanced Interrogation" and is allowed to occur because he helped the legislation along.

I'm not happy with Obama. His stance on that bullshit 'Faithed Based Initiative' program irks me. His vote on FISA fucking pisses me off to no end. To me it said "Trust me, I won't abuse this power I'm giving that criminal Bush and his cronies". It also said to me that a handful of corporations is more important than the safety, security and civil rights of the American people. Sorry Barry, I'm fresh out of trust. His sudden stance change on off shore drilling also pisses me off to no end ( because offshore drilling will do fuck all to fix any problem other than the problem of oil company execs not being able to buy diamond studded gold plated islands ).

But unless he suddenly becomes the possessed host to the spirit of Reagan, he'll be getting my vote. Why? Two reasons.

First, the Republicans had their shot for the last decade and a half. It started after they took Congress during that propaganda drive they called "The Contract With America" back in 1994, continued through the Clinton years and ended up with George W. Bush at the helm. They've destroyed every institution they have touched in that 14 years. You want to know why Americans have no faith in government? Because that was their plan all along. small enough to drown in a bathtub indeed. Even if you don't consider the corruption and cronyism, all you need to do is ask yourself one question: When America needed the Republican controlled government were they there for us? Were they there for NOLA? Were they there for Cali? Were they there when Bill Clinton's memo told Bush Bin Laden was on his way? No.

Second, the Democrats are also corrupt but in their own ways. They at least somewhat sand for the things I believe in, even if they lack the balls to actually stand up for them. Hell of a site better than I can say for the other side. But the best reason is that once we get past the next four years of Democrats the Independents will get a chance.

So yeah, I'm voting against McCain and I'll be voting against the Republican in any place I find them. Because ultimately, the entire Republican party needs to be held accountable and since it's obvious that the Democrats lack the intestinal fortitude to do their damned jobs my vote is the only thing I have left short of putting on my tricorn hat and getting out my musket.

Barry might not be the best candidate possible ( hell I wanted Mike Gravel ), but he's several orders of magnitude better than McCain.

And by the way, any of you Clinton supporters who claim you'll vote for McCain: You are all idiots.

Please, turn in your voter card and bash your head in with a hammer. You're putting the security and safety of the free world in jeopardy, not to mention consigning our troops to eternal war because of a juvenile hissy fit. Your candidate didn't make the cut( so did mine ), get over it and grow the hell up. If you're going to act like a five year old you shouldn't be voting in the first damned place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Supporting Clinton Posted by: rickiey
» Sorry, Fresh out Part II. Posted by: EinMD