Union in Revolt
In the landscape of modern American democracy, a striking paradox presents itself: while the nation's population continues to grow and diversify, the structure of its government remains largely static. Today, the United States finds itself governed by a relatively small cohort – 546 individuals, encompassing Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Presidency. 546 people to represent 350,000,000. In addition, the influential role of marketing and propaganda in shaping political and societal landscapes has incentivized and weaponized information against the people. A critical look at how individual lifestyle choices are prioritized over collective living standards, the impact of declining public education on democratic engagement, and the societal implications of the intersection of these powerful forces reveals the intention of the few to rule the many.
To understand the current state of representation in American democracy, we must first turn our gaze to history. The last significant expansion of the United States Congress occurred in 1911, with the House of Representatives capped at 435 members. This decision, made over a century ago, was reflective of the country's population and societal complexities at the time. However, as the population of the United States has more than tripled since then, surpassing 350 million, this static number now poses serious questions about the adequacy of representation. The Founding Fathers of the United States, influenced by Enlightenment ideals, envisioned a government that would be both representative and efficient. In the 1790s, the ratio of representative to constituent was approximately 1 to 40,000. This ratio was designed to ensure that elected officials could reasonably understand and advocate for the needs of their constituents. As the nation has grown, this ratio has ballooned to about 1 to 640,000, diluting the connection between representatives and the represented. The republic was designed to regularly admit new states into the Union. Between 1790 and 1960, an average of around one new state was admitted every four years, altering the political landscape and ostensibly providing fresh representation. However, since the capping of the House, the pace of admitting new states has slowed significantly, and the population has continued to grow, leading to a representation imbalance and laying a foundation for increased consolidation of power and influence.
Efforts to expand Congress in the past have faced various challenges. Historical attempts often coincided with contentious issues such as slavery, civil rights, and regional power balances. For instance, during the 19th and early 20th centuries, the addition of new states and the consequent adjustment of the House's size were frequently influenced by the balance of power between free and slave states. In more recent times, political considerations about which party might benefit from additional seats have stymied expansion efforts. The implications of this historical context for our present democratic society are manifold. Firstly, there is the issue of whether our current legislative body can truly grasp and address the diverse needs and opinions of a vastly larger population. When representatives are stretched thin across hundreds of thousands of constituents, the quality and depth of democratic representation can be compromised. Furthermore, the lack of proportional representation can lead to feelings of disempowerment and disengagement among citizens. When people feel that their voices are not adequately heard or represented in government, they may become disillusioned with the democratic process, leading to lower voter turnout and a weakened democratic system. Therefore, as we reflect upon the past and consider the future, the need for reform in the structure of our representation becomes increasingly clear. Expanding Congress, though a complex and politically challenging endeavor, may be a necessary step to ensure that our democratic system remains responsive and reflective of its people's needs. This expansion is not merely a matter of numbers but a vital move towards rekindling the foundational promise of American democracy: a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
It is crucial to explore another key dimension shaping our political and societal landscapes: the realm of marketing and propaganda. This exploration is not merely academic but essential in understanding how public opinion and political discourse are influenced in a representative democracy where direct connection to constituents has become increasingly tenuous. The conversation around marketing's impact on politics inevitably leads to Edward Bernays, often dubbed the 'father of public relations.' Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud, utilized psychological principles to craft persuasive messaging that swayed public opinion. His seminal work, "Propaganda," published in 1928, laid the foundation for modern marketing and public relations strategies. Bernays' theories were groundbreaking in their recognition of the power of mass media to shape public perception and, by extension, democratic discourse.
Bernays believed that public opinion could be engineered, and he demonstrated this through various campaigns. Perhaps most famously, he helped transform public attitudes towards women smoking in the early 20th century, a societal taboo at the time, by rebranding cigarettes as symbols of female emancipation. This manipulation of societal norms for commercial gain provides an early example of how marketing techniques can have far-reaching effects on social and political landscapes. The principles introduced by Bernays have evolved and become deeply entrenched in both the business world and political realm. Modern marketing strategies often rely on creating and exploiting societal divisions. By segmenting the market into distinct demographics and psychographics, marketers craft tailored messages that resonate strongly with specific groups. This strategy, while effective for product sales, also translates into the political arena.
Political campaigns increasingly resemble marketing campaigns, where candidates are 'sold' to the electorate using similar segmentation and targeting techniques. This approach can deepen societal divisions as political messages become more about appealing to specific segments rather than addressing the collective needs of the populace. Such division is not only a side effect but often a deliberate strategy, as dividing the electorate into smaller, more passionately polarized groups can be more manageable and easier to influence. The influence of marketing in politics extends to lobbying, where financial resources are used to sway policy and legislation. Lobbyists, often backed by significant corporate interests, use sophisticated marketing techniques to promote policies favorable to their sponsors. This intersection of money and politics further complicates the democratic process. As certain groups and interests gain disproportionate influence through financial leverage, the principle of equal representation becomes undermined. The role of lobbying illustrates a concerning feedback loop: as market forces create divisions, these divisions become opportunities for financial gain, which in turn incentivize the perpetuation and deepening of these divides. The democratic ideal of policies being shaped by the collective will of the people is challenged when powerful entities can effectively 'buy' influence, which becomes easier with fewer representatives per thousand voter, and more effective as wealth disparity grows.
In contemporary society, there are growing concerns about the declining outcomes in public education systems. This decline is multifaceted, encompassing issues like underfunding, inequality, and a curriculum that may not adequately prepare students for the complexities of contemporary civic life. As educational outcomes falter, so too does the capacity of citizens to engage effectively in democratic processes. Without the necessary tools and knowledge, people may find it challenging to navigate political discourse, understand policy implications, or even exercise their voting rights effectively. The "MTV Generation" is often cited as experiencing an education that, combined with the omnipresent influence of entertainment media, didn't adequately prepare them for the complexities of adult life and civic responsibility. This generation's experience underscores the potential consequences of an education system failing to adapt to the changing media landscape and societal needs. It also illustrates the long-term effects of prioritizing entertainment and lifestyle over civic education and engagement. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for addressing the issues at hand and working towards a society where personal freedom and collective responsibility are balanced, and education empowers citizens to actively and effectively participate in their democracy. From the stagnation in governmental representation to the pervasive influence of marketing and the shifting priorities in lifestyle and education, these issues collectively paint a picture of a democracy in peril. However, within this analysis lies the seed of hope and the blueprint for reinvigorating our democratic promise.
The current state, where a minuscule fraction of individuals governs a vast and diverse population, is a far cry from the democratic ideal of a government 'of the people, by the people, for the people.' Expanding the size and scope of our legislative bodies is more than a mere numerical adjustment; it is a fundamental step towards enhancing the representativeness and responsiveness of our democratic institutions. This expansion will help bridge the widening gap between the governed and those in power. If we applied the original Constitutional wording for the number of House Representatives per voter, which was set at 1 Representative per 30,000 voters at the onset of our Union, and approximating the current number of voters in the United States as 230 million, we would need to elect 7,700 House Representatives as opposed to our current 435. In the same vein, the ratio of Justices to voters at the onset of the Union was roughly 1 Justice per 17,000 voters. Currently, that ratio is 1 Justice per 25 million voters. If the ratio held today as originally implemented we would have 13,500 Justices; which would represent 1% of the practicing attorneys in the United States. While these numbers may seem extreme, they are the proportional ratios of representation relative to the original implementation of our republic and should sit in your mind as a benchmark of what a true democratic process looks like.
By increasing the number of representatives we put a greater burden on corporate and influential forces to successfully lobby our politicians for their own purposes while also making them more accountable to their constituency for the money they do take and policies they advance. An informed and engaged citizenry is the cornerstone of a thriving democracy, and it is through education that this foundation can be fortified. The path forward for American democracy is not a single-pronged approach but a multifaceted endeavor. It requires a holistic and concerted effort to expand representation, enhance media literacy, revitalize education, and realign societal values. By addressing these interconnected issues, we can work towards a democracy that is not only more representative and informed but also more cohesive and resilient. Our goal is to chart a course towards a renewed democratic ethos where the promise of a government truly representative of its people is not just an ideal but a tangible reality.