Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Fayetteville

Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Fayetteville
Rev. Dave Hunter
April 18, 2010

I’m worried about democracy, about our democracy, here in the United States.  But of course, people have always been worried about democracy, and many respectable thinkers have disparaged and rejected democracy as an unsuitable form of government.  At best, perhaps all we can say, to quote Winston Churchill, is that democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others.

I come at this topic, democracy, after a long career as a lawyer working to make our democracy consistent with our principles and our aspirations.  It was my job to make our democracy more inclusive, so that African Americans and other racial minorities, so that those unable to communicate effectively in English, so that those unable to read and write, so that those whose physical disabilities prevented them from gaining access to polling places or voting booths or from marking ballots or pulling voting machine levers, so that those who were between the ages of 18 and 21, and so that those who were out of the country on election day, especially those serving in the Armed Forces – so that all of these folks would be able to participate in elections as full and equal citizens.  We worked to remove barriers to voting – both legal barriers and practical barriers.  This is an issue in which I invested more than three decades of my life.  My feelings remain strong.

But it is not my intention during the next 20 minutes to lecture you on voting rights law.  Nor is it my intention to lecture you on political theory.  You don’t come here on Sunday morning to hear a lecture.

Let me add that while Unitarian Universalists are generally – and accurately – considered religious liberals, we do not all think alike, either religiously or politically.  Every congregation that I have been part of has had political conservatives as well as political liberals.  We must be open and welcoming to all who would seek to live in harmony among us in this religious community, whatever their political views.

Democracy, for us as Unitarian Universalists, is a religious issue, not just a moral or political issue.  Through our congregations, we have committed ourselves to “the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large.”  Our commitment to democracy has its foundation in our affirmation of “the inherent worth and dignity of every person.”  It is our view of humanity, our faith in humanity, that is at the core of Unitarian Universalism.

Democracy has to do with voting, but there is much more to it than that.  Elections do not exist in a vacuum.  Democracy requires a legal system, law and order and public safety, respect for the rights of the individual, especially respect for the rights of those in the minority.  Democracy requires a system of property, a free press, a sufficient level of individual and family prosperity, a system of taxation.  Democracy requires healthy layers of intermediate institutions – institutions between the individual and the state.  Democracy requires an education system, freedom from foreign domination, and a sense of national or community identity and purpose.

There is no one, ideal system of democracy.  There are variables and trade-offs and unknowns and compromises.

Consider, for example, the election of members of a state legislature.

• The legislature can be bicameral or unicameral.

• Its members can be elected from single-member districts; they can be elected at large, or they can be elected from multi-member districts.

• A plurality of the votes can be sufficient for election, or a majority can be required.

• A system of proportional representation can be used, such as the single transferable vote.  Or limited voting can be used.

• Elections can be partisan or nonpartisan.

• Political party nominees can be selected in a primary or at a convention.

• Primary elections can be restricted to previously registered party members, or they can be open to all who choose a particular party once they reach the polls, or voters can be allowed to vote in the primaries of different parties for different offices.

I could continue listing options for quite a while, but I won’t.  How the electoral system is structured makes a difference, and there is no one, ideal system.  There is much room for adjustment, for fine tuning.

*     *     *

What I would like to spend a few minutes discussing this morning are some of the problems of democracy – indeed, the threats to democracy – that challenge us today.

[1] First is the problem of gerrymandered district lines.  We now have the technology and the data to draw district lines of great sophistication and complexity.  We can thus rig the system to favor incumbents, to favor one party over another, to affect the political influence of racial or ethnic groups.  This results in legislatures that are not representative.  Whoever controls the redistricting process gains disproportionate political power.  This hypergerrymandering results as well in general elections where the outcome is not in doubt, and where voters increasingly don’t bother to show up.

The Supreme Court, in the past, has addressed the one person, one vote problem.  The Court, as well, has addressed racial gerrymandering.  But it has yet to confront the challenge of political gerrymandering.

I hope that we have all returned our census questionnaires.  New district lines will be drawn based on the results of the 2010 census.

[2] Second is the problem of the impact of money on the political process.  Although campaign reform legislation can help, it is still the case that those with more money can have greater influence on the political process.  Money speaks.  Political contributions buy greater access and influence.  Many of us fear that the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year, forbidding restrictions on campaign contributions by corporations as violations of the first amendment free speech rights of corporations, will allow money to distort the process even more.  (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Jan. 21, 2010)

[3] Third is the problem of how much democracy is best.  To say that one practice is more democratic than another does not necessarily mean that it is better.  Indeed, I would suggest that we need to recognize as a fallacy the formula that if democracy is good, then more democracy must be better.

Consider, for example, the use of initiative and referendum provisions.  These were reform measures early in the 20th century.  But sometimes apparently good ideas have unfortunate unintended consequences.  Those with sufficient resources can now use initiatives and referendums to tie the hands of the legislature and block the adoption of needed legislation or taxation.  I’m thinking of the mess that California is in now.

Initiative and referendum provisions are not alone is raising the question of how much democracy do we want.  The town meeting, in which all interested citizens gather to decide all the questions of governance, is not viable except in small towns, if there.  How much should be decided by the people and how much by elected representatives?  I’ve certainly been asked to vote on issues where I felt I had no particular knowledge – or interest either, for that matter.

For example, did you know – this is for Fayetteville residents – that on May 18 we will be voting on whether to dedicate and authorize the use of Parks HMR tax revenues for the development, construction, and maintenance of city parks?  Raise your hand if you know what the HMR tax is.  [hotel, motel, and restaurant]

[4] The fourth problem is resistance to change.  A democratic system needs fine tuning along the way.  Changed circumstances may make it advisable to change electoral rules.  Our population has increased many times over in the last two hundred years.  Technology, communications have changed.  We have new problems.

But changing electoral procedures is not easy.  Almost by definition, present procedures, the status quo, favor those now in power.  It would be naive to expect those in power to change the rules in a way that would that would have the effect of reducing their power.  Those with power, experience teaches, do not give it up voluntarily.

For example, each of the 50 states is represented by two members in the United States Senate.  California and New York have many times as many residents as states like Wyoming and Idaho, but their representation is the same.  A few decades ago, the Supreme Court stepped in to remedy departures from the one person, one vote principle in the U.S. House of Representatives and in state and local representative bodies, as I mentioned earlier.

But the structure of the Senate, of course, is dictated by the Constitution itself, and thus cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment.  Indeed, it’s worse than that.  Article V of the Constitution, which establishes the process for amending the Constitution, states that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

How likely is it that the states that benefit from this arrangement will voluntarily consent to a restructuring?

[5] The fifth problem is the plight of minorities in a majoritarian system.  How does the majority treat minorities?  Are minority voices heard?  Is minority status permanent, or can a minority become the majority?

Now, we’ve already seen two problems involving too much minority power – the power of money and the power in the Senate of small states.

But other minorities are not so fortunate.  Consider the poor.  In numbers they are large, but in influence they are marginal.  Can we be satisfied with a system that treats the worst off among us so badly?

Another minority are those who are incarcerated, who are in prison.  We lock them up and turn our backs on them.  They do not even have the influence of the vote.  And, in many states, even when they’re released from prison, they still cannot vote.

One could look at different minorities within our society – racial minorities, religious minorities, sexual preference and gender minorities – and ask for each how they fare under our political system.

*     *     *

That, in brief, is our situation, as I see it.  I don’t see any simple, quick solutions, but I would like to describe five things that I think we need to work on, that will help our democracy work better.

[1] First, we need good leaders, at every level of society.  This means that capable men and women need to step forward and volunteer for positions of public leadership, need to get engaged in electoral politics and run for office.  This means that those in leadership roles need to look beyond their own interests to the public interest, the long term public interest.  This means that elected officials need to look beyond the next election, need to be willing to risk defeat at the polls in order to do the right thing.

This means that our leaders must be equipped and be willing to do the difficult work of enabling us to adapt to change.  Our leaders, for example, need to help us face the challenge of the globalization of the economy.  They need, in addition, to help us face the challenge of the climate crisis – and the challenge of the global AIDS epidemic, and the challenge of nuclear proliferation.  Too often, instead, they help us evade such issues.

[2] Second, we the people must be ever vigilant.  Public affairs may be boring.  We may have enough on our plate just taking care of ourselves and our families.  Still, we need to pay attention to what is happening and hold our leaders accountable.  We need to vote.  We need to inform ourselves before elections.  We need to be engaged between elections.  We need to encourage those who would be good leaders and discourage those who are not.  We must be willing to sacrifice – to stand in the cold and the rain in protest.  We must be willing to accept higher taxation.  The Tea Party folks have at least some of this right.  Were you surprised by how many turned out on Thursday?  And yesterday we had Fayetteville Forward.  How many of you were there?

[3] Third, we need to strengthen research, inquiry, and communications.  Research in the academy, in government, and in the private sector can increase our ability to solve our problems.  We need to eliminate the barriers to increased and less inhibited research.  We need to safeguard free speech so that ideas can be spread, tested, and challenged.

[4] Fourth, to have better leadership, to have a vigilant citizenry, to have stronger research and more open communications, we need educated citizens.  Education remains key.  We need to promote academic excellence and intellectual curiosity.  We must value moral education as highly as academic education.  The need for education, of course, goes beyond children, adolescents, and young adults.  If our citizens are to make democracy effective in the 21st century, if our citizens are to be effective in the global economy of the 21st century, we need lifespan education.  No adult should be left behind.

[5] Fifth, if we are to be responsible citizens not only of our nation but also of the world, if we are to be responsible not only for our neighbors, wherever they may be, but also for future generations, then we need to have a moral commitment to something beyond ourselves.  We need to recognize the common humanity of the whole human race, our common humanity with those in northwest Arkansas but also with those on the opposite side of the globe, our common humanity with those who will inhabit this planet long after we are gone and forgotten.

These are five things that I believe we need to do and that I believe we are capable of doing.  There are, most certainly, other things, but this is a start.

*     *     *

Earlier, I referred to our commitment, as Unitarian Universalists, to “the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large.”  I’ve been talking about democracy in society at large, but let’s stay at home for the next few minutes and consider democracy within this fellowship.

If this democratic religious community is to survive and thrive, its members need to do five things, and undoubtedly others that I haven’t thought of:

First, we must act as good citizens not only by coming here on Sunday morning but also by attending congregational meetings and voting.

Second, let us show appreciation and respect for our elected volunteer leaders.  Say “thank you” from time to time.  When you have suggestions or criticisms, be gentle, constructive, and direct.

Third, we must act as good citizens by volunteering to serve in leadership roles.  This fellowship depends on its volunteers.

Fourth, to sustain this religious community we must continually invite others to join us, both by nurturing our children within this community and by inviting and welcoming those who are not yet part of this community to join us here on Sunday morning.  At some point in the future, this fellowship will be sustained by those who have not yet come through our doors.

Fifth, government is financed by taxes.  I hope you all got your returns filed on Thursday. While we may not be pleased by our tax bills, we know, deep down, that taxes are a small and necessary price to pay for a structured, orderly, and just society.

This fellowship is not sustained by taxes or dues but by the voluntary financial support of those whose lives are touched by it.  No one is compelled to make a pledge; no one can be compelled to make a generous pledge.  But if you want this fellowship to be here, for you, for your family, to be here for the next person to walk through its doors; if you want this fellowship to be a force for good, then, if somehow you were missed in this year’s pledge drive, I invite you to feel the satisfaction of helping this fellowship thrive through your pledge of financial support during the year to come.

*     *     *

Democracy is precious.  But democracy is fragile.  Let us not try to find out how fragile it is.  Rather, let us work to sustain and strengthen democracy, both within this nation and within this congregation.  Amen.