Protests in France and flaws in democracy

The massive strikes in France, protesting raising the retirement age from 60 to 62, have highlighted some basic problems in a democracy. The general public isn't always deeply informed about the issues, and people often do not vote their best interests.

In France, protesters are "voting" personal interests in these strikes, but they are ignoring their collective interest. Sarkozy is doing the right thing, even though it is trashing his approval rate and may see him replaced. He knows the retirement system will not sustain itself, and he's taking an unpopular position. The people striking are not thinking beyond wanting their perks.

In this country, politicians are not always as brave as Sarkozy. Often they will pander to the loud voices, even though they know it's the wrong approach. Budgets are one example. When a state or the federal government is having trouble with the budget and is bleeding red ink, the people at the helm know that something must be cut and more revenue must be brought in. However, usually nothing much gets cuts, as Americans, just like the French, raise hell if their slice of the pie gets smaller. Also, new revenue doesn't come in, because people raise hell if their taxes go up.

Americans often vote against their collective interests, and they even often vote against their personal interests. While this doesn't seem to make any sense, we need to realize that ideology often trumps common sense, and that loud sound bites are easier to digest than complex political and economic realities. Quite simply, people often don't know enough to make an informed decision.

In the interests of being continually more democratic, we have placed a burden on the average voter that he or she may not be up to carrying. After all, anyone eighteen or older can vote, even if they have dropped out of school and are functionally illiterate, have never read a newspaper, know nothing about how the government works and know nothing about the issues and people on the ballot.

The wise folks who founded this country were aware of this. They provided some checks and balances. Among those was that senators were not elected directly by the people, but rather by state legislators, people who were assumed to be both better informed and cooler heads. Even the president was not elected directly, but by a body called the electoral college. The will of the general populace was expressed most directly through the house of representatives. Our founders trusted the people, but not completely.

Now we pretty much elect everyone directly, plus we pass legislation ourselves, though ballot measures. As a result, sometimes we get it right, and other times we are sidetracked by special interests with deep pockets or by our ideologies or even by sound bites coming from every direction.

What's the answer? I would opt for some balance, rarely achieved, between top down and bottom up government. I am certainly in favor of having citizens make political decisions, but if we expect them to be conversant in politics, economics and world affairs, perhaps we should teach those things in our schools.