MAGA Offering Us Two Bad Choices

Exposing Their Propaganda – and Offering a Third Alternative

MAGA wants us to think that we have just two choices for the future American governance model – an inevitably failing multi-cultural democracy -- or their version of authoritarianism driven by neoliberal political theology.  In this piece we expose the false choice and begin to make the case for Participative Democracy (PD) as the only viable way forward for humanity. 

Recently. the normally analytically rigorous Science Magazine let me down a bit. In two otherwise solid articles: “Four governance reforms to strengthen the Sustainable Development Goals” and “Off the Grid,” their prescriptions for our collective failure to reach worthy 2020 UN environmental goals or to replace fossil fuels in the U.S., respectively -- Science doubles down on the repeatedly failed efforts at global collective government cooperation efforts and well-intended policies nominated by scientists. The journal fails to even propose Participative Democracy as a potential solution to systemic gridlock in environmental issues.

And just this past weekend, I had an interesting discussion with an old friend – solid Democrat and MAGA-hater, who is convinced that we cannot make participative democracy work in the U.S. due to our ‘innate’ inability to achieve national consensus on anything of importance.   

It would appear that the Science writers, my friend, Thomas Hobbes, most of our Founders, and millions of American citizens share this viewpoint.  Our models indicate they are all overly pessimistic about human nature.

The major arguments in favor of Representative Democracy as superior to Participative follow. These all appear to be legitimate concerns, but they are straw men. The argument appears first, with our counter following in italics: 

Issues requiring legislation and national policy are too complex for the general population to understand sufficiently and decide on prudently in the time required to solve them. This point of view demonstrates: contempt and disdain for the common person, rooted in a belief that there are “natural” leaders (the elite) who deserve to lead due to their self-evident superiority; outdated notions about educational aptitude, aggregate education levels, adult learning and communications methods, and common human decency; and elite fear of status loss. 

Without representatives elected for their expertise in governance, majorities would tyrannize minorities, destroying democratic pluralism and creating an autocracy from the standpoint of minorities. First, the elites, consisting evidently of people like Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert and MTG, are not experts in governance. You could replace them with any four Americans selected at random and do better. Second, the whole concept of democracy is that individual citizens are equal to the head of state and elites in terms of rights, privileges, and protections. There has never been any proof that Representative Democratic governments would perform better in this regard than Participative Democracies. And the party systems that have sprung up as the key enabling mechanisms of Representative Democracy are clearly problematic and eminently corruptible — and form a system that would not be sustainable with the additional scrutiny provided by Participative Democracy.  

In the event we agreed that participative democracy deserved a place in governance, there is no mechanism or process to empower and bound it, or to operationalize its outputs. In other words, we might want something better, but representative democracy is the only workable compromise between reality and our desires.  It is difficult to imagine citizens designing an approach for Participative Democracy that is more cumbersome, corrupt, and ineffective as that of the U.S. House and Senate. We have decision gridlock now – the only legislative agenda items that move forward reliably in the current system are those that provide major economic benefits to the elite constituencies that fund our representatives’ campaigns.  Using modern technology and adult learning methods, we could easily create a highly efficient and equitable mechanism and process to incorporate Participative Democracy practices into our governance systems. 

The transition from Representative Democracy to a broader concept including PD will open the Constitution and legal precedent to challenge from all angles – in other words, we might make things worse in the attempt. First, we are headed to disaster with our current system. It is hard to see – and we have not been able to model – system outcomes worse than those we are projecting (and have written extensively about in previous newsletters). Second, including citizens in the key decisions that affect their lives will make them more involved, active, prudent, concerned, helpful, and effective. While the elite is insulated from the effects of their policies – the rest of us are not. This creates a powerful incentive for ‘the people’ to get it right.  

Why isn’t a massive movement of Participative Democracy already happening? Fear. Culture. Systemic Equilibrium. And democratic governance presents us with a real conundrum. Immature, poorly performing, corrupt, and deteriorating democracy may be worse than a benevolent autocracy for the environment and public health, for instance.  But it is a trap to either double down on Representative Democracy that is in one or more of those conditions, or to willingly usher in an autocracy. This is the false dichotomy the right would have us believe constitutes the complete decision space.  Positioning these two as the only options is a key plank in the right’s information warfare campaign – and it’s working astoundingly well for them. 

The answer is structurally superior and continuously improving democracy – and only Participative Democracy can deliver on these promises.  From a systems perspective, PD can be the swift kick that jolts us out of equilibrium and into a superior one. Or if you are a fan of John Cusack movies; it can be called Shakabuku: “the swift, spiritual kick to the head that alters your reality forever,” (“Grosse Pointe Blank,” an underrated classic). 

What is the proof that Participative Democracy can work?  It is working!  Unfortunately, the efforts are poorly integrated and thus lack the requisite power to completely change entrenched systems.  Our experience indicates that a Participative Democracy model that will change the world must be deliberately designed, and we are working on this.  

Our early modeling suggests that PD must be considered at multiple levels, including at least the national/global governmental; grass roots citizenry, and commercial sector. A solution that does not account for each of these as well as their interplay will not work.  

We provide some information here about an existing model at each of these levels for context and your further research: 

National/Global Governmental: The European Union’s European Citizens’ Initiative is perhaps the most robust and impactful effort at this level. It enables, through charter, funding, and research support, citizen groups to petition the EU with policy initiatives. These initiatives become part of the EU agenda and become enacted should there be sufficient support. While not all initiatives make it to the agenda or become policy, many do. One successful example is “Right2Water.”   This initiative aimed to ensure that all EU citizens have access to clean and safe drinking water and sanitation. "It was successful in 2019, when the Commission adopted a new directive on drinking water,” Wikipedia. 

Grass Roots Citizenry: We propose that Information Freedom – the right for all citizens to easily locate and source verified information -- is a requisite for a fully functioning democracy, but it is little practiced or even sought by the left, and heavily constrained by the right’s propaganda. One organization doing outstanding work in this area, “the (British)  Center for Countering Digital Hate campaigns for big tech firms to stop providing services to individuals who may promote hate and misinformation, including neo-Nazis and anti-vaccine advocates, and campaigns to restrict media organizations such as The Daily Wire from advertising,” Wikipedia. The organization has had mixed results, but this is to be expected – they are fighting heavily resourced organizations. 

Commercial Sector: We develop this component at some length because it is clear that corporations will play a critical role in this movement, and it is equally clear that most Americans don’t believe that such participation is either logical or possible.  We offer the Mondragon Corporation as counterpoint. 

“Mondragon is a corporation and federation of worker cooperatives based in the Basque region of Spain. 

It was founded in the town of Mondragón in 1956 by Father José María Arizmendiarrieta and a group of his students at a technical college he founded. Its first product was paraffin heaters. 

It is the seventh-largest Spanish company in terms of asset turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country.  Mondragon co-operatives are united by a humanist concept of business, a philosophy of participation and solidarity, and a shared business culture. The culture is rooted in a shared mission and several principles, corporate values, and business policies. 

This framework of business culture has been structured based on a common culture derived from the 10 Basic Co-operative Principles, in which Mondragon is rooted: Open Admission, Democratic Organization, the Sovereignty of Labour, Instrumental and Subordinate Nature of Capital, Participatory Management, Payment Solidarity, Inter-cooperation, Social Transformation, Universality and Education. 

This philosophy is complemented by four corporate values: Co-operation, acting as owners and protagonists; Participation, which takes shape as a commitment to management; Social Responsibility, by means of the distribution of wealth based on solidarity; and Innovation, focusing on constant renewal in all areas. 

This business culture translates into compliance with a number of Basic Objectives (Customer Focus, Development, Innovation, Profitability, People in Co-operation and Involvement in the Community) and General Policies approved by the Co-operative Congress, which are taken on board at all the corporation's organizational levels and incorporated into the four-year strategic plans and the annual business plans of the individual co-operatives, divisions, and the corporation as a whole. 

Wage regulation.  At Mondragon, there are agreed-upon wage ratios between executive work and field or factory work which earns a minimum wage. These ratios range from 3:1 to 9:1 in different cooperatives and average 5:1. That is, the general manager of an average Mondragon cooperative earns no more than 5 times as much as the theoretical minimum wage paid in their cooperative. For most workers, this ratio is smaller because there are few Mondragon worker-owners that earn minimum wages, because most jobs are somewhat specialized and are classified at higher wage levels. The wage ratio of a cooperative is decided periodically by its worker-owners through a democratic vote. 

Compared to similar jobs at local industries, Mondragon managers' wages are considerably lower (as some companies pay their best paid managers hundreds of times more than the lowest-paid employee of the company) and equivalent for middle management, technical and professional levels. Lower wage levels are on average 13% higher than similar jobs at local businesses,” Wikipedia.  

Here is how we get the proposed Participative Democracy effort underway: 

We join global organizations where it best serves us, or we create a national analog where such is better.  

We connect these all into a movement of justice and liberation.  

We encourage American citizens to reconsider their “peacetime” career choices in light of the war on democracy.  The movement provides them employment or stipends to carry on the movement’s work, and legal support should they run afoul of MAGA litigation. 

Disenfranchisement is the biggest real MAGA grievance, so we must methodically remove the causes. Thus, the movement must operationalize a massive outreach to potential converts from the center and right through an effort not unlike that of voter registration. The initial yield will be small, but it will snowball as friends and family members light a path, and MAGA converts find their voices heard on an equal basis with the dreaded Dems. 

More on this in our upcoming book: “Transcendental Agitation or: How I learned to stop worrying and embrace the apocalypse.”