A GOP sweep and the global trend. Work hard to pay for others? Voting rights for non-citizens?
 
1. The following is the byproduct of a pleasant evening spent with an American couple that was about to return for the winter to their other home in California. A natural subject to discuss is the midterm elections in America. Special significance is attributed to the anticipated result’s place in the global scheme of things. “Trend, or no trend”, that is the question. The talk touches upon a subject that has been repeatedly discussed in this column. Is the anticipated -and since then completed- GOP sweep a further signal that the possible end of old politics by PC-consent might be an ongoing process? In this connection, the subject of strikes in France for continued retirement at 60 instead of 62 also comes up. To what extent does this resistance signal the limits of an eventual political turn-around? We conclude that the incessant chase of votes for “the next election” had induced traditional parties to bribe the electorate. The trick: promise to return part of the people’s money as a reward for support. In this realm, the differences between the old parties avoid the substance and they are limited only to the degree of the practice. In time, half of the electorate funds the other half. To many, the handouts to social services consumers have an attraction. They can be made to appear to be philanthropic trophies. To claim that we have supported someone in trouble, harvests points in the “done-good” area. Another motive to approve of “a bit more for everybody” is that the donor sees itself as a general beneficiary of funding. This brings us near to an ideal world. Once this process has taken us there, we will all be made “rich” by our politics’ gifts. We will also have enough free time –think of France’s 35-hour week- to enjoy it.
 
Alas, reality forces heaven to wait. Beyond a minimal and legitimate distributive role, handouts for everybody have a breaking effect on the economy. A further derivate reduces the ability and motivation to perform of those taxed that have zo earn more to pay for others. That is the juncture when the profligacy that is masked as a social service needs to be cut back. The hurdle to be surmounted is not that the necessity is hard to prove. The hindrance is political acceptance. We are easily convinced to vote ourselves “more” of anything. The people, however, are irreconcilably opposed to give up a privilege once it has become part of their way of life. Since too many people are recipients of such perquisites, the political danger inherent in reform is that the reformer can lose power because of his endeavor. The cause is as simple as it is natural: the spoiled voters are unwilling to tolerate savings at their expense. This makes not only a cutback of generous “subsidies for everybody” a rocky road. The habit of ever more subsidy for a greater number of people becomes a force that resists not only a rollback but also a mere freezing of allocations. Once these services are not only to be frozen but also cut back, the beneficiaries will be enraged. The politics of the liposuction of the fat created by pork hurts the patient. His pain can lead to the political death of those that proposed the intervention.
 
2. Amazing. You might not have noticed this one. What follows is a seemingly “America-only” story. The implications and analogies, however, extend into Europe’s democracies.
 
It has been reported that the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has decided a case. The Arizona law requiring proof citizenship when registering to vote is inconsistent with the federal regulation of the procedure. The law allows registration filed by mail. The form demands that the applicant swear that he is a citizen. Newly, contradicting Arizona’s law, it is not legal to ask for proof of citizenship at the poling place. Legal is to demand that the voter prove his identity when casting his ballot. Federal law is violated, said the Court, if besides the federal registration form genuine proof of citizenship is demanded. By extension, the AZ law -passed in 2004-, which the court nullified, requires not only proof of citizenship for voting. It also demands the same documentation from those that request economic benefits from the state. Individuals that allege to be governed by common sense are likely to be wondering about the sanity of such pronouncements.
 
Voting is a defining, and at the same time the most fundamental, right or duty conferred by a community upon its members. One of the ways this “membership” is formalized is through a certificate of citizenship. There is a good reason for connecting citizenship to the right of participation in the decision making process.
 
A vote is an act of that collective decision making process. Those with a stake in society are implicitly, through ties to the community, made to carry the consequences implied by their decision. This personal identity expressed by an ironclad membership, guarantees that the determination will attempt to be a sound one. The involvement in the consequences assures us that the decision’s basis will be made optimal by the careful weighting of the facts that are accessible at the time of the choice. Implicitly, the bearing of the burden incurred by having guessed wrong rests on the decision makers. This is the reason why non-members of a nation, a village or a civic association, should not have the right to make decisions for a community whose future fate they are not committed to share. The principle behind the argument is that in real life rights and responsibilities are inseparable. In the political realm, only those decisions are legitimate that commit the decision makers in the case the consequences turn out to be negative. The point needs no formal proof that the quality of a decision is likely to improve when those making them know that they have to live with the consequences. A court decision that separates in practice membership from decision-making is an absurdity. So is an implied assumption. It is that while politics determine who gets what, in this case participation in the political process depends on a promise of being a citizen. Checking the veracity of the allegation is made illegal by the court. (There is a driver license analogy. It is to require a permit but to make checking it by the patrolman illegal.) Such a determination invites cheating. Some considerations, besides the attainment of riskless advantages, make the exploitation of trust highly probable. The abusers of the opportunity presented on a silver platter are likely to be illegal residents. These have already proven by their presence that respecting the laws of their host country is not perceived to constitute a moral obligation. Ergo, voting illegally to squeeze out advantages for themselves is consistent with a pattern.
 
At the outset the elaboration of the general significance of what seems to be an American problem has been promised. Not being a politician of you-know-what-orientation, the writer feels that promises should be fulfilled and that unfulfillable pledges are to be avoided. Throughout Europe, something analogous to inviting non-citizens to participate in the decision making process is unfolding. The driving forces behind the effort are leftists that hope to get support in exchange for services to the fringe element of society. In Europe’s case, the effort concentrates on letting immigrants vote in local elections. Since the separation of Church and State is often incomplete, giving foreigners the right to determine church policy can also be on the agenda. Churches that yield influence, frequently get money from the state. Thereby organized religion is provided with the means to exert political sway. Therefore, the ability to determine what churches do involves influence not only over how money will be spent but over also over which party and program gets support. Whether it is about participation in local politics or religious affairs, the intent is obvious. It is to get an element to co-determine public affairs that is, according to normal standards, excluded from their conduct. The reason for doing so is hardly the official wish to integrate foreign populations. Certain forces that are losing their traditional supporters detect in the welfare class clients that reward with power those that allocate money to them.