Voting is the best way to dilute bosses' power
EDITORIAL, Home News Tribune from the Web, October 26, 2004
This week, the Home News Tribune is publishing a Gannett New Jersey series of stories about the handful of men -- often referred to as "bosses" -- who control much of the political life of the state.
Some or all of these men -- John Lynch, David Norcross, and Greg Paulsen, for example -- may object to the term "boss."
But whether they are bosses or "leaders," they can't deny the influence they exercise.
It affects such things as who runs for office, what position candidates get on the party line, how much financial support goes to a campaign, who does or doesn't get a political appointment, what development gets eased through the approval process, and who gets contracts that the public pays for.
And the evidence is that when the boss doesn't get his way, there's a price to pay that may range from being denied a nomination to losing a government job.
The role these men fill is not written into the state Constitution, into any state law, or into the bylaws of any political party.
It is a role they create for themselves by a combination of personality, wealth and, in some cases, connections born of professional or family background.
It has nothing to do with democracy.
There is nothing new about this kind of political figure. The history of American politics is full of examples like Huey Long and Boss Tweed, and New Jersey has had its share of bosses or leaders who have included David Wilentz and Frank Hague.
Some will argue -- with a certain amount of legitimacy -- that such men have the ability to override the inherent inefficiencies of government in order to get things done in the way of public projects.
They will make the argument, for example, that Lynch's influence has contributed mightily to the rebuilding of downtown New Brunswick and that Norcross has helped South Jersey get the share of public funds that it deserves.
And that may be true. But to the extent that it's true, it means that the democracy isn't working as it should.
This condition has been aggravated by the flawed campaign-finance law passed in 1993 which -- whether intentionally or not -- had the effect of enabling party bosses to raise 17 times more cash from a single donor than individual candidates can raise.
But there's another issue. A part of the inspiration for the founding of this democracy was a desire to neutralize the power of oligarchs and place the power instead in the hands of the people at large.
Elected representatives, not hereditary or nonelected "leaders," were to make and execute public policy.
And it works -- except that how well it works depends a lot on how interested and informed and active the people are.
Political power doesn't go away. If one party to the political structure doesn't exercise power, another party will.
To whatever extent the people themselves don't make their will known -- principally by voting, but also by attending meetings, writing letters, calling their elected representatives, simply paying attention to what is, after all, their business -- they leave their own political power for others to exploit.
And often those others are the political bosses who don't hold public office but who have at least as much power and influence over our lives as if they did.
It's a curious phenomenon that while independence from autocratic rulers was purchased with the blood of the citizens of this country, and that while a substantial portion of the American public supports military operations to win the franchise for Afghans and Iraqis at the same price, so many Americans neglect the ballot.
In fact, the more immediate the effect of an election is likely to be -- referendums on school and fire district budgets, for example -- the less likely voters are to participate.
And even with the unusual explosion of new registrations for next week's general election, tens of millions of Americans will take a bye.
Go figure.
Next Tuesday, voters can choose whether they want to exercise their political power or leave it for someone else to use.
Low turnouts are one of the factors in politics that empower bosses to anticipate and manipulate the results of elections.
After an election, citizens who want to disassociate themselves from the winner sometimes slap on a bumper sticker that says something like:
"Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him." It's interesting that -- with respect to political bosses -- no one displays a sticker that says:
"Blame me. I didn't vote."
|
