Page 8 - Freedom in the world_Neat

Political Process

The American political system is, in many critical aspects, either a work in progress or in
need of serious repair. Some points of concern date back several decades (low voter
turnout) and some date to the adoption of the Constitution (the Electoral College). Other
issues, such as the effects of our decentralized system on the fairness of voting
procedures, have come to the forefront more recently, as systemic barriers to participation
and inequities within and across states have become better appreciated. The pervasive role
of money in politics pits libertarian defenders of donors’ First Amendment freedoms
against those seeking to regulate campaign finance. The desire to regulate is in part a
response to the apparently corrupting influence of candidates’ perpetual search for
campaign funds. It is also rooted in the notion that all Americans should have equal access
to their government officials, regardless of personal wealth. Libertarians argue that such
restrictions limit the choices available to voters, and that the only regulation needed is full
disclosure of all contributions, allowing voters to decide whether a candidate may be
unduly obligated to a particular donor or group of donors.
No American would say that the United States is a perfect democracy, or even that it
administers elections as well it should. Indeed, controversies arising from electoral
practices that could be corrected have in recent years dismayed America’s admirers, and
brought glee to its critics.
Notwithstanding the flaws discussed in the chapter on this topic, the American political
system essentially works, in that new actors constantly enter the arena while incumbents
and party majorities are ousted at each election; public opinion matters, and those citizens
who choose to mobilize can affect outcomes very directly. The midterm elections of 2006
demonstrated anew that—despite concerns about the impact of gerrymandering, the
presumed fund-raising advantages of incumbency, and efforts at vote suppression in key
areas—the American people retain the power to change their leaders democratically.
Immigration

After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, some feared that the United States would
experience a new wave of anti-immigrant nativism that would threaten the country’s
tradition as a home for immigrants from around the world. There is ample precedent in
American history to justify such fears. The anti-German sentiment associated with World
War I and the political radicalism that followed the conflict played important roles in
triggering three decades of highly restrictive immigration policy. Similarly, as noted above,
World War II led to an upsurge in anti-Japanese feeling and the internment of more than
120,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans.
Furthermore, worries about the loyalty of immigrants from Muslim countries in the post-
9/11 period dovetailed with a growing unease about the porousness of America’s border
with Mexico. Fears of terrorist infiltration combined with concern over the economic and
social impact of millions of undocumented workers from Mexico and other Latin American
countries elevated immigration to the top of the political agenda while this study was
being prepared.
The tone and content of the debate is at times disturbing, especially the depiction of
undocumented workers as lawbreaking economic burdens to American society. Some
public officials have even advocated the deportation of the estimated 12 million illegal
immigrants currently in the country. If this were seriously attempted, it would entail

Page 8 of 168