In defense of a "flawed system"

When Senator Michael Bennnet (D-Colo.) was the superintendent of Denver schools — a public school system at the very bottom of national rankings — he spent his first summer on the job going door-to-door in Denver’s most underprivileged neighborhoods, engaging kids on the importance of a high school education and convincing them to show up come September. His efforts turned the system around; thousands of kids stayed in school having shaken his hand; thousands of kids believed for the first time in the power of education, and of the government to deliver it.

I hate that Michael Bennet represents an island of integrity amidst a Congressional ocean of corruption. I abhor the way he battles for progressive change within a democracy that has been bought and sold by the exploitative forces of capitalism. I am fed up of being surprised when politicians other than him truly deliver on campaign promises or operate on time scales beyond their electoral terms.

But I do not hate any of these systemic flaws nearly enough to abandon them.

I believe that every form of governance is dynamic — be it Marxism, socialism, capitalism, totalitarianism or democracy. Every system carries the potential to descend into an abyss of oppression and despotism, or to justly and effectively meet the needs of those for whom it is responsible. Just as the Communist experiments in Russia, Cuba, North Korea and China have resulted in regimes that Marx would hold in contempt, so too have modern conceptions of democracy led to corrupt bureaucracies that are failing their constituents. Just as Communism could potentially work, so too could democracy.

As an embodiment of this potential for unadulterated (albeit incremental) political good, Senator Bennet is what must keep us from abandoning our own system in place of another. Even when democratic administration after democratic administration has manhandled the notion that universal health care is a right, punted on environmental issues time after time, pursued fiscally irresponsible policies that have left social security an uncertain mess and financial markets in collapse and been responsible for violence and conflict the world over, we must remember that another world is possible as long as we are fighting to keep people like Michael Bennet in the public sphere.

Of course, it would be nice to throw our hands up and say it just is not working; that democracy facilitates capitalism and economic freedoms that then undermine that very democracy we speak of. But it is a politicized version of the “grass is greener” mentality, when in reality, the grass is only as green as we make it; a political system is only as compassionate or responsible as the people we put in charge of it.

In the end, we may need to elect wave after wave of Michael Bennets and Barack Obamas before we ever achieve our desired ends within our own system, be they environmental or otherwise. We may need to go door-to-door for candidates that represent the lesser of two evils and for legislation that is only incremental in nature and we may need to one day consider putting ourselves on the ballot. Most of all, we may need to defend a flawed system and fight to recognize the slightest change as change nevertheless.

There is nothing that claws at my heart more than accepting moderation in a world that demands dramatic reforms. People and the planet are suffering and it is undisputed. But advocating abstinence from political engagement destroys the possibility that we will see wave after wave of committed progressives — it represents giving up when we have no right to give up.
Overthrowing the current system and instituting a new one will take decades, if not centuries — in the process however, we would sacrifice untold amounts of progressive reform that would do much to improve both the human and natural environments today.

No system is perfect; certainly not the one we currently uphold. But if we so choose, we have the power to make it the best it can be. The question is, will we?