Can Elections Be Dollars and Cents All the Way Around? A Reflection on Nancy Fraser's talk, "Can Society Be Commodities All The Way Down?"

In her talk, “Can Societies Be Commodities All The Way Down?” Nancy Fraser explores the intersections of ecological, economic, and social crises on society. She believes that most critical theories of society focus on only one or two of these aspects, never all three, and that is why a great critical theory has yet to exist. A great critical theory, in her opinion, must include all three aspects of crises and how these factors connect, as well as an explanation of their common source and structure.

She goes on to say that one critical theorist, Karl Polyani, came close to presenting a great critical theory. Polyani’s theories surround the social and political upheavals that took place in England during the rise of the market economy. He explains that the market economy, which is hierarchy-less, causes social systems to pick up the so-called economical slack, and codify society. Thus, the market, is the source of social institutions like patriarchy and slavery. When there is no legitimate and concrete economic hierarchy, a social one forms in its place.

Additionally, Polyani goes on to explain in his work, the “Great Transformation,” that this transition to the market altered economic mentalities. Before this, economics played only a small role in social life. However, the freedom of the market allowed for the growth of humanity's predisposition to barter. Consequently, trade became prevalent in an effort to mold human nature to fit the new market based economic institutions. With this, Polyani believes that humans began to codify everything in the world—land, labor, and capital. But, these three elements, cannot be traded freely, as they attack the true social substance of society, leading to the afore mentioned social woes. This is the base of Fraser’s title: she asks, “Can societies be commodities all the way down?” And her answer is no.

The market economy destabilizes nature, social society, and finance. An unregulated market leads to a regulated society, which in turn, is detrimental to nature and social atmospheres.

I would like to expand on a single statement that Fraser mentioned in her talk.

She said “unregulated markets destroy their own opportunity.” An unregulated market leads to the corruption of the promise that it provides. Regulation is necessary for a market to function properly and not negatively affect the physical environment and social relations.

Upon hearing this statement my mind immediately left all of the complexities of the market economy, and instead went to campaign finance.

I think that unregulated elections destroy their own opportunity. The democratic process frees societies in many ways—it allows the people to have a say in how their home is run, and that freedom is undeniably and absolutely invaluable. However, I also think that that freedom is undeniably and absolutely corrupted by rampant and unregulated campaign finance.

Unregulated or poorly regulated campaign finance gives wealthy people and groups an unfair advantage and influence, affects who votes and how they vote, decides who will run and who will not run, affects the media and public perception, affects the perception of how elections are administered and how the electoral system is working (as summarized by Stephen J. Wayne in Is this Any Way To Run A Democratic Election?). Essentially, money affects the democratic process at every step—beginning with who runs, followed by what occurs while they are running, then how people vote, who votes, and finally the outcome of the election.

Contributors are unequally distributed throughout society—people who contribute to campaigns are most often corporations, corporate executives, lawyers and lobbyists. This gives those individuals an unequal say in a system literally designed to give each and every citizen an equivalently powerful voice.

Unregulated campaign finance gives certain people, businesses, and firms a louder voice with regard to who runs, who votes, and who wins. Candidates with a stronger donor base are more likely to be selected to run and to win a party’s primary. Candidates who have more money can run a flashier, more publicly friendly campaign. They have more money to use to manipulate their image in the media. Candidates who have the funds to devote time and money to getting people out to vote have a greater chance of success. In the end, all of this amounts to nire victories for the candidates with the most money.

Think about it this way. Are people of higher classes able to cast more votes than those of lower classes? Between majority and minority races? Religions? Genders?

No. Each person gets one vote because each person should have an equal say. This alone is demonstrative of the intention behind the design of American democratic elections (or any democratic election, really)—one person, one vote, one say. Everyone has just one.

But because of unregulated or poorly regulated campaign finance, the American government might as well shell out more voting power to corporate leaders, philanthropists, lawyers and lobbyists. The whole system is corrupted by dollars and cents.

Unregulated elections destroy their own opportunity—the opportunity to give each and every person the same one vote: the opportunity to afford every American citizen with political power that they can afford.

Fraser, Nancy. "Can Society Be Commodities All The Way Down? ." Lecture, Muhlenberg Center For Ethics from Muhlenberg College, Allentown, PA, November 13, 2014.

Wayne, Stephen J. Is This Any Way to Run a Democratic Election? Fifth ed. Washington DC: CQ Press, 2014.