« Condescending Liberals, Conservatives Too
Ronald Reagan, Conservatism, and the Decline of the American Empire »
Too Much Democracy, Ctd.
Here’s a timely counter-punch, from David Harsanyi, to the Kurt Andersen article we spotlighted yesterday.
Harsanyi’s conclusion …
Those who contend that the ruling party isn’t instilled with enough control are worried about politics, not process. And actually, regardless of which ephemeral majority happens to win the day, we should be looking for more checks on power, not less.
I tend to agree with him, that we should (generally) “be looking for more checks on power, not less,” and I express that agreement despite my thorough, oft-expressed frustration with the power-check ability of 40 Senators on the subject of health-care reform.
That point of general agreement notwithstanding, what is perhaps most intriguing about this debate are its contrasting interpretations of the utility of the Senate’s filibuster rules.
Andersen argues that the minority party is abusing the Senate’s filibuster rules, and said abuse is a function of the minority party being influenced by, rather than resisting, populist zeal. In other words, the minority is not rising above the ephemeral whims of the crowd, but is playing into (if not feeding) those whims, contrary to the more statesmanlike, above-the-fray vision the founders had for the Senate.
Harsanyi argues that the very same Senate filibuster rules allow the minority party to thwart swift and sweeping reform and thus (by default) forces the Senate to rise above the ephemeral whims of the crowd.
Both arguments hinge on which crowd and which “ephemeral whims” you support and which you don’t. Were the pro-Obama masses a year ago — or the tea-party masses now — the most intoxicated by ephemeral whims? If you think the former were the most intoxicated, you likely believe the Senate minority’s ability to halt progress is tremendously statesmenlike, a critical course-correction to the prior madness of the crowd. But if you think the latter (the tea partiers) are the most intoxicated, then you likely view the Senate minority’s actions as “obstructionism,” inspired by the angry protests of maniacal millions.
In short, despite Harsanyi’s suggestion that the pro-Obama camp is more concerned with “politics” than “process,” it seems that both camps are. If so, Harsanyi’s final suggestion carries even more weight: “… regardless of which ephemeral majority happens to win the day, we should be looking for more checks on power, not less.”
And in that respect, ironically enough, I think Harsanyi and Anderson are in agreement: Too much democracy can be counterproductive. Pure democracy should be constrained. Our republic, our representative democracy — a step removed from the whims of the masses — is, after all, a damn smart system of government, alternately inspiring and frustrating, depending on which whims at which time possess each of us.
8 Responses to “Too Much Democracy, Ctd.”
I agree good article.
Whether or not not one agrees or disagrees about this statement applying to HCR and such currently, in essence it is completely true.
The 17th is one of the worst Constitutional amendments, IMHO, as it indeed eliminated one of the fundamental underpinnings of the checks and balances designed into the Constitution, and accelerated the country down the path of populist democracy instead of representative democracy. The movement to abolish the electoral college is another wolf in sheep's clothing trying to do the same, again IMO.
When the Founders wrote the Constitution, and the States ratified it, the Senate was supposed to be that buffer against populism, and furthermore they expected Senators to serve much longer than Representatives or even the President, and provide a continuity to the federal government.
But since the 17th was passed, it is now the House that has the higher re-election rates: http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php
“I tend to agree with him, that we should (generally) “be looking for more checks on power, not less,” “
What about your own power? Why should some average (mediocre) Westerner have the power to dictate who gets to marry whom, for example?
The same people who are puking over themselves in outrage over Obama's mega-left agenda sure didn't protect Padilla from the government last time around.
The criticism doesn't go far enough. In its entirety society is ill, and complaining about politicians is at best a well-intended but insufficient practice.
Good article, but I still feel that the filibuster rule should go. Although, the spectre of Palin in charge will have me thinking twice.
I'd rather see more checks on misinformation, bogus narratives, and partisan pandering than on power per se.
Couldn't resist. Oh where is Jiminy Cricket when we need him?
“What are conscience! I'll tell ya! A conscience is that still small voice that people won't listen to. That's just the trouble with the world today…
I'm surprised and relieved not to encounter the usual babbling about direct election of the President and abolition (for no intelligent reasons supplied) of the evil, elitist, anachronistic, Byzantine Electoral College.
Unfortunately, the Admin appears to be a prime source for dis-information. Look at them still blindly trying to sell the collapsed Climate Fraud model.