Okay, I admit that I have been remiss in posting lately. Mea culpa. I told myself that maybe if I took a step back and tried not to let the mendacity that hangs so pervasively in our political atmosphere get to me, that somehow my normally optimistic nature could return.
The November elections, while falling short of what should have been, did bring some solace but the succeeding days only diminished my hopes. After all, Nancy is still in office and remains the leader of the House democrats. Harry, who of all senators seemed most vulnerable, retained his seat. Barney, Charlie, Maxine, Sheila, and Pete friggin’ Stark were all re-elected! Not many of the powerful dems were sent packing. So the victory is one of numbers not influence. Does that make you confident in your fellow voters??
Add to that the fact that we now have a “weeper of the house” who is third in line for the presidency, and I don’t sleep well at night. Don’t get me wrong. John Boehner is a fine man with good credentials who, as far as I can tell, believes what he says. But he does not exude power. I think Nancy could take him in a fist fight. She would cheat. But he would let her and she would whip him with his own tire iron.
Like I said, democrat losses were in numbers only. So what is the first thing they want to do? Minimize that disadvantage by changing the rules. Never mind that the balance of power so carefully crafted by the Constitution was side stepped by the 17th amendment. (Aside: Do you think that Obamacare would have passed into law if the senators had been appointed by the state legislatures to protect state’s rights like the founders intended?) Now another of the balance of power protections is under assault.
The founders knew that, unless political power was spread among those who are affected by government, it would gravitate toward tyranny. And that appears to be our final destination.
Witness the opinion piece offered in the Washington Post on January 6, 2011: Matt Miller – Cant we just have majority rule?
Mr. Miller, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and co-host of public radio’s “Left, Right & Center,” laments the fact that mob rule is not the order of business in the senate. He finds it “outrageous” that the democrat plan for filibuster reform does not actually seek to establish majority rule in America.
Apparently making a full-throated case for majority rule is too controversial a step in the year 2011 in the world’s leading democracy.
[skip]
It’s not clear what theory of governance elevates the tyranny of the minority into a sacred principle.
[skip]
If we can’t scrap the filibuster, we won’t thrive in the 21st century.
Never mind that the filibuster was a favorite tool of the opposition during the previous administration. Now it is “the tyranny of the minority”.
“The Constitution” Mr. Miller argues “already disperses power in ways that make purposeful federal action difficult under any circumstances…” Yes, Mr. Miller, it does and that was it’s intention. ”… [T]o impose an additional straitjacket in the name of honoring ‘traditions’ that outlaw majority rule will be seen by historians as an inexplicable failure of vision.” What is inexplicable, sir, is the desire to run into the embrace of totalitarianism no matter how benevolent you perceive it to be. Besides, much like the spin on the recent tax legislation, no “additional straightjacket” is being proposed. To the contrary, a loosening of the rules is being offered.
To revert to the “traditional” filibuster days, that is to say, requiring the senator to remain on the floor to “speechify” for as long as it took ala Robert Byrd and Huey Long would not be a bad thing but to adopt a majority rule position would be ludicrous.
A representative republic is what we have. Democracy, as Karl Marx said, is the road to socialism.
An elective despotism was not the government we fought for. ~ Thomas Jefferson ~
The Virtual Wall
