Thankfully we live under a constitutional Republic that protects minority rights. Democracies inevitably trample minorities as history points out. The idea that citizens of New York City should be able to determine policy for citizens of small town Wyoming is absurd. If a proposed policy is really worth considering it should generate widespread approval by the electorate. But that takes hard work to convince people a policy has value. Much easier to muster 51-49 majorities especially in today’s world of instant communications and gratification. Governing is not supposed to be easy that is why Republics endure and democracies eventually fail.
You have stated the argument well, Larry. You wouldn't have persuaded James Madison, but plenty of people over the years have agreed with you. A question, then, is why does nearly everyone today, and not only in the United States, emphasize democracy? Are they all misguided? And almost no other countries followed the American model when they wrote their own constitutions.
Because democracy is a buzzword that most people understand (or at least think they do). The people who harp on the word 'democracy' are most often those who would like to dispense with the Electoral College and the filibuster. The EC and the Senate were designed to throw monkey wrenches into the fever of popular opinion. In my thinking, that's a feature, not a bug.
Wish I had a good answer to your question. But rather than criticize the “misguided” (your choice of words, not mine) perhaps continuing to exemplify the advantages of Republicanism will provide an answer.
The idea that a tiny number of citizens in a Wyoming village should be able to determine policy for a huge number of New York City residents is even more absurd.
I agree. All I’m saying is that what may be appropriate for an urban environment should not be forced on a more rural environment and vice versa. There are ligitimate differences that must be recognized to avoid one size fits all policies.
That's why the separation of powers and states' rights should take precedence in most matters. Let Wyoming and New York decide most of their own ways of living, and keep the federal government mostly out of it.
One of the things I'm struck by when reading about American history is just how often both parties have tried to tip the scales one way or another when it comes to voting. If we looked at American history in decades we could point to long periods when voting just wasn't fair in a lot of different ways and very undemocratic. Is our time really SO DIFFERENT? For someone like myself who was born in 1967 and has lived through a relatively "stable" time when it came to democracy and voting, wasn't that just the calm before the inevitable storm? Yes, the storm is here and it's threatening. But the tempest off our bow has always been there. We need to steel ourselves like previous generations did. We should take strength from that.
I too find it oddly comforting that party politics has been this bad for centuries. We survived that, so probably we'll survive this. Of course, some bad things happened to right the ship in the past, like the Civil War.
Another great post, Bill. I saw this tweet by Tyler Syck, and was wondering what your thoughts were:
“Wendall Wilkie and FDR once discussed creating a liberal party after WWII, and Eisenhower thought of taking moderates from both parties and forming a Whig Party. I wonder how different America would have been if this happened?”
Was the Democratic Party not a liberal party after WWII?
Willkie had been a Democrat but flipped to the Republicans in the late 1930s. His views were more liberal than most Republicans'. FDR was trying to escape the shackles of the conservative Southern wing of the Democratic party, not least on race. So the idea was something in the middle. Eisenhower's idea was a Republican-like party purged of isolationist elements and the McCarthyite crazies while fiscally conservative. Both plans failed at the time; the parties were too strong. But in the 1960s the FDR/Willkie scheme did take form with the exodus of the South from the Democrats over the race issue.
Thankfully we live under a constitutional Republic that protects minority rights. Democracies inevitably trample minorities as history points out. The idea that citizens of New York City should be able to determine policy for citizens of small town Wyoming is absurd. If a proposed policy is really worth considering it should generate widespread approval by the electorate. But that takes hard work to convince people a policy has value. Much easier to muster 51-49 majorities especially in today’s world of instant communications and gratification. Governing is not supposed to be easy that is why Republics endure and democracies eventually fail.
You have stated the argument well, Larry. You wouldn't have persuaded James Madison, but plenty of people over the years have agreed with you. A question, then, is why does nearly everyone today, and not only in the United States, emphasize democracy? Are they all misguided? And almost no other countries followed the American model when they wrote their own constitutions.
Because democracy is a buzzword that most people understand (or at least think they do). The people who harp on the word 'democracy' are most often those who would like to dispense with the Electoral College and the filibuster. The EC and the Senate were designed to throw monkey wrenches into the fever of popular opinion. In my thinking, that's a feature, not a bug.
Wish I had a good answer to your question. But rather than criticize the “misguided” (your choice of words, not mine) perhaps continuing to exemplify the advantages of Republicanism will provide an answer.
The idea that a tiny number of citizens in a Wyoming village should be able to determine policy for a huge number of New York City residents is even more absurd.
I agree. All I’m saying is that what may be appropriate for an urban environment should not be forced on a more rural environment and vice versa. There are ligitimate differences that must be recognized to avoid one size fits all policies.
That's why the separation of powers and states' rights should take precedence in most matters. Let Wyoming and New York decide most of their own ways of living, and keep the federal government mostly out of it.
One of the things I'm struck by when reading about American history is just how often both parties have tried to tip the scales one way or another when it comes to voting. If we looked at American history in decades we could point to long periods when voting just wasn't fair in a lot of different ways and very undemocratic. Is our time really SO DIFFERENT? For someone like myself who was born in 1967 and has lived through a relatively "stable" time when it came to democracy and voting, wasn't that just the calm before the inevitable storm? Yes, the storm is here and it's threatening. But the tempest off our bow has always been there. We need to steel ourselves like previous generations did. We should take strength from that.
I too find it oddly comforting that party politics has been this bad for centuries. We survived that, so probably we'll survive this. Of course, some bad things happened to right the ship in the past, like the Civil War.
Another great post, Bill. I saw this tweet by Tyler Syck, and was wondering what your thoughts were:
“Wendall Wilkie and FDR once discussed creating a liberal party after WWII, and Eisenhower thought of taking moderates from both parties and forming a Whig Party. I wonder how different America would have been if this happened?”
Was the Democratic Party not a liberal party after WWII?
Willkie had been a Democrat but flipped to the Republicans in the late 1930s. His views were more liberal than most Republicans'. FDR was trying to escape the shackles of the conservative Southern wing of the Democratic party, not least on race. So the idea was something in the middle. Eisenhower's idea was a Republican-like party purged of isolationist elements and the McCarthyite crazies while fiscally conservative. Both plans failed at the time; the parties were too strong. But in the 1960s the FDR/Willkie scheme did take form with the exodus of the South from the Democrats over the race issue.