I was going to start this series with Part I, a backgrounder on who owns what and how much in our society, but the election intervened.
And a portion of the American populace now seems to be putting a very un-American interpretation on the election results.
They seem to think it was a Banana Republic coup, an invasion not an election.
And now the conquered peoples must to bow to the will of the conquerors.
It's not just the radical fringe - in an otherwise rational online discussion, I was told:
"hey Hal...The winner is not supposed to have to realize anything...it's the loser that is supposed to come to the table!!! Understand...YOU LOST!!!"
and
"losers kiss up to winners...it doesn't matter what you call it...politics...sports...life...it all comes down to the same thing...you lost...YOU need to come to the center...the repubicans do not need to move left first...and the majority has spoken...and you F'ING lost...realize it"
and more from others in other discussions, but all in the same vein: "We won, you lost, it's our way or the highway."
They seem to have missed the concept behind what happened on November 2nd:
People voted, and by a small margin of 3%, the Bush backers carried the day.
It was an election, not an invasion. The 48% on the losing side are neighbors, not a conquered populace.
This is America, not Iraq.
The framers of the American constitution saw this coming.
They worried about "the excesses of the democracy."
They knew that the power of a democracy was "unlimited and absolute," so they set up a representative government, with a constitution to protect The Minority from The Majority.
Madison, for instance, wrote:
When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.
Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Mike Kole
I say that your quotes on Jefferson and Madison are right on the money; that so many Republicans will now believe that their role is to run roughshod over political opponents whenever and wherever they can.
I also have no doubt that Democrats are exactly the same, and that given the chance to do likelise, they will.
Look no further than the gleeful eagerness to redistribute wealth- no matter who from, and who to- as the sign that left and right will act as the democratic despot whenever and wherever they can.
2 - Hal Pawluk
"Wealth redistribution" is part of the series, Mike, and yes, it's a bi-partisan topic - there are no clena hands.
However, you're wrong on the roughshod-riding. I've been through a whole bunch of elections (I'm older than dirt), and nothing I've seen comes close to what is happening so far this millennium.
Really.
3 - RJ
Bush wins, and Dems demand power.
Funny!
4 - Hal Pawluk
A visitor to my site dropped this note:
The facts in Calhoun county bear him out, but reading the Hartmann piece it seems the disparity is in counties with optical scanners. Normally, optical scanners are relatively accurate, but there is a caveat: all the scans are sent to a central computer for tabulation.The theory is possible - do any of you think it's likely?
And I'll stipulate all the "Conspiracy" and "Sore losers" responses in advance so save yourselves some effort.
Rational thoughts welcome.
5 - Victor Plenty
Democrat cites founding principles of the American nation. Republican ridicules him.
"Funny."
Makes me glad I'm not a member of either party.
6 - Hal Pawluk
I'm not either, Victor - utterly no loyalty to any party (America is a different story).
It's just that the Republicans were/are the most recent, biggest threat that could have been dealt with on November 2nd.
Stay tuned.
7 - Mike Kole
Hal- While I'm always keen to know about voter fraud wherever it occurs, I would have to address your Florida 2004 example with caution, because it is based on exit polls. We saw how badly flawed the exit polling was.
8 - Hal Pawluk
Actually, Mike, the part that's intriguing is not the exit polls but the registered Republicans vs. the vote:
That means that nearly half the registered Democrats in the county had to vote for Bush.It's possible, of course.
9 - Yensid
The thing that really gets me about the exit polls is that they were in line with the polling going on in the days leading up to the election. (source: http://www.electoral-vote.com) I felt a slight buzz about Kerry actually winning all the way until about 4:00 on election day and then there was the huge sea of red. It was very strange and I would like to hear more about the electronic voting machines regardless of who won. 80% of the machines used have no paper trail. Wow that just blows me away.
10 - RJ
Two points:
1 - The mostly-Dem counties in FL that went for Bush were mostly small, rural counties. The kind of places where Dems vote for Republicans for President.
2 - Electronic voting machine that do not have a paper-trail should be banned immediately. I don't believe there was fraud in this election, but hackers should not be afforded the opportunity to commit fraud in future elections.
11 - andy marsh
Hal - I will say this..I appreciate the fact that you do not consider me part of any radical fringe. At least that's what I get from your post. Those are my comments in your piece.
I am also an independant...no particular party affiliation, but I still don't understand why the winners are supposed to move more than the losers. I understand that it was a close election, but I think what's still being missed here is who won!
I think one of the primary reasons that the dems lost not just the presidency but a fair amount of power in congress as well is because the majority of people in this country are much closer to the center than the candidate that the dems ran for president. I mean even in a few states that kerry won there was obvious right leaning legislation that passed overwhelmingly!
I just think that until the democratic party realizes that the rest of America doesn't think like michael moore and barbra streisand they're gonna be left out in the cold!
12 - Hal Pawluk
I think what's being missed, andy, is that we are not in an autocracy.
The president is supposed to be - and claims to be - a president for the entire country. That country has 59.5 million people who voted for him and 56 million people who voted against him. While he did achieve a marginal win, the president is supposed to represent all of them.
The election was not a zero-sum game, where the winner gets all the chips. It's not No Limit Texas Hold 'Em.
Bush, however, seems to think it is No Limit Texas Screw 'Em: he said that he would "reach out to his opponents" and in the same sentence explained the reaching out as "I'll tell them how I made my decision."
That's not Americanism, it's some other Ism entirely.
----
(Aside: While I don't think you're a radical, I don't think you're an independent, either. Not signing up on a particular partisan roster is not the distinguishing characteristic of an independent.)
13 - andy marsh
fair enough...but as I've said before, there are several issues that the republican party believes in that I don't...anyway....
My point is, let's say for the minute that Bush got elected on several of his stances and not just because he wasn't Kerry...if that is the case, is he supposed to now abandon those issues to make nice with the dems? Or is he supposed to follow through with his promises? I'm not trying to be a dick here...I'm trying (honestly) to understand your point of view.
14 - Hal Pawluk
The Democrats don't matter, andy - the people do.
48% of the people do not want what Bush is about to enforce on them.
This is exactly what Madison And Jefferson tried to protect us from, "an elective despotism."
Clearly, they failed.
15 - andy marsh
so what's the president supposed to do? Sit back and do nothing because less than half the people that got off their butts and voted don't want what more than half do? I understand your point Hal, I'm just wondering where do we go from here?
No matter what he does, it's gonna piss off some segment of the population...and if he does nothing, it's gonna piss off everyone...
I think the idea of our representative govt is that if the vast majority doesn't like what the president is doing then the congress makes sure it doesn't happen...that is part of the checks and balances...the reason that we have a house and senate...
16 - bhw
I think the idea of our representative govt is that if the vast majority doesn't like what the president is doing then the congress makes sure it doesn't happen
The Republican controlled Congress is answering to the President, not keeping him in check. Witness the recent Arlen Specter pussy-whipping.
17 - Joe
Perhaps that term no longer means what I thought it did.
18 - Hal Pawluk
Thanks, bhw, you saved me some typing.
We do have a representative government; what we don't have is a government that represents the people.
19 - andy marsh
That's not a fair statement...it's not representative of all the people...I mean...there was an election, wasn't there?
And that brings me back to my original question...what are our elected officials supposed to do...ignore the majority that elected them, or appease the minority that didn't?
20 - bhw
It's not representative of the state of PA, who Arlen Specter reprsents, if he drops his opposition to anti-abortion judges when the people of PA voted him in based on that platform, is it? Doing what the president wants him to do is NOT representative of his constituents.
That's a problem.
21 - JR
And that brings me back to my original question...what are our elected officials supposed to do...ignore the majority that elected them, or appease the minority that didn't?
Well, they could concentrate on capturing the other third of al Quaeda's leadership, preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and finding some kind of workable compromise between special interests (business, environmentalists and labor leaders) on the economic and policy issues where the vast majority of the public wants exactly the same result (i.e. middle-class jobs, access to good education, clean air and water, some pristine wilderness and some chance of a balanced budget within the next century).
Furthermore, they might put divisive issues on the back burner - things like abortion, gay marriage, and partisan politics (by which I mean trying to shut the opposition party out of government entirely). It also might be a good idea to back away from specific proposals which don't make a big difference in the big picture but which elicit strong symbolic opposition - things like drilling in the arctic or lifting the ban on assault rifles or parts of the Patriot Act or bans on partial-birth abortion and Federal funding of stem-cell research. It's not that anybody needs to change their positions on these things; it's just that maybe we can argue about that later, after we've worked together to solve a few of the more immediate problems.
But I'm for secession, so I hope the administration keeps up their good work!
22 - Hal Pawluk
Andy, the "representatives" are voted for by the people. But what that gives us is a bunch of people who represent their own interests, not ours.
That's not a partisan issue, as I'm not party to any party.
Maybe a more local situation will help clarify:
In the California legislature, the "representatives" sat down and gerrymandered districts so that the incumbents will essentially all get re-elected through the next census.
Their agreement has divided up the pie of California as a 60-40 split for Democrats over Republicans.
The State Assembly is 48 Dems, 32 Reps out of 80. The Senate is 26 Dems, 14 Reps out of 40. There are 20 Republicans out of 53 "representatives" we send to Washington. Even the Democrat-friendly L. A. Times called this a "Satan's Pact."
Inside the state, the only thing that protects us from the "Tyranny of the Majority," Democrats in this case, is a requirement for a 2/3 majority on budget votes and the initiative process (the Dems aren't happy and tried to reduce the requirement to 55% because they have a 60% majority).
Not great, but we're better off than the country as a whole is.
You seem sincerely interested, andy, so I'd strongly recommend that you do a bit of reading on how this Republic was intended to operate. It was a grand scheme. And it's being screwed over royally (that last word knowingly chosen).
The three books I list above are fine but kind of heavy going. Another that's very useful is The Federalist by Gottfried Dietze, but it's foot-noted to death (a good thing for some, but ...)
Does anybody out there have any other recommendations? There must be a short, pithy and intellectually-honest summary (less than, say, 40 pages) of what the founders thought this country was about out there - I'd like to read it, too.
Anyone?
Thanks.
23 - andy marsh
Hal - I'd say from this last comment that the problem seems to be politicians in general...worrying about their own interests instead of ours, the people that put them there in the first place...I don't know that there's a cure for that...other than replacing them. but then the cycle starts all voer again.
24 - Mike Kole
Hal- This "Satan's Pact" you cited is the rule rather than the exception in most states. Jefferson in particular was wary of political parties for this reason, among others.
It should be clear by now that the major parties are essentially guilty of collusion via gerrymandering. Each major party knows that they will effortlessly win some seats, lose some seats with only a token effort at best (why throw good money after bad, for cryin' out loud?), and honestly contest about 5% of the races- letting the chips fall where they may in those few instances only.
It isn't going to change so long as people continue to vote for candidates in the major parties across the board. The main problem is that the average voter is scared to death to do this because the major parties have created a political spoils system that really reduces elections to a contest to identify which group of supporters get the largesse. It's a tight web. The average voters wants to make sure that either he gets his, or often more importantly, that the other side doesn't get theirs.
If that mindset continues to prevail, you're going to be saddled with this nightmare for a long time to come.
You know that you can't count on a Republican or Democrat to run on an anti-gerrymandering campaign, so what can you do?
I'll let you fill in the blanks on my stock answer.
25 - Hal Pawluk
Andy, it is Party politicians in general, but that's where your job kicks in.
Vote for whomever, whatever label you want, but when you're not in the voting booth, hold them accountable.
At the moment, it's Republicans at the federal level, Democrats in California.
Rhe process of changing bodies does help.
The "outs" promise to cure the ills being done by the "ins" and they will in fact cure some of them. Wait a few years, then swap them again.