Response to Thoughts Aloud: Ugly Truths blog entry

Hello there, I’ve decided that it’s my time to go ahead and have Dave light up my blog. He runs a “Thoughts Aloud” blog, found here:

http://www.thoughtsaloud.com/2012/07/01/ugly-truths/comment-page-1/#comment-30799

(Link because I have no idea how to do HTML >.< )

He seems to be a libertarian, but his beliefs are not what matter to me: It is his mind. If you go to his blog, you will find VERY well thought-out arguments, theories, beliefs, etc. all laid out in what he calls “cogitations.” It should be noted, however, that if you are looking for an emotional argument, this is not a blog for you. But if you want to talk about issues concerning American politics, life, and so forth, and have thoughtful discussion about them… this is THE place for you.

With that in mind, here is my response to him, with his post first, and my response next.

“Folks, America is NOT a democracy; it is a republic, and the distinction is profound. Our Founders abhorred the very concept of democracy, which they considered just a fancy term for mob rule; or as Franklin purportedly put it, two wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for dinner. That is why they fashioned instead a constitutional republic, to protect the natural rights of the minority, from the whim of the majority; and each of us, as an individual, represents the ultimate minority. If this comes as news to you, I recommend a little research, for a much needed civics lesson.”

This gave me pause to wonder: Does the Constitution actually protect us from the majority? I don’t think so. Instead of Tyranny of the Majority, it becomes a tyranny of the majority of a minority. The Minority I am speaking of, of course, is the US House of Representatives and the Senate.

The reason why I think this is because Congress has been so out of touch with us for so many years. Some of Obamacare’s provisions are popular, for instance, but they talk of tearing the whole thing down, rather than the most objectionable part (the mandate). Or, perhaps… did Americans really want to go into Libya? If you looked at the most recent polls, the answer was NO. The military is stretched thin as it is; the nation is war-weary. Yet Congress and the President decided it was a good thing to do… and then squabbled with each other about the details (Why wasn’t the President informing us), etc. If we were truly protected from the Minority AND Majority, Congress would have listened to the war-weary public and said it wasn’t the time to go to yet ANOTHER war!

Dave continues,

The reason this Big Lie is so insidious, is that it gives voters the mistaken notion that the majority rules here in America. They assume that they can achieve any political goal they desire, if they can just get 51% of their neighbors to agree with them. Nothing could be further from the truth, in a country that is supposed to be governed by the rule of law, with a Constitution as the supreme law of the land, which pointedly constrains the lawmakers, from legislating outside narrowly defined limits. Too often, the rude discovery of this simple truth, leaves voters angry and jaded, when the elegance with which it secures our individual Liberty, should produce the opposite effect.

Yet so often lawmakers step out of these bounds, stick their tongues out at us, and say, try and stop us. Occasionally, we do (Supreme Court), but most of the time, the politicians get away from it.

This point confirms what I am saying.

The independent courts exist to defend the Constitution, and the natural rights of any minority, from the capricious whim of the majority, in a self-governing republic. It is wrong to blame the judges for doing their jobs; blame belongs with the misguided lawmakers, for attempting to overstep theirs.”

Dave continues,

The simple fact is that the sheeple have consented to the mayhem, done to the original intent of our Constitution, by politicians and judges alike, over the past hundred years. It no longer protects the individual from the whim of a majority, and there is certainly not a majority today who wish it to. Even the supposedly awakening T-Party types, want once unconstitutional programs, like education, social security, medicare, et al ‘fixed,’ not eliminated.

I disagree on this point. The so-called unconstitutional problems that Dave brings up above are popular, and—to a degree—helpful programs. There are any number of other programs, though, they I would agree with. I don’t think this is so much of a consent as “Hey, this is useful… let’s improve upon it.” However, as I mentioned above, the tyranny of the minority of a majority (of a minority?-- The Congress) often steps in our way. Ideally, you would have a direct democracy, but Cicero mentions that that leads to the rule OF the “Sheeple,” as Dave describes those that follow things blindly and without question, allowing themselves to be eaten up by the partisaness that consumes our American system.

He continues,

While there is a majority who find fault, for one reason or another, with Obamacare, there is by no means a majority for outright repeal, and getting the Feds out of healthcare entirely. They want it less expensive and/or obtrusive than the ACA; but they want the Feds to ‘fix’ it, nonetheless. It is a pipe dream to think we could ever return to small Constitutional government; the ‘will of the people’ would never consent to it. It is impossible to return to fiscal discipline and a balanced budget, because the majority wouldn’t brook the austerity required. Witness that other famed democracy, Greece.

He is right; the government continues to get out of control. As it grows, it expands what it believes its “constitutional rights” (or limitations) are. There is a handy Amendment in the Constitution (Article 10, I believe): “All powers herein not granted to the federal government are hereby reserved to the states OR THE PEOPLE.” In these modern times, the PEOPLE part is constantly overwhelmed, ignored, and kicked to the side. Yet, if what it being done is helpful, we allow it. To this part, I believe Dave s right to the paragraph he wrote above this about us consenting to “mayhem,” though I would compromise with him and say it is “organized mayhem.”

He further writes,

Meanwhile we have two competing ideological ‘wills,’ which are roughly equal to each other in numbers. Both have accepted the premise of mob rule, and peacefully allow the other side to take over the levers of our government, when they win an election. With increasingly idealogical judges, and a Constitution routinely ignored, we may as well admit that we are a de facto democracy. The ‘will of the people’ long ago consented, to the demise of the republic of our Founders.

The way the system is now, nothing gets done. One party gets into power, passes something remarkable (like the Healthcare Bill—I am in favor of it, I think Dave and I are going to disagree on whether it is good or not, but agree on the general sentiment I am conveying). The next party comes into power, undoes the work of the other side, passes its own legislation—which is subsequently undone when the next party comes into power (if it is still undoable), passes their legislation, and the cycle begins again. Yet most people are fine with this. This “mayhem” to this degree is not tolerable. In fact, it is the most pointless phenomenon in American politics: do undo and undo and undo… ideally, you want to bring the country forwards, not back to where it was!

The next part talks of revolution, which I will leave out for varying reasons, the most glaring of which is that violence of any sort makes me troubled; However, I think it can be fought not on the streets, but using the very instruments candidates like to use to their advantage. If you want a peaceful revolution (I am a dove here, people >.> ), found a superPAC whose sole aim is not to support any political aims or ideology, but is to get the most ineffective, the most out-of-touch, and the most people who do not wish to uphold the Constitution, out of office.

Mutanatia