House of Eratosthenes

Unfortunately, the AWOL Wisconsin Democrats are not an aberration. Indiana Democrats are playing the same game. More broadly, the political left has a modern history of accepting elections only when they win.

During the long, grueling push to approve ObamaCare, the legislation was clearly unpopular. But Democrats had the votes in Congress.

Then came Scott Brown’s remarkable January 2010 victory in the Massachusetts Senate special election. It was a stunning repudiation of ObamaCare in an ultra-blue state. It also meant Democrats did not have the necessary 60 Senate votes for final passage. Certainly the health bill was dead after that.

No way. Nancy Pelosi twisted the rules to ram the legislation through reconciliation, bypassing the need for the Senate to approve the final bill with a filibuster-proof majority.

Ignoring an unsatisfactory election result is a global phenomenon for the left. Over in Europe, ignoring voters is practically Eurocrats’ prime directive. When voters in a country ratify a treaty giving more power to Brussels, that’s the final word, end of story, for all time. Those voters can never change their mind.

But when the people vote no, Europe’s wise men huff and puff and keep holding elections until voters get it “right.” Or, the Eurocrats rework the treaty just enough to rationalize that voters don’t get to have a say again.

The left also ignores voters even at the most local level.

Back when I attended the University of Oregon in the early ’90s, students voted on whether to raise their own fees to provide $100,000 for a new multicultural center. UO is a very liberal campus on par with UC Berkeley or the University of Wisconsin, Madison. The few students who actually vote in campus elections tend to be extremely left wing, with the various ethnic student unions making up a big share of that. Despite all those advantages, the multicultural center measure lost.

Within a few weeks, the student body president-elect asked the outgoing fees committee to approve some $50,000 for a multicultural center. Dismissing my objections — I was on the fees panel — that voters had just rejected the MCC concept, the committee OK’d the funding in a matter of minutes. The center exists to this day.

The left believes that political rules and ethics don’t apply to them, because they are on the side of good. The ends justify the means, always.

America has what it takes to repudiate things. We repudiated slavery, and the racism that goes along with it. It was long slow and tortured, but the process of stigmatization made world history.

Nowhere is it written that this only has to be done with one thing. If you’re a left-winger and your friendship with the ballot-box process is only a fair-weather one, you should be subjected to the same process of ostracism.

Something was in our midst, entire industries were built up around it, and later on that same institution is no longer accepted. Nobody recollects it fondly and no one is going to be stupid enough to ask that it be reinstated. We won’t tolerate anyone who even comes close. A Senate Majority Leader lost his post over that very thing.

A fair-weather friendship to the electoral process ought to be tolerated just as much as a fondness for white supremacy. Or antisemitism or sexism or any one of our various other isms. By which I mean, any man who tolerates it, even by degrees of removal, will find his reputation soiled. And he should.

Actually, you know what fits it even better? Gambling, and not paying up when you lose. Or protesting that the cards must be marked or the die must be loaded…when you lose. Or, it is discovered that you planned only to win, and therefore don’t have the money — when you lose. That fits. And even when we were still tolerating slavery in this country, as I understand it, people got shot for that.

No, no violent rhetoric here. Just calling for some good ol’ American-as-apple-pie, healthy-as-you-can-get, cleansing ostracism. Liberals have been in favor of ostracism just as much as anybody else. Oh, don’t tell me they have a fair-weather friendship with this too? That would be sad.

We should all agree on this point. It’s not right-wing or left-wing; Carson has summed it up neatly for us.

1. Elections have consequences — even if your side loses.

2. If your side loses, there’s always another election. This is what democracy looks like.

3. Free speech is a constitutional right — even if you disagree with the speech.

And anyone who fails to agree, unconditionally, can’t play.

Gamblers manage to get that enforced one way or the other. Even now when nobody’s shooting anybody; can’t play if you aren’t ready to lose.

We should be able to enforce those same rules, too, as they apply to our elections.

Because they do.

But when the people vote no, Europe’s wise men huff and puff and keep holding elections until voters get it “right.” Or, the Eurocrats rework the treaty just enough to rationalize that voters don’t get to have a say again.

You noticed that, too, didja?
- philmon | 03/15/2011 @ 07:28
It’s time to have Rocco and Moose help these guys find their checkbooks.
- Rich Fader | 03/15/2011 @ 10:44
This is what democracy looks like.

Fifty-one percent get to rule the other forty-nine.

I don’t think that’s what the founders had in mind when they crafted our Republic.
- Daphne | 03/15/2011 @ 16:23
Are you engaged in a passionate, logical argument against having an elected Congress? I’m pretty sure that much is in the Constitution somewhere…
- mkfreeberg | 03/15/2011 @ 16:31
No, Morgan

I am engaged in a passionate, logical argument that my fellow citizens, elected representatives and the millions of bureaucrats we employ to enforce invasive brands of government expanding legislation own no right to infringe on any aspect of my life that does not harm the lives or property of others.

You have Rand Paul’s speech up on toilets, try extrapolating that small stance into the wider realm of personal liberty and the individual freedoms our government was crafted to protect.

The fifty one don’t represent me, they never will.
- Daphne | 03/15/2011 @ 17:10
Well, to be fair there has been a …. trend…. going on that confuses democracy with our democratic republic.

It started long before Morgan or Daphne or myself were born. We speak of our system as a “democracy”, but it, in fact, is not — and was never meant to be. Still, that is what the three of us have probably called our system since we were tykes … until more recently, in our maturity.

In fact, some of our founders themselves said that Democracy amounts to mob rule.

I have seen or read no better dissertation on the matter than that of Bill Whittle, a man I respect as someone who really gets it and is able to communicate it.

I showed this video (on natural law) at our last Tea Party group meeting a couple of weeks ago. I’ll be showing part 5 this Friday (on the second amendment.) This series, What We Believe” (video search) — is spot on. Pass it on, please.
- philmon | 03/15/2011 @ 17:26
The trouble comes up when you define what “infringe on” means. Some would say if you don’t give them everything they want, compliments of the U.S. Taxpayer, you’re infringing. If you make them work for it you’re infringing.

Now, if we’re only going to stand up for the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority, during such times as they are in the minority…we’ve got a big problem. Because I can’t help noticing that when they’re in the majority suddenly the rights the minority don’t count for squat. Just fork over the loot, please, and walk away Mr. Taxpayer, when we want you to spend more on our ungrateful asses we’ll let you know.

My point is that if the spending binge is ever to be brought under control, if we’re ever to have any hope of our grandchildren seeing something left of their paychecks or having an opportunity to earn those paychecks…Congress will have to have at least enough authority to reverse its own madcap binge. The whole point of the post, Daphne, is that we’ve got these fair-weather friends to democracy, saying “Will Of The People” when it goes their way and when it doesn’t…well, you get what you have up in Wisconsin. Dumb voters don’t know what they’re talking about, and our polls say they’d take it back if they could anyway.

Frankly, I have come to view the initial step, the arousing of libertarian passion, to be the easy part. Inviting people to view Mr. Paul’s comments with the same approval you & I share. I’ve also come to view this as somewhat meaningless. It’s the next step after that that is tricky. Because it’s hard to separate libertarianism from anarchy. “Building a castle with bone-dry sand” and all that. The speeches are made, you hear the “rah rah” from the gallery…then it’s time to vote in another left-wing Congress with tons and tons of new entitlements, and nary a peep uttered for the next two years about the rights of the minority. Lather, rinse, repeat.
- mkfreeberg | 03/15/2011 @ 17:28
Yes, it is the double-standard. The utter lack of governing principle. The end is the principle to them.

When the “outdated” limiting Constitution gets in their way, they want “democracy” to legitimize whatever they can get, but when “democracy” doesn’t go their way, they hide behind the “outdated” structure of the Constitution again. They want it both ways. Once they get what they want via “democracy”, the people no longer have a say — it’s “the rules” now.

When they rammed the health care bill through, they justified highly irregular parliamentary tactics as “elections have consequences”.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they take their ball and go home so the new majority can’t play “democracy” (that is, vote on bills — due to pariliamentary rules).

In other words, rules were made to be broken in the name of the people when the rules inhibit what they want to accomplish via “democracy”, but when “democracy” is stacked against them, it’s all about the rules again.
- philmon | 03/15/2011 @ 20:19
You got it Phil.

I’d be much less scared of them if they knew down to the marrow of their bones they wanted to deprive people of choice. But they don’t, they’re more in this mold of “we want it but we don’t know we want it.” They think they’re the champions of choice; they’d swear to it on a stack of whatever.

They just don’t have anything concrete to back this up. But it doesn’t alter their delusions about themselves, not even one tiny bit.
- mkfreeberg | 03/15/2011 @ 21:10
Ok, this made me laugh.

they’d swear to it on a stack of whatever

Yes, what would they swear on? What is it, exactly, that they hold sacred enough to swear on (and have it mean something)?

A stack of “An Inconvenient Truth” DVD’s?

Michael Moore movies?

🙂
- philmon | 03/16/2011 @ 07:11
I was flailing around for a word. Again.

Yes, I was ready to type in the word “Bibles.” But…y’know.
- mkfreeberg | 03/16/2011 @ 07:41
If they weren’t so delusional they could argue representative democracy is shown by loudly and obnoxiously protesting and if other don’t like it, well they’re just making certain their views are known by their representatives.

Of course if they weren’t so delusional then they might realize that “oh yeah – tea partiers are doing the same thing and are not just racist Hitlers out to crush everything not white middle America”.
- tgoon | 03/16/2011 @ 11:01
Remember, when “they” commit a sin against Progressivism, they are automatically absolved, because they are “on The Right side of History™”.
- philmon | 03/16/2011 @ 14:24

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

“Accepting Elections Only When They Win”Tuesday, March 15th, 2011

“Accepting Elections Only When They Win”
Tuesday, March 15th, 2011