[IP] I posted some comments on "Filibuster vs The Tyranny of the Faux Majority"
------- Original message -------
From: Bob Frankston <Bob19-0501@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 6/4/'05, 1:29
As an aside perhaps it's telling but Tom Friedman seems to have started his new
book tour on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show.
http://www.frankston.com/?Name=Filibuster
For those who like zero clicks ...
The Filibuster vs the Tyranny of the Faux Majority
This week we are facing an attempt to do away the filibuster. The dictionary
describes the "filibuster" as an obstructionist ploy but given that the checks
and
balances of the US government are being subverted by an alignment of people
selected for a philosophical system of moral simplicity we must have a way to
raise
at least some issues to a level of high importance and require something more
than a simple majority. We must rethink the filibuster as a mechanism for
demandin
g extra caution on vital decisions by requiring a super-majority such as a two
thirds vote. This isn't a perfect solution but it does provide some protection
fo
r minorities in a society that is acting as if it were a theocracy and that the
majority's beliefs must be imposed on the rest of us.
I don't believe such a view accurately reflects our diverse society as a whole.
Those who seek simple and unambiguous answers to a small set of issues to the ex
clusion of other considerations gain leverage as the other voices balance each
other out. By focusing on primary elections where political parties choose who
wi
ll run in the full election, the politicians must court the single issue voters
if they are to be elected at all. That's a political reality in the current syst
em and leadership is for naught if you don't get elected.
The recent Schiavo circus once again demonstrated a huge disconnect between the
demands of these voters and the rest of us. ABC showed 63 to 28 against the gove
rnment's action, CBS found 85 opposed to the government's action. Jeff Jarvis
his shown that the campaign for "decency" is even more out of alignment with
peopl
e's tolerance. How could protecting us from the sound of "fuck" trump the US
Constitution? The mystery to me is why the press amplifies the distortion --
are th
e guardians of our rights incapable of seeing past the political framing of
these moralistic crusades?
It has made me rethink the filibuster. Obstruction is a way to demand extra
caution before enacting laws. It's a way of saying that an issue is important
enough
to require a "super-majority" of two-thirds of the senators. By its nature it
is not used casually.
Though it was used to thwart tolerance when civil rights legislation was
introduced, the larger societal goals did prevail. Today's attempt to impose
morality o
n all of us is not symmetric. It's not just about intolerance but a fearful
retreat from science. After all, science questions the accepted wisdom and
raises th
e possibility that we are merely inhabitants of this world, not simply the
masters. At very least, you should read Jared Diamond's Collapse! to understand
the d
angers of willful ignorance.
Today the filibuster is about the only tool left that protects us from the
tyranny of this false majority. If we lose this protection, we will be left
with no p
rotection against a judiciary vetted for ideological purity.
Bob Frankston http://www.frankston.com
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/