I subscribe to The New York Times, and therefore have had a periodic opportunity to read an editorial column dubbed, "The Conversation." The column consists of an ongoing discussion between the two people shown above. Columnist Gail Collins is on the left, and columnist Bret Stephens is on the right. The left-right placement in this image is undoubtedly no accident. Collins is the more "liberal," or "progressive." Stephens is the opposite, though he doesn't rant.
On October 15, 2024 - a date prior to the November 5th presidential election - Collins and Stephens discussed the candadicies of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. Stephens (the conservative) had, at that point, promised not to vote for Trump, but was unwilling to indicate that he'd vote for Harris. Collins had definitely declared herself for Harris.
The October 15th edition of "The Conversation" was titled, "Three Weeks To Go, and That's All Anyone Is Sure Of." Well, now, on December 28th, we know what happened since then. Donald J. Trump will be our next president, starting next month.
Here is what is prompting this blog posting - the following statement by Stephens, about the filibuster:
Bret: .... what do you think of getting rid of the filibuster?
Gail: Well, as a cynic, I’d say it depends on which party’s in charge. If Trump — shudder — wins and the Republicans take control of the Senate, I suspect I’d be happy with anything that slows down the agenda. But long term, I’ve never thought it was really fair to give the party that elected fewer senators the power to just close everything down.How about you?Bret: You’ve basically explained why I’m against getting rid of the filibuster: Like it or not, the party to which you don’t belong is going to have a majority, now or sometime in the future, and the filibuster is a very useful curb on its power. It also preserves the Senate’s role as a check on the often mindlessly majoritarian impulses of the House.Gail: I hear you, but doesn’t that sound like trying to make sure the people’s choice doesn’t have the power to do much?Bret: To me, that’s mostly the point (emphasis added).
I think it's a pretty safe bet that many Democrats will now adopt the Stephens approach. Since we're not the majority, let's find some way to prevent the majority from doing what it thinks is best. There is, in fact, a good argument for requiring a "more than a majority" vote on issues of great significance. In California, for instance, we don't allow a number of significant tax increases to go forward without a two-thirds majority vote. But the other argument needs to be taken seriously, too. If the majority wants to do something - and what the majority wants to do is a bad idea - perhaps the way to deal with that is to let the bad idea demonstrate its unsuitability. Do we really belief that "majoritarian" impulses should always be suspect?
As I said right after the election. We need to "reflect" on how we can best insure that a government that is "of, by, and for the people does not "perish from the earth." Insulating the people from the consequences of their choices may not be the best way.
As I have said before, I believe Lincoln's "of, by, and for the people" formula properly describes the essence of "self-government." And I think it's the "by the people" part of that formula that is most important. If I am right, we all should be finding ways to reengage, so as to carry out our responsibilities to "self-government."
Let's "reflect" upon that!
Image Credit:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment!