The Creaking Joints of Democracy

[Valin]

Power Line:

Steven Hayward

December 24, 2015

 

One of my favorite liberals, Philly magazine’s Joel Mathis (he’s one half of the “Red-Blue America” column with Ben Boychuk), offers up a conciliatory column in the spirit of Christmas today that I take at face value. A few relevant bits:

 

(Snip)

 

So far, so good. From here, Joel goes on to worry that our disagreements are getting so severe that our democracy itself may start to break down:

 

The problem? We Americans don’t really pay attention to each other any more. We’re not friends with each other anymore. We increasingly see our rivals as evil, meant to be stopped entirely. Compromise and accommodation—meetings of the minds—seem increasingly impossible in this atmosphere.

 

Our republic cannot survive this state of affairs for long. It rests on the notion that electoral losers accept the legitimacy of the winners, and that is increasingly no longer the case. . . Our republic also depends on healthy debate.

 

(Snip)

 

Let me explain this further with a seeming digression: the single hardest thing to persuade today’s students about is the theoretical limits to majority rule. I usually pose the question to students thus: can a democratic majority rightly vote to enslave itself? It is astonishing how vehement students are in insisting that the answer is Yes, became democracy means majority rule! End of discussion. The moral confusion becomes acute when the next question is: then what’s wrong with a majority voting to enslave a minority—whether racial or otherwise?

 

The solution to this problem is subtle, but involves an essential point: majority rule is the practical substitute for unanimous consent to the first principles of equal rights (which is not the same thing as equality—take note, liberals) and government by consent. And at the core of those first principles is the philosophy of the natural rights of individuals. Here’s how Jaffa explained it and its connection to the kind of deliberative debate Joel wants to see thrive:

 

(Snip)

 

Joel and his collaborator Ben are quite right to observe the “mutual frustration” of both sides of the political spectrum in the U.S. today. But I say it is mostly the liberals’ fault, for reasons Oakeshott suggests. I’ve been wondering if it is possible to measure in some quantitative way which side is more disgruntled at the moment, and I’m not sure such an objective measure is possible. But ask yourself this question: why is the left so unhappy—and Bernie Sanders getting so much traction—near the end of the rule of the most leftist president in the nation’s history?

 

(Snip)