I suspect it's
pretty clear where I stand on the showdown over health care, the government
shutdown, and the looming debt ceiling.
I support the
president not negotiating on defunding a law that that made it through Congress
and the Supreme Court and which several repeal votes failed on, because that is
supporting the democratic system. If he gives in at this point, then popular
support and the procedures spelled out in the Constitution no longer matter,
and the terrorists will have won.
The shutdown and
the debt ceiling are concerns, but I suspect things will work out. One thing
that is especially appalling is the heroism some of the obstructionists are
willing to take credit for. I can see why it's more appealing than admitting
you are throwing the congressional equivalent of a tantrum, but I still favor a
closer relationship with reality. Anyway, it got me thinking about when such
behavior would be acceptable.
To look further
into this, I am going to take a quote from George Will:
"I hear Democrats
say, ‘The Affordable Care Act is the law,’ as though we’re supposed to
genuflect at that sunburst of insight and move on. Well, the Fugitive Slave Act
was the law, separate but equal was the law, lots of things are the law and
then we change them."
Okay, there is kind
of a fair point in here. The Fugitive Slave Act was law, enacted by Congress.
"Separate but equal" covered many laws, but was shored up by a
Supreme Court Case, Plessy v. Ferguson. They were both
bad things. So, if you have the opportunity to go against the popular will to
strike these laws down, do you?
It's not
necessarily an easy question. I think looking at the value of keeping the
government running needs to be a separate post, but for now let's agree that it
is a major thing, that affects many people negatively.
Knowing that, I
already think that I would not do it for the Fugitive Slave Act, because in
that case the real problem is slavery. If you strike down that law, but still
allow slavery, you have gained some good but left a lot of bad, and so maybe
it's not worth scorching the earth, which you should never do lightly.
What about
"Separate But Equal"? I might lean more towards that one. It was an
insidious policy, and perpetuated many ills. Of course, with it relating to a
Supreme Court decision rather than a law that passed, that gets trickier for
how to fix. There were probably many things other than pure obstruction that
could have been tried, and maybe enough people cared to do it.
Personally, I don't
like disruption. Think of "You lie" during the State of the Union
address. Really, he was just being a jerk. It was rude, it didn't change
anything, and the refusal to give even the most basic respect to those you
disagree with is a large part of what is wrong with society and government.
Also, it tends to
be ineffective. Those tactics tend to reinforce alignments rather than bringing
anyone over, so all you do is increase bad feelings, which is the last thing
needed now.
There are certainly
times when the minority has a moral imperative over the majority, and that is
very much the case for those who worked against slavery and for Civil Rights. I
guess that is why the keep bringing up the examples that they do, but really,
there is no equivalence between increasing access to health care and the
Holocaust.
The voice of the
people has its flaws, because people have flaws, but it's still not something
to be taken lightly. It is amazing how little awareness some show of the irony
of their actions. To quit picking on legislators for a moment, I am going to
provide this example:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/11/dozens-not-thousands-show-up-for-dc-trucker-protest/
If that was
successful, it would have made life much worse for a lot of people, so I'm glad
the turnout was low, but also, one of the demands of "Truckers Ride for
the Constitution" was that President Obama resign. You know, because the
person who was elected, based on popular and electoral vote, twice, should step
down because of a bunch of truckers who apparently have nothing better to do.
I hate to be
difficult based on technicalities, but that kind of sounds against the
anti-constitutional, a little. And again, this is something that mainly results
in increasing bad feelings, because nothing significant happened on a federal
level, but I do find myself wanting to end every sentence with "You
half-wits!"
I do not rule out
that there may be times when I will go outside the normal processes, but I
think there will need to be some criteria in place. The issue will need to be
important enough that the inconvenience it causes you will have value, even to
you. It will need to be the only option possible. It will need to not be based
on my own stupid narcissism.
I don't think that
comes up very much.
No comments:
Post a Comment