“Public Option” Could Shatter Notion Of “Majority Rules”
By Mande Wilkes
“Majority rules” is all-American, the cornerstone of this nation’s governance, culture, and identity.
And it should be: It’s just, it’s logical, it’s fair. Majority knows no partiality; it is stark and declarative, invincible to illusion.
It worked for quite a while, this “majority rules” concept. But now there is no longer a majority – at least on most issues, the chief issues of our day.
According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, Americans are split right now down the middle on the issue of health care reform.
From the Washington Post:
As Congress begins its second week back from August recess, the playing field is virtually level: Americans remain almost deadlocked in their opinion of the Democrats’ health-care initiative, with 46 percent in favor of the proposed changes and 48 percent opposed. There is also a clean split on Obama’s handling of the issue, with 48 percent approving and the same number disapproving.
The public also divides about evenly — 51 percent in favor, 47 percent against — on the question of whether people should be required to have health insurance, a central element of the plans under consideration.
So how is this supposed to work? How does a democracy – a word which embodies nothing more or less than “majority rules” – operate without a majority to rule?
That Americans aren’t unanimous is American … that’s as it’s meant to be. That there is no American majority is toxic and revolutionary. It stifles the entire U.S. model, threatening the very core of this country.
Because what is America, really, without a majority? The whole of its identity is tied inexorably to the democratic ideal – the idea that most of the people get what they want.
That’s no longer possible: There is no “most people” to whom to cater. How to go forward as a democracy when there is no democracy to rule?
We’ll answer that with our handling of health care reform … that will be the legacy of reform.
Comments
By 1 + 1 = 3 on September 14th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Wait – so it can be passed through Congress by the minority members and then be signed by the candidate with the minority of the votes, McCain?
By Gillon on September 14th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Interesting piece, but take a look at John C. Calhoun’s “Disquisition on Government’ for another view on majority rule. His argument is pretty much the opposite of yours: Majority rule is not always the panacea for everything– how does a minority in a democracy protect itself against majority rule?
By CMouse on September 14th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
One of the things you’ve forgotten, Mandy, is 40% of the population suck on the government teat for total support. This already gives the Democrat position those votes automatically. If this were still a nation of rugged individualists, the crowds would have been a lot larger in Washington. When the dependent populations reach over 50%, you’ll see a lot more people marching in the streets. After all, my ancestors started a War over stuff like this and look at the legacy we were left with afterwards. Deo Vindice!
By CNSYD on September 14th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
People don’t want “health insurance” they want “health care”. The problem is who pays? I have health insurance. I can visit my doctor with a complaint and in a lot of instances get sent to another doctor who puts me in a fancy machine to look at my inards. One visit was over $1600. Must be big payments on that machine. Of course if patients weren’t sent to get these high priced pictures, then the community wouldn’t have the machine. So how many referrals were medically necessary vs those referrals to make sure the machine gets used?
By JGaltJr on September 14th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
The Constitution does not rely on the concept of majority rule. The electoral college, the senate, the judicial branch, and the presidential veto are a few examples of counter-majoritarian pieces of the Constitution. This is not a bad thing. Federalist No. 10 says it all. Your conception of democracy sunk Greece. I’m going to go with Madison on this one.
By LouisianaPurchase on September 15th, 2009 at 7:19 am
If the healthcare proposal could be presented in a more moderate format, there would be more agreement, thus more majority. What we currently have is a situation of polar opposites. There MUST be more bipartisan work on the healthcare bill for it to be palatable to the majority.
By Pat Hendrix on September 15th, 2009 at 8:04 am
This isn’t Periclean Athens, Made. The United States does not pass this or that bill based on the polling of the week. If it had, Democrats would have passed a bill in June when 70 percent of Americans favored a public option or in 1993 when a clear majority favored Clinton’s healthcare proposal. No, laws are passed by the elected representatives of the people. If you failed to notice the past two election cycles, a clear majority of Americans threw their support behind the Democrats. Elections have consequences.
Now grow up and stop using erroneous numbers – like 40 percent of Americans are on government subsidies – and get some ideas. Then go to the voters and win elections. It shouldn’t be hard with Pelosi and Reid on the other side.
Or you could continue to whine and talk about death panels. That’s a winner.