Democrats Aren't Losing Faith in Our Constitutional System. They Just Don't Like It
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In liberals' imaginations, there are only four ways to lose elections -- and none has to do with their leftist turn, their hysterics or their one-dimensional identity politics. Democrats say they lose because of gerrymandering, voter suppression (sometimes known as asking for ID), Russian mind-control rays deployed by social media, and our antiquated and unfair Constitution.
That last excuse is becoming increasingly popular among pundits who continue to invent new crises to freak out about.
Take Vox's Ezra Klein, a longtime champion of direct democracy: "I don't think people are ready for the crisis that will follow if Democrats win the House popular vote but not the majority," he tweeted before the midterms. "After Kavanaugh, Trump, Garland, Citizens United, Bush v. Gore, etc, the party is on the edge of losing faith in the system (and reasonably so)."
The "House popular vote" now joins the "national popular vote" and "Senate popular vote" as fictional gauges of governance used by Democrats who aren't brave enough to say they oppose the fundamental anti-majoritarianism that girds the Constitution.
Otherwise, why would Democrats lose faith in a "system" that is doing exactly what was intended? The Constitution explicitly protects small states (and individuals) from national majorities. The argument for diffusing democracy and checking a strong federal government is laid out in The Federalist Papers and codified on an array of levels. This was done on purpose. It is the system.
I mean, do Democrats really believe that the Electoral College was constructed to always correspond with the national vote? Do they believe that the signers of the Constitution were unaware that some states would be far bigger than others in the future? If the Founding Fathers didn't want Virginia to dictate how people in Delaware lived in 1787, why would they want California to dictate how people in Wyoming live in 2018? If you don't believe that this kind of proportionality is a vital part of American governance, you don't believe in American governance.
You can despise Brett Kavanaugh all you like, but why would Democrats lose faith in "the system" that saw Republicans follow directions laid out in the Constitution for confirming a Supreme Court nominee? Why would Democrats lose faith in "the system" that elected Donald Trump using the same Electoral College that every other president used? Why would they lose faith in a system that houses a Supreme Court that stops the other branches from banning political speech? When the Supreme Court affirmed the election of George W. Bush, it turned out to be the right call.
It's because they see the system as a way to achieve partisan goals, not as a set of politically neutral idealistic values.
It's not a civics problem, either. One hopes that such liberal activists as NBC News' Ken Dilanian, who wonders "how much longer the American majority will tolerate being pushed around by a rural minority," understand sixth-grade civics. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman surely knows that the Constitution doesn't give "disproportionate weight" to smaller states. It intentionally gives all states the same weight in the Senate. Krugman only finds this idea "disproportionate" because it protects millions of Americans from the centralized coercive state that he envisions for them. The disproportionality he sees merely reflects his own concerns. It has nothing to do with the system.
Also, rural America doesn't bully people such as Dilanian. The federal government was never supposed to be this powerful. Those in non-"forward-moving" America -- those dummies Krugman would like to nanny from Washington -- don't very much care how Dilanian lives. He, on the other hand, has big plans for them.
It should be noted that these majoritarians throw millions of Americans aside to make this argument. We don't know how a national majority would vote. There are many millions of Republicans in New York and California who don't involve themselves in the futility of state politics. Those who rely on a "Senate popular vote" are being particularly dishonest, considering California didn't have a Republican on the ballot Tuesday. There are more Republicans in California than there are in Wyoming.
But as you can see on Election Day, liberals have made "democracy" -- a word mentioned zero times in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence -- into a sacramental rite. Getting more votes in an election outweighs the inherent rights of liberty that are laid out in our founding documents -- unless, of course, a right happens to intersect with some advantageous partisan idea, e.g., birthright citizenship; then Democrats become strict originalists.
The only reason these folks who claim to want to save Constitution from Trump see crisis in the system is that it fails to deliver for them politically. They're not losing faith in the system. They just don't like the system.
Tags
Who is online
76 visitors
“You can despise Brett Kavanaugh all you like, but why would Democrats lose faith in "the system" that saw Republicans follow directions laid out in the Constitution for confirming a Supreme Court nominee? Why would Democrats lose faith in "the system" that elected Donald Trump using the same Electoral College that every other president used? Why would they lose faith in a system that houses a Supreme Court that stops the other branches from banning political speech? When the Supreme Court affirmed the election of George W. Bush, it turned out to be the right call.
It's because they see the system as a way to achieve partisan goals, not as a set of politically neutral idealistic values.
It's not a civics problem, either. One hopes that such liberal activists as NBC News' Ken Dilanian, who wonders "how much longer the American majority will tolerate being pushed around by a rural minority," understand sixth-grade civics. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman surely knows that the Constitution doesn't give "disproportionate weight" to smaller states. It intentionally gives all states the same weight in the Senate. Krugman only finds this idea "disproportionate" because it protects millions of Americans from the centralized coercive state that he envisions for them. The disproportionality he sees merely reflects his own concerns. It has nothing to do with the system.
Also, rural America doesn't bully people such as Dilanian. The federal government was never supposed to be this powerful. Those in non-"forward-moving" America -- those dummies Krugman would like to nanny from Washington -- don't very much care how Dilanian lives. He, on the other hand, has big plans for them.”
Yep. Whenever I think Constitution, Max Whitaker comes to mind. Fraud scams and all. Then again, there is the Trump, right?
HA, ever seen the movie "A Bridge To Far?" This is one of those times.
A disclaimer in the heading would be appropriate.
The author and Real Clear Politics are right on regarding the content of the article as written.
YES, they are!
Nice seed.
Thanks! I’m glad that you like it.
The appointment is allowed under the law for up to 210 days. Long before then a new AG will be appointed by the President and confirmed by the senate, Hopefully the AG of the state of Florida, Pam Bondi.
This shit happened because Democrats lost some elections, and they figured crying about the "system" was a winner with their whiny base.
Actually, the Democrat base is whiny because the Constitution is no longer taught in high school, let alone in middle school or earlier, and it is barely taught in college and is not a mandatory class. I graduated high school in 1991, that year was when we were required to have a course on the US Constitution, sadly, for only 1 semester. The other semester was our Economics course where we had our stock game that made me want to own 3M stock. I looked last year at my high school's website and it no longer lists a Social Studies course on the US Constitution. It is no longer being taught. Kids in my high school are not learning the Elastic Clause: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 or even what the powers of the Judiciary are or anything else dealing with the Constitution. They aren't learning that EVERY Citizen of the US and legal resident aliens are equally protected and have the right to speak their minds without the fear of suppression and that anyone trying to suppress such expression are tyrants, just as Antifa has become.
It’s federal law that constitution day be observed on September 17 each year, the anniversary of it being ratified. It, the constitution is supposed to be taught about on that day and constitution week, the week that Sept. 17 falls in. This year was the 231st anniversary of its ratification.
It should be required teaching for a full year at least not for 1 week or 1 day or even 6 months like I was taught. Plus, the state of residence's Constitution should also be taught for a full year, that one I got in 8th grade.
Many school districts in blue areas openly defy the one week each year law that congress passed. Perhaps there should be criminal or civil sanctions for non compliance.
One thing that should be on the books is that all Federal school funding is immediately withheld until they meet the law and can certify that the course is being taught in good faith.
I agree. Maybe the lame duck session in congress can address that.
I've always wondered, in the mind of a rich well heeled progressive liberal, once they get their majoritarian power, what are they going to do with all the poor little minority groups they don't need anymore to keep power?
Anyone else ever think of that?
E.A yes a few thousand years ago, and they had a solution to that Problem, interested to know who and how?
I don't have to go back thousands of years to come up with an absolute demonstrable answer, but go ahead, what do ya got?
E.A that is a " turn on the table " so go first.
Soviet Russia...
Your turn
E.A LOL, lost interest, no thanks have fun!
IE: Communism as Democracy can and will never work!!
That's what I thought....
Have a good morning...
The progressives of the 1890’s to 1920’s had some ideas on that topic. Eugenics comes to mind. George Bernard Shaw and Margaret Sanger has some writings and speeches on that matter.
I've always wondered, in the mind of a rich well heeled progressive liberal
Same thing the right does, throw them to one side like a used condom. The typical mind sets of the wealthy are somewhat the same for those that think politically, sans the politics the left seems to have greater compassion.
Well, if you get the point, once the politics is decided, and power rests with only a few, all compassion goes right out the window...... left right or middle.....
Why? cause none of them have actual compassion for anyone..... WE hear altogether too much how so and so demographic should just die already..... From both sides....
(right here on this site we are reminded of it almost every day)
Power knows no compassion. Because if you have compassion for one it will be assumed as hate for the other.....
[Removed]
we'll soon see how trumpsters demonstrate their comprehension of the Constitution when the new congress is installed
Good question!
We will show the new House majority exactly the same deference and respect that the Obama regime showed the then new GOP majority elected in 2010. Nothing more, nothing less.
Or, we will see how much the democrats will demonstrate their lack of knowledge....
you are pretty good at those wide ranging comprehensive generalities aren't you...
Democrats Aren't Losing Faith in Our Constitutional System. They Just Don't Like It
If that be the case (which it is not), better to loose faith than to just totally ignore it or bend it to a situation as Mr. Trump seems to attempt at every turn.