Why Do Democrats Hate Democracy?

Mandates and Their Consequences
© 2011 Ross Williams

Memories! What a sweet bit of nostalgia is the spring of 2010 now to liberals around the country. That was the last time liberals in their democrat party tent could believe, with any amount of conviction, that they had a mandate from the election of 2008.

And they did. That mandate was to not be Dubya. The country was tired of him. Spendthrift policies built upon a base of fear-mongering, appealing to the desires of a very decided minority, and – worst – virtually open-ended. Super-regulatory intrusion into the daily lives of individuals built upon a base of fear-mongering, appealing to the desires of a very decided minority [mostly the regulators themselves], and – worst – virtually open-ended. Abdication of philosophical substance in pushing the spendthrift policies and super-regulation built on the base of...

...and, well, the point should be sufficiently made.

Dubya had an [R] after his name, and starting in 2006 the one-third of the nation who is neither [D] nor [R] but who votes side to side started to vote for the [D] names on the ballot. I’m among them, if only because there isn’t a viable libertarian candidate for anything.

Americans were tired of Iraq. Some, that we were there at all. Others, like me, that we didn’t leave when we should have.

Americans were tired of the Patriot Act. Some, like me, that it existed at all. Others, that it wasn’t as “temporary” as it was initially claimed to be.

Americans [in general, not including me] were tired of Afghan war detainees being held in Gitmo. Some, that they were held at all because kidnapping those who shoot at American soldiers in a war is rude and inhumane. Others, that they were held as, like, war detainees or something, and not given their Constitutional Rights as required under some hallucinogenic reading of the Geneva Conventions.

And Americans were tired of their government spending money on things they no longer wanted or never wanted in the first place, spending more money than they had [and after the [R] Congress held Clinton’s feet to the fire in the ‘90s and imposed fiscal solvency if only on a year-to-year basis], and spending more money than the vast majority wanted to spend on such things even if they had it to spend ... which they didn’t.

Americans were tired of Dubya, anyone who looked like him, and the elephant he rode in on.

His party lost Congress in ’06, and his party lost relevance in Congress in ’08 and the White House to boot. That oughta learn ‘em!

The Democrats were going to fix what was wrong with the country by doing all those things that caused them to get elected in the first place.

The Democrat Congress could have closed Gitmo [for war detention] any time they chose after the Class of ’06 was sworn in; they did not do so.

The Democrat Congress could have ended our involvement in Iraq any time they chose after the Class of ’06 was sworn in; they did not do so.

The Democrat Congress could have rescinded the Patriot Act by failing to renew it any time they chose after the Class of ’06 was sworn in; they did not do so.

The Democrat Congress could have reined in federal spending any time they chose after the Class of ’06 was sworn in; they did not do so.

Well, doing these things between ’07 and ’09 would have risked a Bush veto. Why waste legislative effort on guaranteed losers? Okay ... that may have happened.

But:

The Democrat Congress could have closed Gitmo [for war detention] any time they chose after the Class of ’08 and the National Savior was sworn in; they did not do so.

The Democrat Congress could have ended our involvement in Iraq any time they chose after the Class of ’08 and the National Savior was sworn in; they did not do so.

The Democrat Congress could have rescinded the Patriot Act by failing to renew it any time they chose after the Class of ’08 and the National Savior was sworn in; they did not do so.

The Democrat Congress could have reined in federal spending any time they chose after the Class of ’08 and the National Savior was sworn in; they did not do so.

With the exception of a feeble, half-hearted attempt to move the Gitmo detention to a vacant federal prison in Illinois – which is only “closing Gitmo” in a teen-agers’ petulant loyyerese – the Democrat Congress and the National Savior didn’t even attempt any of the things they were elected to do.

Instead, they took the opportunity to pile on. If Dubya can start two wars that only some of us want after we figured out the scare tactics behind them, the National Savior can impose a legislative agenda that only a third of the nation wants in the first place, even after the fear-mongering, with the only benefit going to a very decided minority, and – worst – undeniably open-ended.

If Dubya can make $500billion deficits, our National Savior can double down.

And because Democrats don’t make any pretense of being fiscally restrained, the typical liberal voting bloc doesn’t care when their Democrat politicians spend money they don’t have, and the only time the liberal voting bloc even notices government spending money it doesn’t have is when Republicans – who do claim to be fiscally responsible – do that spending.

Of course, the main reason the liberal voting bloc notices is so they can claim that Republicans are doing something wrong. Needless to say, the spending money no one has thing isn’t wrong itself because if it was, Democrats would be in deep trouble; what’s wrong is pretending to be fiscally responsible before spending money you don’t have. That is one political hypocrisy the Democrats can legitimately claim they do not have. They do not claim to be fiscally responsible; they would seem to be proud of being fiscally irresponsible, in fact.

Their voting bloc relies on it as we can all see in Wisconsin.

...and Indiana.

...and Ohio.

Because a funny thing happened on the way to the quorum. The one-third of American voters who are neither [D] nor [R] and who vote side to side couldn’t convince the Democrats elected in ’08 that they only had a mandate to not be Dubya, and not a mandate to out-Dubya Dubya.

End Iraq; yes. Close Gitmo; if you must. Rescind the Patriot Act; please. Stop spending money like water in a flood; definitely.

Obamacare; no. Endless bailouts; no. Reinvestment and Recovery – where the main investment went into the super-regulatory intrusions expanded under Dubya’s fear-mongered policies that we didn’t want and that doesn’t accomplish its goal in the first place; no.

The Democrats were put into office for a reason; they failed that reason and instead gave the nation what the nation didn’t want once again. ...and then the election of 2010 occurred. For the same reason that those who are neither [D] nor [R] flipped to [D] in ’06 and ’08, they flipped back to [R] in ’10.

That reason? Do what WE tell you to do, not what you want to do.

Doing what they want is not their job; their job is to do what the voters who voted for them want done. “Of, by and for the people”. Democrats lost their jobs by the fist-full last year. Nationally, locally and in virtually every state.

It seems that their replacements in at least some states are now willing to listen to the voters. Wisconsin has a $3.6 billion projected shortfall in its public employee pension fund, awarded by decades of Democrats negotiating with the public service unions who donate to Democrat candidates, who’ll then take office and “negotiate” those contracts for the unions who support them. Wisconsin is broke [though not as broke as Illinois]. The majority of Wisconsin voters want fiscal responsibility in their state; controlling unsustainable fixed-benefit pensions – and the contracts which created them, and the process which allows it – is a great place to start.

Naturally, the public service unions are having major hissy fits about it. And Wisconsin’s Democrat Senators have fled the state in order to play the procedural game of Lack of Quorum. Just like Democrats in Texas did during the redistricting squabble after the 2000 Census.

Indiana’s Democrats have fled Indiana as well to avoid quorum in Indiana’s similar public service union legislation. And Ohio is close to doing the same.

Democrats avoiding democracy. Kinda ironic, annit?

Yes, denying quorum is a procedural game. It’s a useful symbolic protest, and quite possibly necessary from time to time, maybe even more often than it’s been used. I can think of a piece of federal legislation early last year that could have used a Lack of Quorum. Once the symbolism has been delivered and the point made, however, legislators need to get back to the job of representing the people who elected them, even if they are in the minority.

Take a deep breath, Democrats, participate in the Senate vote, lose the Senate vote, and then use the democratic process to try to convince the voters before the next election that the law is wrong and needs to be rescinded. If the voters agree, they’ll vote for more Democrats next time who also believe that public service union members are the only people in our nation who deserve to be exempt from reality, and who deserve to benefit from economically unsustainable fixed-benefit pensions funded by taxpayers who are tired of sticky government hands thrusting themselves deeper and deeper into taxpayers’ pockets.

Democracy is the will of the majority, even if the minority doesn’t like it. A constitutional democracy, like ours, lays the extra caveat that this Majority Will cannot exceed certain pre-defined limits. Fiscal responsibility doesn’t exceed a constitutional limitation, however. It is considered – or should be – a constitutional requirement.

Yes, those who typically vote democrat do not like fiscal responsibility; it hurts the endless list of entitlements they believe they are due. But the majority in the states of Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio disagrees. That’s what counts. That’s the only thing that counts, in fact.

“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day you didn’t listen to us.”

Can you hear us now?