For the Left, it's only democracy when they win

[MARIO]

For the Left, it's only democracy when they win
By Ben Shapiro

Mar 15, 2006


Last week, Gov. Mike Rounds of South Dakota signed legislation prohibiting abortion in the state except in cases where the mother's life is in danger. The bill passed in the South Dakota Senate, 23-12. It passed in the South Dakota House of Representatives with flying colors, 50-18. Members of both political parties voted for the bill; the bill's chief sponsor was Sen. Julie Bartling, a Democrat.

Naturally, Planned Parenthood has pledged its opposition to the law. Sarah Stoesz, CEO of Planned Parenthood in Minnesota, South Dakota and North Dakota, states that Planned Parenthood will gauge public feeling about the bill before choosing whether to litigate. "We haven't decided yet. We're trying to sort out our strategy," she explained.

For Planned Parenthood, this should be an easy decision: Either the law is unconstitutional, or it is not. If the law is unconstitutional, filing a lawsuit is the only systemically correct decision -- after all, the judiciary is supposedly the proper protector of individual rights. If the law is fully constitutional, it is disreputable to consider litigation as an alternative to the political process -- filing a lawsuit to overturn fully constitutional public decision-making you don't like is antithetical to our system of governance.

But this is what the American left has become: For the left, democratic processes are valid only when they win. If the left loses in the political process, they sue. The people are no longer integral to the process; politics is a heads-I-win-tails-I-sue scenario. When respect for the American people means so little that republicanism itself becomes secondary to certain political end-goals, our system of government is in serious trouble.

Yet if the past few years of politics teaches us anything, it is that for the political left, end-goals trump American democratic processes every time. "Democracy isn't democracy," the left argues, "unless we win." That has been the message of the Democratic left since the 2000 election. How often have we seen the slogan "NOT MY PRESIDENT" plastered across a picture of George W. Bush? How often have we seen radical leftists declare that Republicans routinely steal elections? How often have we seen MoveOn.org members compare President Bush to Adolf Hitler? How often have we heard prominent Democrats like John Kerry describe the Bush administration as a "regime"?

Republicanism cannot survive such all-out assault. The principle of majoritarianism requires that communal decisions be respected, even as minorities try to persuade majorities to change their policies. Constitutional laws created through a legitimate political process are not binding only for those who vote for those laws. When leftists refuse to accept that President Bush is their president regardless of whether they voted for John Kerry, they undermine American republicanism.

READ THE REST:

www.townhall.com/print/print_story.php?sid=189905&loc=/opinion/columns/benshapiro/2006/03/15/189905.html

[bounce]

Exactly. And they have a peculiar definition of the word "bipartisanship" too.

As Limbaugh has repeatedly stated, "Bipartisanship means Republicans agree with THEM!"

[MARIO]

"Bipartisanship means Republicans agree with THEM!"



So true.

[AmericanPride]

Mario,
The same factionalist mentality exists in both parties. In fact, it exists in all parties, even the minor ones, who's agenda only fulfills the select and narrow interests of their financiers. When was the last time any party achieved its claimed broad domestic goals? Where is social security and health care reform? Immigration? Education? Why is there debate about whether or not it is best to win or lose in Iraq?

There is only one legitimate party: the American people.

[MARIO]

There is only one legitimate party: the American people.

So you keep saying, Chris.

Face it, Americans are disposed to various political views, hence the existence of the Republican and Democratic parties.

Madison hated factions. However, he recognized that they were a fact of life, given the various special interests and concerns of each American. So he wrote in Federalist 10 that "ambition would counteract ambition." He was right.

There is nothing wrong with partisanship. Madison instinctively realized that factions, while individually not a good thing, would serve an invaluable role in our republic by checking each other. It would also allow for a competition of ideas, and even drawing people into politics. And he, along with many of the Founders, did not anticipate a system of "bipartisanship." He supported factions presenting extremely different points of view, as it would serve the interests of the Republican.

I think he was very prescient on those particular views.

As for acheiving goals, would you not agree that the system was designed in such a way as to halt government responsiveness?

No side is going to get everthing they want, but they will achieve their goals to a certain extent. You know that.

Later Chris.

[AmericanPride]

Mario,
Yes - our system of government was designed with the intention of making reform and change difficult. But we now live in a time where technology, the expansive size of our country, and the "diminishment of time" in politics and economics makes responsiveness a necessity. While the "partisans" debate the merits of all the forms of education, our country is quickly losing its place among the industrial powers. While they debate immigration reform, our borders are penetrated by every manner of criminal and illegal substance. While they debate healthcare, millions of Americans suffer and hundreds of thousands die every year.

Americans are predisposed to different views. But these views should be the subject of debate, not fortified behind the palisades of party factionalism.