Alonzo
11-21-2007, 04:39 AM
The “will of the people” is a sound bite heard a lot these days in political and cultural debates. The phrase occurs in print and you hear it on TV and talk radio. As the 2008 election nears, I expect to encounter it even more. It’s offered as the gold standard for democratically made decisions as if God him (or her) self inscribed the concept in stone. The folks, usually politicians, pounding the will of the people drum would not want you to think about, for example, the reality that Jesus himself was crucified by the “will of the people”. They very much want to continue using this idea to promote and justify all sorts of bigotry. They seem to be aiming at silencing voices of descent, unpopular beliefs and just about anyone who happens to disagree with “mainstream America”.
Our country’s founders, those who wrote our Constitution, were keenly aware of and concerned about the bad things that could happen if “will of the people” was applied simplistically. They deliberately constructed a system of government designed with checks and balances on power that, in reality, protects minorities from the tyranny of the many and the many from the tyranny of the few. It’s called a “constitutional republic” and within it, all three branches of government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) play important and necessary roles.
It’s easy to forget that the United States is not - in the purest sense - a “democracy” but rather a “republic”. Actually, the United States is a mix of two concepts of government: Under common law, it’s republican. Under statutory law, it’s democratic. In a republic, people claim and enjoy God-given “natural rights.” In a democracy, only government granted privileges known as “civil rights” are recognized.
Think about it, even our salute to flag and country has us repeating the words: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands.......”. The distinction between a republic and a democracy has significant legal implications that should be remembered by “will of the people” drum-beaters.
In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. Pure Democracies do not recognize “significant minorities” and except for certain civil rights or privileges granted by the condescending majority, no inherent rights are recognized. Only the will of the people (or the will of the majority) counts. More simply, a pure democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. It was under the rule of such a democracy that Socrates was executed, not because he harmed anyone but because the majority found his ideas threatening, distasteful and not reflective of common values and traditions.
Fortunately, in a republican form of government such as exists in the United States, we are dedicated to the principal that there will be “liberty and justice for all” - not solely for the majority - but for all! In a republic, people have natural rights instead of just civil rights. Our countries founders believed this so strongly that the entire Bill of Rights is essentially a set of principals existing primarily for the protection of minorities. Remember, in a republic, one vote on a jury overrides the majority. In a pure democracy, such an event would never happen.
Even a brief review of human history reveals any number of shameful and sad events perpetuated under the thumb of the “will of the people”. From the death of Socrates mentioned earlier to the burning of witches at the stake in early New England or the hanging from a tree of some hapless minority member, and on to the support of human slavery and the forbidding of inter-racial marriage, the will of the people has often supported heinous group behaviors. Despite all this dry history, there are still people who would have you believe that the will of the majority is all that matters.
Several current debates are essentially a tug of war between these two concepts of government: Republic and Democratic. One of those continuing hot topic debates is the idea of gay marriage. “Activist” judges are now often viewed as opposing the will of the people, which on a state-by state basis has soundly denied same-sex couples the same marital rights and benefits as granted opposite-sex couples. But in a republic such as we have here in the United States, these same judges are, in reality, doing the job they are suppose to do. In some cases, they overturn will of the people decisions because such decisions deny equal treatment under the law or are an abridgement of the inherent rights of minorities. Though such decisions are decried by some, they are actual indications that our system of government is working as it was intended, not the other way around.
Remember, in a pure democracy, the will of the people expressed at 51% or greater is the only determining factor in any decision making process. But also take note (as only one example - and like it or not): the outcome of the 2000 US presidential election was determined not by the will of the people, but by a series of decisions made within the judicial branch of our Federal Government. This occurred precisely because the United States is a Republic and not a pure democracy!
The “Will of the People” has long ago joined an ever growing list of catchy terms and repeated phrases. Most of these terms and words have vague and ill-defined meanings. Still, they have become so successfully associated with negative spin that their very mention sounds ominous and evil. “Activist judges” as mentioned earlier is only one of many examples. If you think about the meaning, it really translates to a description of any judge who makes an unpopular ruling or a decision with which you disagree. “Family values” is another term that has become nearly meaningless except as used to condemn the values of others with whom you might also disagree.
In a country where the average high school graduate cannot name the last five US presidents, cannot locate Iraq on a map and cannot reliably distinguish between socialism, communism and a constitutional democracy and who will readily tell you how much they hate the subject of “history” (and be proud of their ignorance), do we really want to imply that the easily swayed and stampeded “will of the people” is the standard to aim for? Do we really just want a continuing string of social and political crucifixions?
To keep our form of government healthy, we must resist the easy lull offered by the use of mean-spirited and negative spin terms. We need to think through a debate and not succumb to the dumbing-down of complicated social issues presented in sound-bites because they fit better into a fifteen second TV news or commercial spot or because they flow more readily from vitriolic mouths of talk radio personalities. What we need is a better educated and informed electorate. An electorate that is not satisfied with being spoon fed a particular diet of political or social drivel. An electorate not so lazy as to just sit back and watch and believe some version of the world as it goes by on their 52 in. HDTV.
So, next time you hear someone pounding the drum for the “will of the people”, dive underneath and try to get to an understanding of how that “will” was determined (or will be determined) and by what methods it might have been manipulated. Sad to say, we humans can be stampeded almost as easily as a herd of cattle.
Still, I’d like to believe that intuitively and deep down, most reasonable folks realize that the will of the people is often not the simple product of a rational process. We know in our hearts there is a fine and fragile line between the will of the people and mob rule. So speak up and pound your own shoe even if the will of the people seems to oppose your position.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=43464
I'm not too fond of the style, but the substance of the article I fully agree with.
Our country’s founders, those who wrote our Constitution, were keenly aware of and concerned about the bad things that could happen if “will of the people” was applied simplistically. They deliberately constructed a system of government designed with checks and balances on power that, in reality, protects minorities from the tyranny of the many and the many from the tyranny of the few. It’s called a “constitutional republic” and within it, all three branches of government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) play important and necessary roles.
It’s easy to forget that the United States is not - in the purest sense - a “democracy” but rather a “republic”. Actually, the United States is a mix of two concepts of government: Under common law, it’s republican. Under statutory law, it’s democratic. In a republic, people claim and enjoy God-given “natural rights.” In a democracy, only government granted privileges known as “civil rights” are recognized.
Think about it, even our salute to flag and country has us repeating the words: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands.......”. The distinction between a republic and a democracy has significant legal implications that should be remembered by “will of the people” drum-beaters.
In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. Pure Democracies do not recognize “significant minorities” and except for certain civil rights or privileges granted by the condescending majority, no inherent rights are recognized. Only the will of the people (or the will of the majority) counts. More simply, a pure democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. It was under the rule of such a democracy that Socrates was executed, not because he harmed anyone but because the majority found his ideas threatening, distasteful and not reflective of common values and traditions.
Fortunately, in a republican form of government such as exists in the United States, we are dedicated to the principal that there will be “liberty and justice for all” - not solely for the majority - but for all! In a republic, people have natural rights instead of just civil rights. Our countries founders believed this so strongly that the entire Bill of Rights is essentially a set of principals existing primarily for the protection of minorities. Remember, in a republic, one vote on a jury overrides the majority. In a pure democracy, such an event would never happen.
Even a brief review of human history reveals any number of shameful and sad events perpetuated under the thumb of the “will of the people”. From the death of Socrates mentioned earlier to the burning of witches at the stake in early New England or the hanging from a tree of some hapless minority member, and on to the support of human slavery and the forbidding of inter-racial marriage, the will of the people has often supported heinous group behaviors. Despite all this dry history, there are still people who would have you believe that the will of the majority is all that matters.
Several current debates are essentially a tug of war between these two concepts of government: Republic and Democratic. One of those continuing hot topic debates is the idea of gay marriage. “Activist” judges are now often viewed as opposing the will of the people, which on a state-by state basis has soundly denied same-sex couples the same marital rights and benefits as granted opposite-sex couples. But in a republic such as we have here in the United States, these same judges are, in reality, doing the job they are suppose to do. In some cases, they overturn will of the people decisions because such decisions deny equal treatment under the law or are an abridgement of the inherent rights of minorities. Though such decisions are decried by some, they are actual indications that our system of government is working as it was intended, not the other way around.
Remember, in a pure democracy, the will of the people expressed at 51% or greater is the only determining factor in any decision making process. But also take note (as only one example - and like it or not): the outcome of the 2000 US presidential election was determined not by the will of the people, but by a series of decisions made within the judicial branch of our Federal Government. This occurred precisely because the United States is a Republic and not a pure democracy!
The “Will of the People” has long ago joined an ever growing list of catchy terms and repeated phrases. Most of these terms and words have vague and ill-defined meanings. Still, they have become so successfully associated with negative spin that their very mention sounds ominous and evil. “Activist judges” as mentioned earlier is only one of many examples. If you think about the meaning, it really translates to a description of any judge who makes an unpopular ruling or a decision with which you disagree. “Family values” is another term that has become nearly meaningless except as used to condemn the values of others with whom you might also disagree.
In a country where the average high school graduate cannot name the last five US presidents, cannot locate Iraq on a map and cannot reliably distinguish between socialism, communism and a constitutional democracy and who will readily tell you how much they hate the subject of “history” (and be proud of their ignorance), do we really want to imply that the easily swayed and stampeded “will of the people” is the standard to aim for? Do we really just want a continuing string of social and political crucifixions?
To keep our form of government healthy, we must resist the easy lull offered by the use of mean-spirited and negative spin terms. We need to think through a debate and not succumb to the dumbing-down of complicated social issues presented in sound-bites because they fit better into a fifteen second TV news or commercial spot or because they flow more readily from vitriolic mouths of talk radio personalities. What we need is a better educated and informed electorate. An electorate that is not satisfied with being spoon fed a particular diet of political or social drivel. An electorate not so lazy as to just sit back and watch and believe some version of the world as it goes by on their 52 in. HDTV.
So, next time you hear someone pounding the drum for the “will of the people”, dive underneath and try to get to an understanding of how that “will” was determined (or will be determined) and by what methods it might have been manipulated. Sad to say, we humans can be stampeded almost as easily as a herd of cattle.
Still, I’d like to believe that intuitively and deep down, most reasonable folks realize that the will of the people is often not the simple product of a rational process. We know in our hearts there is a fine and fragile line between the will of the people and mob rule. So speak up and pound your own shoe even if the will of the people seems to oppose your position.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=43464
I'm not too fond of the style, but the substance of the article I fully agree with.