GOP Derails Senate Iraq-Nam Debate

The Republican Party spent much of the last six years demanding up or down votes on judicial nominees and threatened to set limits on filibusters, a custom of the Senate whereby debate can only end with 60 votes out of 100. Monday, the GOP benefited mightily from this protection of minority rights as it prevented a debate on the president’s policy in Iraq-Nam despite “losing” a vote 49-47 to end debate. One hopes the lesson is not lost on the Republicans.

American democracy is founded upon two paradoxical principles. First, as in any democracy, the majority’s will prevails. The second is the protection of minority interests and rights. For example, one political party cannot vote to deny the other the right to sit in Congress. The First Amendment is replete with limitations on the prerogatives of the majority, “Congress shall make no law abridging . . . .” By binding the majority’s power to force its agenda through, the minority is given incentive to play the game.

However, everyone who grows up in a democracy tends to forget the second pillar and focuses on the first. If one has the votes, surely anything that stands in the way of ramming through the majority’s platform is anti-democratic. There are examples on both sides of the aisle of majorities running roughshod over the other side, e.g., the Democrats post-Watergate, and the GOP in the last six years.

This impatience with the restraints on power is obvious elsewhere as well. International law, which largely functions on the basis of consensus, has fallen into disrepute, especially among neo-conservatives, because piddly little countries no one can find on a map vote against the noble, wise and honest USA in the UN. How dare they not go along with the program?

The House of Representatives will debate the Iraq-Nam resolutions next week, and there is no filibuster there. The White House will take a justly deserved beating, and the GOP will have to circle the wagons to protect George “LBJ” Bush. Yet, how much worse would it have been had they decided a couple of years ago, when they had the votes, to limit the filibuster? That 49-47 vote could have closed debate, and the White House would stand chastised. As it is, they have bought themselves another week, which may be profitably used to come to some kind of arrangement. In short, never arrogate a power unto oneself in government that one would not want in the hands of the other side when one is in opposition.

© Copyright 2007 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home