E.J. Dionne Is Wrong, Misguided, and Uninformed...And Could Use a History Lesson

First off, before you read my reaction, take a few minutes and read E.J.'s article first...lucky for you, it's short on length AND insights. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/06/AR2009120602380.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns).

The paragraph that really gets me is the one that begins, "Liberals are absolutely right in their frustration with the Senate." Dionne goes on to claim that the Senate as presently constituted is an absurdity because the filibuster makes it an undemocratic institution. But E.J. needs to pick up a history textbook and read about the nation's founding...because our nation is a republic, not a democracy. And this is an important distinction that is apparently lost on Dionne, whose attack on the Senate is premised on the idea that it is "perhaps the least democratic legislative body in any country calling itself a democracy."

Don't get me wrong: everyone slips into calling America a "democracy" from time to time. And it is true that America has become a far more democratic place over time, especially since the rise of "Jacksonian Democracy" in the early 19th century. But we remain a republic, and that means we elect representatives to represent us. We do not engage in pure democracy (remember when George W. Bush lost the popular vote but became President?)...because, as the Founders understood, this would lead to majority tyranny or mob rule. Instead, they devised a brilliant scheme of government that was both responsive to the popular will while ensuring that the rights of the minority would not be trampled upon and the voices of the minority would not be unheard. (One must also note that the Founders understood that the make-up of the majority and the minority would forever be shifting, from time to time, place to place, and issue to issue).

Not only is Dionne's analysis historically inaccurate...it would still be flawed even if we were truly a democracy. The polls over the past month show one thing very clearly: a majority of Americans oppose the health care legislation moving through Congress. Support for the legislation has dwindled to somewhere around 40%...with many polls showing support in the 30's. So even if our nation was re-fashioned into some sort of direct democracy where citizens plugged in their laptops and voted on each individual policy (didn't Ross Perot float an idea like this in the 90s?), ObamaCare, PelosiCare, ReidCare, whatever you want to call it, would fail. And it would fail by a wide margin, unless every major polling outlet is wrong.

It's also worth noting the hypocrisy of those on the Left who suddenly despise the filibuster rule (I'm not saying Dionne is one of them, since I don't know what his position was during the 6 years of unified Republican government...but I'd be willing to bet he was more enthusiastic about the filibuster than he is now). The filibuster is a mechanism that BOTH parties have used for some time...Democrats used the filibuster to hold up a number of the Bush administration's judicial appointees earlier in the decade.

Later on in the article, Dionne laments, "It's a shame that a public option might be stopped by a small number of senators." I'm guessing that, through the lens of his blue-colored glasses, Dionne's "small number" refers ONLY to the handful of Democrats who have expressed unease with the public option (Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson...and that pesky Independent, Joe Lieberman). If this is indeed what Dionne means, it's a ridiculous assertion. After all...there are SOME Republicans left in the Senate. The "small number of senators" required to stop the public option is actually...wait for it...40. Is 40 out of 100 really all that "small"?

Last but not least, Dionne's repeated emphasis (and he's not alone on this front) on the need for a bill ASAP strikes me as problematic. We're talking about potentially reconstructing 1/6 of the U.S. economy here...is it all that awful that Republicans in the Senate want to take the time to debate and deliberate and, oh, READ the 2,000 page bill? It's a bill that no one can fully understand, and it's effects will be felt for years and years by all Americans...in the form of deficits and adding to the national debt, not to mention things like rationing medical care that will in all likelihood occur somewhere down the road (Don't believe me? Talk to a citizen from Canada or Britain). The fact that Dionne and his fellow liberals are so concerned with getting this reform passed fast is because they know the longer the public has to get acquainted with everything in it, the more they'll hate it.

I'll end with this: Dionne considers the current health care legislation not only "morally necessary," but "fiscally responsible" too. Anyone who believes the Democrats' plan is fiscally responsible (and for that matter, anyone who believes ANYTHING the government runs is fiscally responsible) has either taken leave of their senses or been completely blinded by ideology and partisan affiliation.

Or both.