Donate to Noozhawk Today

Santa Barbara-Goleta, Friday, January 09, 2009

Weather: Fog/Mist 50º

Noozhawk.com Logo

Point of View »Scott Harris: The Dangers of Democracy

Scott Harris: The Dangers of Democracy

By Scott Harris | Posted on 11/11/2008

E-MAIL PRINT COMMENT SHARE

The results of the Nov. 4 election show us why we need a strong legislature and not "mob rule."

The Founding Fathers believed that we should be governed by the best and the brightest and did not believe in democracy, even fearing the consequences of “mob rule,” which is why they established our nation as a Republic. The word “democracy” is not even mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

Article Image
Scott Harris
James Madison’s Federalist No. 10 explained the difference between and the value of a Republic over a democracy: “ ... to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.”

Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government” — not a democracy.

This worked in California until 1911, when Gov. Hiram Johnson, afraid that the best and the brightest had been replaced by the best financed and most partisan, instituted what has become the tripod of direct democracy: initiative, referendum and recall. Those tools sat pretty much dormant, to be used in case of an emergency, until 1978 when California overwhelmingly passed Proposition 13. Since then, we have moved closer and closer to becoming a democracy, motivated by the fact that we don’t trust our completely partisan, gridlocked and ineffective state legislature to act in our best interests.

On Nov. 4, we saw the results of what happens when “direct democracy” replaces that “Republican form of government.”

We recently passed a state budget that was 85 days late, almost $20 billion in the red and after only two months has been shown to be at least $10 billion more in the hole. Our credit rating is plummeting, jobs are evaporating and tax revenues are shrinking. Democrats in Sacramento refuse to cut programs, Republicans refuse to raise taxes and the governor has been largely ineffective. We are now in emergency session, facing drastic cuts in all programs (including billions from education), as well as a substantial (1.5 percent) sales tax increase.

In light of this growing fiscal crisis and uncertain future — which could very well shift from a recession to a depression — how did the good people of California respond? We approved Proposition 1 (High Speed Rail Bond) and Proposition 3 (Children’s Hospital Bond Act), adding more than $20 billion in obligations to the list of things we can’t afford. I like trains and children as much as the next guy, but where is any indication that we understand the severity of our problem? How can we look at tens (if not hundreds) of billions in unfunded pensions, crumbling infrastructure, outstanding debt and budget deficits — then vote to add more than $20 billion to the mess?

It is an indefensible mistake and a clear indicator as to why we need a strong legislature and not “mob rule.”

To move toward the goal of having state legislators who work in our best interests and not their own, one where we elect our representatives and are not selected by them, the most important piece of legislation on this year’s ballot was Proposition 11. This will allow a nonpartisan independent group to establish fair districts, and gives us an opportunity to elect moderates rather than partisan extremists. Granted, it passed, but by 1 percent!

Less than 25 percent of Californians are happy with Sacramento, but nearly 50 percent of us voted to not change the way they do business. This disconnect is inexcusable and only explained by ignorance. We’re very lucky that a couple of thousand coin tosses or eeny, meeny, miny, moes didn’t come out differently, or we might not have passed this critical initiative.

Last, but certainly not least, was our decision to codify prejudice through Proposition 8. The critical difference between a democracy and a Republic is that a Republic protects the rights of the minority against the views of the majority. In this instance, which will one day be viewed as an embarrassment to the state, we voted to give gays their own school, their own drinking fountain and access to the entire back of the bus.

“Separate but equal” has already been used, so we coined a new phrase to mask our prejudice: civil unions. This discrimination, like the legal bans against interracial marriage that lasted until the 1967 Supreme Court Loving vs. Virginia ruling, will one day disappear, but until then, it diminishes us as a society.

So, let’s raise a toast (barely) to Proposition 11, pray that we begin to elect moderates from both parties, bring common sense back to Sacramento, free us from the dangers of democracy and return to what the Constitution guaranteed us — a Republic.

Scott Harris is a political commentator. Read his columns and contact him through his Web site, www.scottharris.biz, or e-mail him at .

Share

Sign up for the Noozhawk Newsletter

Comments (11)

Post a Comment

(Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.)

Name:

» RKV wrote on 11/12/08 @ 05:35 AM

Well started Scott, but then you get confused.  Yep, we’re supposed to have a republic, not a mob rule democracy.  And among the fundamental reasons why the founders wanted that to be true is that individuals have rights which no majority has the moral power to take away.  With respect to your analysis of California politics, you really ought to get a much better grounding in the facts…

1) You misstate the history of initiatives in California - you are factually wrong when you say “Those tools sat pretty much dormant, to be used in case of an emergency, until 1978 when California overwhelmingly passed Proposition 13.” Over 330 initiatives have made the California ballot since 1912, and that’s not “dormant” Scott (see http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/History_of_Initiative_and_Referendum_in_California) Stop blaming our problems on Prop 13.  Most who take this line, just want to make state government bigger, and the revenue limits of Prop 13 get in the way of that.  In fact, that was one of the major reasons why we Californians passed the initiative.

2) You assert that we have become more “partisan, gridlocked and ineffective” “when ‘direct democracy’ replaces that ‘Republican form of government.’” Let’s dissect that statement a bit shall we? 
a) Partisan?  Not really, there are large Democratic Party majorities in both houses and that has been true for a long time.  The budget is the only area of legislation where partisanship affects the legislature passing laws.  See b for proof.
b) Gridlocked?  Hardly.  Since Governor Schwarzenegger was elected in 2003 he’s approved over 780 bills (http://gov.ca.gov/bills/#all).  That’s not gridlocked.
c) Ineffective?  There’s another story.  The size and cost of state government continues to grow faster than the population and we can’t pay for that kind of growth.  That’s the real problem.  Add the illegal immigration of several million non-English speaking low wage (and therefore low tax revenue) Mexicans (and yes some from other countries, but mainly Mexico) and we get real problems.

So Scott, we’re back where we started.  California is already the 9th highest taxed state in the US.  Raising taxes is only going to make our economic situation worse, as the people who create jobs (you know, the evil capitalists) leave the state to get away from our greedy legislature.  And we’re a goldmine for the Federal government too, since they only send back $.85 on the dollar for every tax dollar we pay.  Simply put, our Democratic legislature wants to buy votes, only the state can’t afford to pay for all the votes the legislators want to buy to ensure their continued stay in Sacramento.

What’s needed is a very hard look at what the state government does.  Many things it does, we don’t need or can’t afford.  It’s time to cut the size of state government and we need to repeal laws, rather than pass new laws to make it happen.  We can live without commissions, and public art, raise fees to go colleges and we can cut the over-generous benefits of state employees to get where we need to be.

» Robert C. Meltzer wrote on 11/12/08 @ 08:18 AM

Good article, Scott.  Points out the same schizophrenia among California voters as they demonstrated when electing Arnold, then defeating every initiative that he proposed to implement the very platform he was elected on.  Something seriously wrong in this state.

» Steve Jones wrote on 11/12/08 @ 08:37 AM

What an excellent article! Let’s hope that the need to protect the minority in this case is never needed by some of the minority opinions and statuses that we all personally represent, but let’s also hope that the judicial system will uphold the constitution and guarantee that this rampant rule by proposition ceases to be flaunted by the folks who would abuse the powers of democracy to strip any of the constitutional protections that we all depend on.

» Jan Winter wrote on 11/12/08 @ 08:41 AM

You two have missed the most important problem with our budget:  we are one of only 3 states that require a 2/3 majority to pass spending bills, effectively causing minority rule.  We are in yearly gridlock because of this requirement and the need to placate the 1/3 minority to get a budget passed often results in policies that are not necessarily best for all.

» Jay Ballou wrote on 11/12/08 @ 09:34 AM

“Most who take this line, just want to make state government bigger, and the revenue limits of Prop 13 get in the way of that.  In fact, that was one of the major reasons why we Californians passed the initiative. “

Sheer revisionism. People voted for Prop 13 as a cure for exorbitant property taxes, nothing else. Had they known the consequences, many of them would have voted for the sensible Prop 8 (of 1978) instead, which would have allowed charging a higher rate for commercial property.

» A. Civil Discussion wrote on 11/12/08 @ 09:51 AM

Let’s hear it for these “commenters” who appear to be focused on discussing the issues and communicating rather than name calling.

Way to go...a nice refreshing difference.

Good article Scott and great insight RKV!

» RKV wrote on 11/12/08 @ 10:49 AM

All,
The hogs are at the trough in Sacto.  None of them want to be the first to walk away from the swill.  Here’s the hard nut of it, we either have to raise taxes or cut spending.  Raising taxes will hurt the economy when our relatively high tax rates (again, we’re 9th overall in the US in terms of tax burden) drive out business.  So, the alternative is to cut programs, but programs buy votes.  The pols won’t do anything to jeopardize their re-election.  Meanwhile, what we the people can do, is to take control of the tax rates by initiative if necessary.  We need leadership, and guess what, we haven’t got it.  Time to make difficult decisions and set priorities as we’re in deficit, folks.  The time is now.

» sbnative wrote on 11/12/08 @ 11:54 AM

There should be a litmus test, i.e., do you UNDERSTAND the ballot proposition before you vote on it? Do you know what the word BOND means? Perhaps the test should simply be can you NAME your representatives?

The passage of Propositions 1 and 3 are travesties. As one friend recently said, “it’s proof California voters are idiots.” Trains and children are groovy, but these propositions are not going to do anything but line politicians’ pockets. Is this the fault of mob rule, group think, or an electorate that is just plain highly dupe-able?

Yes, let’s raise a toast to the passage of Proposition 11. But let’s propose an entrance exam for admittance the voting booth.

And when our leaders fail us, let’s vote the bums out!

» RKV wrote on 11/12/08 @ 04:59 PM

Jay, what part of limiting government by limiting it’s revenue is revisionism?  Answer: no part at all.  Turns out that Prop 13 is still very popular btw.  Google up the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association for an eyeful.

» Tom Siegel wrote on 11/12/08 @ 05:39 PM

Scott,
You should actually read the constitution before making absurd statements like:
“The Founding Fathers believed that we should be governed by the best and the brightest and did not believe in democracy,...”

The Preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Notice that it says “We the people”, not we the best and brightest.

Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

Notice that this says “...members chosen every second year by the people of the several states,..” Notice that it says THE PEOPLE.

When power is vested in the people, which is by definition a democracy.  Your quotation of Madison from two hundred years ago is sweet, but those were his thoughts not the law of the land.  Because the designation republic is used, does not mean the US was not founded as a democracy.  A republic is a type of democracy.  Since your essay has such a shaky foundation, I am not surprised that your conclusions are so weak.
The reason that California now has a budget problem can be directly tied to Arnie’s roll back of automobile registration fees.  He did that to pay back the auto dealers who donated lots of money to his coup...errrr recall campaign.  Hiram Johnson rolled in his grave when a very well financed and very partisan Schwarzenegger used the recall process to steamroll a Governor who had just been reelected.  Money does not talk it shouts.  One of the Austrian Oak’s first acts as Governor was to fire the head of the California Bureau of Automotive repair.  Why?  It seems that the BAR was investigating serious fraud at an auto body repair facility owned by Galpin Ford.  Who owns Galpin? Bert Boeckmann who was one of Ahnolds biggest donors.  California government is broken because many politicians of both parties, but most importantly our Governor are bought and paid for.  Prop 11 will not change a thing except who gets bought off.

» Equality for All Kids wrote on 11/13/08 @ 09:04 PM

Scott, in your October article ‘8 reasons to vote against Prop 8’, your reason #1 : “1. Proponents of Prop 8 argue that it reflects the “people’s will,” as evidenced by Proposition 22. As public opinion polls show that support to allow same-sex marriages is growing rapidly, will those who are crying “majority rules” quietly step aside if Prop 8 fails?” You expected the “yes on 8 crowd” to accept the will of the people.  Isn’t it hypocritical for you not to do the same?


» The Noozhawk Network