Furiet
05-11-2004, 18:44
Democracy is a word laden with emotional undertones for the people of America. It represents freedom, equality, and in some cases, responsibility. But there is an oft ignored responsibility inherent in the concept of democracy, and that is the responsibility of the majority to the minority. James Madison, the great compromiser and father of the Bill of Rights, once wrote the following: “In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign…” The warning from Madison is clear; when the majority oppresses the minority, chaos inevitably follows.
Upon election, all public officials are stricken with this responsibility. It is an unavoidable additive to the power of the position. An election is a means for a public forum, personified within two or more individuals. Each presents their beliefs and opinions, and each responsible voter sends a message with their ballot, either one of agreement or disagreement. Once elected, the candidate who received the majority of agreements is then faced with a great deal of accountability. On the one hand, they must pursue that which they believe and that which a majority of the constituency must have believed, but on the other they must consider the opinions of the minority and take into account their views or their vote is moot and their voices silenced. When an elected official ignores the opinions of those who did not support them, they discard their vote and with it, democracy as a whole.
Such is the danger of viewing one’s election as a mandate, be it divine or populous. The Bush administration announced at their victory celebration that, in essence, the American people had spoken and gifted to them a mandate to fulfill their goals. While the margin of victory in the recent presidential election is impressive to be sure, it is still minimal when viewed differently. Though it is true that a majority of the American people cast their vote for the Bush/Cheney ticket, it is also undeniable that 56 million Americans disputed their claim to the White House.
The Bush administration and the Republican Party are now confronted with a great responsibility. With control of all three branches of government, there is nothing to stop them from advancing controversial policies that are completely divisive. With the distinct possibility of a new Supreme Court justice in the near future, the burden of parity rests even more greatly upon their shoulders. For the re-elected Bush administration to push forward a Constitutional ban on homosexual nuptials is, regardless of your personal opinion, irresponsibly ignoring a huge portion of America. Regardless of whether or not you feel that homosexuality is an immoral institution, there are homosexuals who disagree, and tens of millions of Americans who stand by them. What sort of morality would you then practice by saying that your superior numbers elevate your stance to the status of truth? This is a clear violation of Madison’s warning; the stronger majority pressing its will over the weaker minority and denying them the rights they desire, all the while using Democracy as an excuse.
The Republican Party and the Bush administration are faced with an uphill struggle against the evils of tyranny. It would be startlingly easy for their actions to turn towards a tyranny of the majority, their strength in all three branches overwhelming the minority and pressing their stances upon those who do not desire them. Bush stated that he would work to earn the support of John Kerry’s backers, but he also said that America would continue to fight the war on terror with every resource of our national power. How many votes were placed with the Kerry/Edwards ticket because of disagreement with the conduction of the war on terror? The President has a liability to the represented to consider and incorporate those voices, lest he discard them as invalid. The President who discards votes as invalid based on their content then rises to the ignominious level of dictator.
I do not yet accuse the President of tyranny. I merely warn him and those who support him of the pitfalls he will now face. I press him to not view a mere 3% of the populace as a monstrous distinction of support. I beg him to consider the thoughts and feelings of the 48% who opposed him. I hold him to his promise of stretching arms to all of America. I demand his accountability to the ideals of democracy and to the opinions of his opposition in a divided America.
Upon election, all public officials are stricken with this responsibility. It is an unavoidable additive to the power of the position. An election is a means for a public forum, personified within two or more individuals. Each presents their beliefs and opinions, and each responsible voter sends a message with their ballot, either one of agreement or disagreement. Once elected, the candidate who received the majority of agreements is then faced with a great deal of accountability. On the one hand, they must pursue that which they believe and that which a majority of the constituency must have believed, but on the other they must consider the opinions of the minority and take into account their views or their vote is moot and their voices silenced. When an elected official ignores the opinions of those who did not support them, they discard their vote and with it, democracy as a whole.
Such is the danger of viewing one’s election as a mandate, be it divine or populous. The Bush administration announced at their victory celebration that, in essence, the American people had spoken and gifted to them a mandate to fulfill their goals. While the margin of victory in the recent presidential election is impressive to be sure, it is still minimal when viewed differently. Though it is true that a majority of the American people cast their vote for the Bush/Cheney ticket, it is also undeniable that 56 million Americans disputed their claim to the White House.
The Bush administration and the Republican Party are now confronted with a great responsibility. With control of all three branches of government, there is nothing to stop them from advancing controversial policies that are completely divisive. With the distinct possibility of a new Supreme Court justice in the near future, the burden of parity rests even more greatly upon their shoulders. For the re-elected Bush administration to push forward a Constitutional ban on homosexual nuptials is, regardless of your personal opinion, irresponsibly ignoring a huge portion of America. Regardless of whether or not you feel that homosexuality is an immoral institution, there are homosexuals who disagree, and tens of millions of Americans who stand by them. What sort of morality would you then practice by saying that your superior numbers elevate your stance to the status of truth? This is a clear violation of Madison’s warning; the stronger majority pressing its will over the weaker minority and denying them the rights they desire, all the while using Democracy as an excuse.
The Republican Party and the Bush administration are faced with an uphill struggle against the evils of tyranny. It would be startlingly easy for their actions to turn towards a tyranny of the majority, their strength in all three branches overwhelming the minority and pressing their stances upon those who do not desire them. Bush stated that he would work to earn the support of John Kerry’s backers, but he also said that America would continue to fight the war on terror with every resource of our national power. How many votes were placed with the Kerry/Edwards ticket because of disagreement with the conduction of the war on terror? The President has a liability to the represented to consider and incorporate those voices, lest he discard them as invalid. The President who discards votes as invalid based on their content then rises to the ignominious level of dictator.
I do not yet accuse the President of tyranny. I merely warn him and those who support him of the pitfalls he will now face. I press him to not view a mere 3% of the populace as a monstrous distinction of support. I beg him to consider the thoughts and feelings of the 48% who opposed him. I hold him to his promise of stretching arms to all of America. I demand his accountability to the ideals of democracy and to the opinions of his opposition in a divided America.