So America is "ungovernable," eh? That's the latest talking point from the left. They are whining that a minority of Republican senators can, in their view, hold America hostage to a right-wing agenda. Health care and cap-and-trade bombed; union card check legislation has floundered. Liberals complain bitterly that many of the GOP senators represent states with just a fraction of the population represented by the 59 (formerly 60) Democrats.
This reminds me of when Al Gore supporters were pissing and moaning about the Electoral College because their guy won the popular vote but not the presidency. "Why can't we just elect presidents based on the popular vote?" they wondered.
Both of these cases demonstrate a childish naivete and ignorance of history. And both examples demonstrate again that emotion and feelings, rather than rational, logical thought, predominate in liberal noggins.
First, let's take the Senate. The American system of government, with its checks and balances, presidential veto power, and the different types of representation in the two legislative chambers — one based on state population, the other evenly distributed across the board (two senators from each state), is designed to make passing legislation difficult. It is set up in such a way that some kind of public consensus is required for major legislation to pass. There generally cannot be a tyranny of the majority.
Think about it: Major, landmark legislation such as Social Security, Medicare, civil rights bills, and Reagan's watershed tax cuts of 1981, always attracts strong bipartisan support. The Rube Goldberg health care bill, on the other hand, is opposed by millions of people on all points of the political spectrum. Yet the arrogant, overbearing Democrats and their cult leader in the White House want to shove this fiasco down the American people's throats. No wonder we're acting ungovernable!
Then there's the Electoral College. This one's really easy: If presidential elections were decided strictly by the popular vote, candidates could virtually ignore large swaths of the country. They wouldn't have to campaign in North Dakota, Idaho, Montana, et al, nor would they need to be attentive to the needs of those states once they got elected. All they would have to do is barnstorm the heavy population centers of the East and West coasts, plus a few large cities in between — Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Detroit — and they could lock up an easy majority.
That's not what our Founding Fathers had in mind. I certainly am grateful for their wisdom and foresight.
Now, as far as the "ungovernable" label, I return once again to Will Rogers' famous words: "I belong to no organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
Time to get your own troops in line, Harry & Nancy, and stop it with your childish whining.
Comments