Wackiness at Redstate.org

Redstate's an interesting site. It's much more civil than other conservative sites I've been to. Which pretty much means that I've gotten in 5 or 6 posts and they haven't banned me yet.

Anyway, check it out, especially this piece they are promulgating which argues that the free market would not have led to segregation and jim crow laws in the south. Yes, it's crazy. No, that doesn't mean what I said in the last paragraph is untrue.

The basic argument? Private transportation companies in the South at the end of the 19th century did not have an economic incentive to segregate the cars, and that we should be wary of government since it was what in fact caused the harm and created segregation. So, it wasn't racism at the bottom of segregation, but government.

The support:

It was politics that segregated the races because the incentives of the political process are different from the incentives of the economic process. Both blacks and whites spent money to ride the buses but, after the disenfranchisement of black voters in the late 19th and early 20th century, only whites counted in the political process.

And no, he doesn't stop to consider why or how blacks were disenfranchised.

Anyway, read the piece. I put up a couple comments there, but you'll have to read it to see them.

Crosspostings at tpmcafe

Me from tpmcafe:

With Miers out, the broadly accepted view is that Bush will nominate an outspoken conservative who has a clear record of supporting right-wing causes. The extreme wing of the Republican party won the battle to have Miers withdrawn, and now Bush must pay up for their support in the elections.

That's fine. The question is what are we going to do about it.

Virtually every conservative I've seen on the news in the past couple days has stated that they want a fight with the Democrats in the Senate--that they want to fight about Roe, about Lawrence, about the 10 Commandments and other social issues.

This is a fight they think they can win.

I disagree, and I would like to see the Democrats show that they have the heart to pick up this fight on substance, and to win it.

The truth is that a solid 60% of this country does not want Roe v. Wade to be overturned. http://www.pollingreprt.com/abortion.htm

The confirmation fight of Bush's next nominee, if the nominee is someone who will threaten constitutional rights, will be an opportunity for Democrats to show that they have strong principles--it will be an opportunity to stand up and to rally people to the party.

So, if the right wing wants a fight, we need to provide just that. It's something we can win.

and,

No, it's not beside the point. The point is that the people in this country want the Supreme Court to maintain specific constitutional rights that are under attack by the Republicans.

We have to remember, and remind everyone, that the Senate is not a representative body. It is not designed to reflect the opinion of the majority of the country--it was designed to reflect the majority of the states.

The Senate was originally designed to ensure that states with smaller populations were respected by the national government since regional factionalism was a strong concern of the founders. Two hundred years, a couple amendments (notably the 14th and the 17th), one Civil War, and one Civil Rights movement later, the Senate is acting like a representative body and the national government is the prime protector of civil rights.

Because the national government has taken on a role that wasn't initially assigned it--protecting civil rights--the Senate, with it's reflection of regional opinions rather than national opinions, is poorly situated to judge what the majority of Americans think is best in areas regarding civil rights.

In the 2004 election, in Senate races, Republicans won a total of 39.9 million votes while Democrats won a total of 44 million votes--but the Republicans gained 4 seats at the expense of the Democrats.

The Republican majority in the Senate does not reflect the beliefs of most Americans.

We have to remind everyone of that--having a majority in a governmental body does not make you right.

A little later, and in response to other commenters, I said:

We have to be prepared to lose this confirmation fight.

In the end, despite the whatever fight Democrats may put up, the Republicans may have the votes in the Senate to push Bush's next nominee onto the Court. But we have to make it a referendum on the policies of that nominee in preparation for the 2006 elections.

I personally believe that Roe was correctly decided. And Lawrence and Griswold and Pierce and Skinner and Meyer. Nonetheless, if this nominee gets on the Court, in time, all that may be gone.

Democrats have to be prepared to start winning elections--both nationally and locally--to ensure that even if we lose the Court, we can protect those rights we believe in though legislation.

That's also why the statistic I quoted is not irrelevant. This is a crucial moment for Democrats to stand up, not just because we can protect the Court, but because we can prepare to win the legislatures.

Rep v. Dem

It's not that I don't think the distinction is important. It's that I think the distinction isn't real.

I don't recall exactly what Woodruff laid out in that book, and so I can't address that. Maybe you could do a quick write up since you have the book now?

I think your description of Gym's comment was important though. I obviously didn't understand what he was getting at, but yes, it can be important that our elected government actually makes the decisions we elect them to make. It's cheating the system to continually force it down to the people in referendums.

One more thing on democracy

Spoon, after reading that First Democracy book, why do think the distinction between democracy and republic isn't important?

From a philosophical standpoint, as articulated by Woodruff in First Democracy, it seems the two are very different concepts.

Re: Republic v. Democracy

I think part of what drives the false distinction made in the popular political dialogue between republic and democracy is an attempt by those on the right to denigrate the term "democracy" and hence "Democrats". Consequently, if they can convince people that the United States is a Republic, then people should vote for Republicans.

While I believe that this occurs, I doubt there was ever a Vast right wing memo about talking about things in this way. However, viewing things from the lowest common denominator, I am sure that some folks in the grass roots of the Republican party actually believe this.

Lemme put that differently, uneducated country Republicans here in the fair state of our birth have explicitly told me that. It is important to note that I said "uneducated" not "dumb".

Remember when

we, maybe it was me, maybe you, wrote a post a long while back about how Senate confirmation hearings are one of the major checks an elected branch has on the judiciary, and that judges should be asked specific questions about their legal views and philosophy? Did that happen or was it a phone call? I cannot remember.

Either way, it now appears Michael Kinsley thinks the same thing.

WaPo Op-Ed

I don't want to go with some "outta the mouths of heartland babes, true wisdom spouts forth" type meme, but I do have to say DUH!

News from the Flyovers, making democracy work better, one coastal pundit at a time.

Republic or Democracy?

I saw this over on tpmcafe today:

After all, our own founding fathers fought fiercely against democracy, preferring a liberal republic to avoid the dangers of mob rule.

I always wonder what distance people think they are getting out of statements like this. How often to you hear people saying, "The US isn't a democracy--it's a republic!" What can they possibly mean and what difference can it make?

Both conservatives and liberals perpetuate the concept, but I think they use it for different purposes.

Liberals seem to use it to condemn the founders for not being progressive enough.

Conservatives use it to deny the value of popular self-government, i.e. that we shouldn't trust common people because the were excluded at the founding.

I am not a political theorist, but I challenge anyone to describe a relevant difference between republics and democracies.

Let me take a quick survey of the problem:

From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law:

re·pub·lic:
1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president; also : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
2 : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law; also : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government


de·moc·ra·cy
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government

These are fair enough definitions. So, what's the difference?

If we take the first definition of republic as providing the most important distinction, then virtually every nation in the world is a republic--including all those European democracies we admire so much. France, Germany, Canada, South Africa--none of these countries have monarchs.

So, what's the distinction between the second definition of a republic and the second part of the first definition of a democracy?

Supreme power residing in citizens and not "the people"?

This can't be that dispositive. Again, it would apply to every "democratic" nation in the world: I know of no nation that allows non-citizens to vote in elections. There are flexible conceptions of citizenship, however. It is true that citizens of Australia can vote in UK elections when they reside in the UK, but that right to vote is granted in the broader concept of Commonwealth citizenship which Australians hold.

Elected representatives and officers?

The definiton of democracy allows for elected representatives. Elected officers may be a sufficient distinction, but again, most modern "democracies" have elected officers: In France, the president has the ability to select the Prime Minister, and the executive departments can make laws independent of the legislature. Why wouldn't France then be considered a republic?

It is clear to me that there is no substance to the distinction between a republic and a democracy. We should stop trying to force something between the ideas.

Reece

Two Months

It has been almost two months.

Probably should get back to blogging.

I know we have had some good conversations since then, but didn't blog them.

As I get more and more less busy (that is a great lawyer like sentence), I will try to throw more stuff up.