The undemocratic democratic Party

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2010/03/hoyer_process_only_interesting_to_us.html

According to Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer, Americans don't care about the process only results. He used his own phrasing of course but that his the essence of his statement. And it is probably the most undemocratic and un-American sentiment that one can have.

Consider this, the Founding Fathers had difficulty agreeing on a Constitution because of PROCESS. They weren't arguing about policy, they were arguing about process! Taxation without representation? Well that is a process problem. Detaining foreign combatants without Miranda or bringing charges? That's process. When Hoyer states that Americans don't care about process he is completely wrong.

James Madison and others worked so hard on the process the Constitution would set up for lawmaking in Congress. They knew that the deliberate process would be slow and would be frustrating and cumbersome at times, but that was their intent. In fact, they stated the very opposing position of Hoyer, the process is MORE IMPORTANT! Obviously they wanted an effective process that made the country free, prosperous, and secure and therefore built the necessary energy and authority into it. It was a major departure from the Articles of Confederation in that way. So in effect, the energy and decisiveness is exactly where it was intended to be Mr. Hoyer. Current circumstances are completely irrelevant.

This is the attitude of American liberals. The Constitution is a "living document" and must evolve with the times because things are different now, we are different people and this is a different world. It must be made more flexible and more amenable to the results the American people want. That is the argument. The Founding Fathers would disagree. Any flaws or weaknesses in the Constitution that make it ill-suited to the changing times, can be fixed through legal processes such as lawmaking or Constitutional Amendments. This would preserve the integrity and meaning of the Constitution without turning it into a relativistic document that means what it "needs to mean" for us to make progress. We did not end slavery, establish women's suffrage, establish equal protection, or lower the voting age through a Supreme Court decision or some legislative trick.

Unfortunately, the Constitution has been weakened since the 1930s. We even had a President expand the size of the Supreme Court to get HIS interpretation. This more flexible interpretation of the Constitution has led to a power grab by the federal government and a slow and gradual erosion of individual rights.

Ambitious tyrants and oppressive groups always make this argument. The Constitution, the law, or some group is getting in the way of progress and harming the country. We need a strong, centralized, and effective government unhindered by such processes. In fact, Madison addressed this in the Federalist Papers in #10. This is essentially tyranny by the majority. The esoteric processes, as Hoyer would describe them, protect minorities from the potential tyranny of a majority faction. In this case, the democratic party.

These procedures, rules, and Constitutional provisions do indeed make it a challenge to govern the country. And rightly so. That was its purpose. Instead of trying to side-step it, bitch about it, or outright violate it, the majority must work with the minority even when it dominates with such majorities in both Houses and control of the White House. The United States was not built on the theory that elections decide policy and that the loser must step aside. Far from it, elections just give one faction a momentary advantage, nothing more. And I think the moment of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama is ending soon.