Topsy-turvy.
I see.
You think you're supporting democracy by supporting the power of the minority to block the will of the majority
That's not exactly what I had in mind, although it plays out that way.
I have always been interested in power. One of my earliest exposures to the question of the use of power was all those '40s movies I saw as a kid where the sweet young thing goes to NY to make a name on Broadway and is thwarted (temporarily) by a selfish bitch of a star, who was herself once a sweet young thing but succumbed to character flaws. In my young mind, a certain amount of edge is understandable when you're clawing your way up the latter but those with power are supposed to be confident and magnanimous. I expected more of myself as I came to have power and I expect the same of others. There's no excuse for being ugly when you're on top.
Enter the Republicans. Now that they have it made, in my view of power, they're supposed to behave like statesmen, not street brawlers. They're supposed to be noble enough to represent all the people, not act exclusively as prescribed by their core. There's supposed to be just a little bit generous of spirit to those who are on the outs, or at least pretend to be. Which is why I have no patience with this winner-take-all arrogance. The filibuster is the bone allowed the minority to be used in emergencies to trim back the greatest excesses of a majority too full of itself. Using power to take away even that bone disgusts me, underlying issue notwithstanding. In a better environment, the filibuster bone wouldn't be necessary because a gracious majority wouldn't push candidates that were totally unacceptable to the minority, or at least would do so with some grace.
I do think I'm supporting our system of government, including democracy, when I support the wise and judicious use of power because that keeps the system stable long term. |
