The Tyranny of the Majority

[SlightlyCatholic]

So here's how our government is broken down after last night:

President: Democrat

House: Democrat controlled with an advantage of 80 Democrats.

Senate: Democrat controlled with an advantage of 14 Democrats.

"Why should I trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man's rights just as easily as a king can." - Benjamin Martin, "The Patriot"

"Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism." - John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty"

Do we have the potential for a tyrannizing majority? Do we already have it? Can our democratic process be abused?

I think this is a good discussion to start up, especially with predominantly liberal executive and legislative branches. All opinions are welcome.

Disclaimer: This is not intended to be a futile walk in Central Philosophy Park, and if this is deemed too philosophical or idealistic for this forum, then I would kindly ask a Moderator to delete this. While I certainly see this discussion bearing fruit that can be applied to the here and now, the decision to allow for said fruit to come about is not mine to make. I only hope that by critically thinking of what could be, we will be able to elucide our own views of what is.

[Woody]

Would you be having this discussion if things had gone the other way ?If so
its a valid question? Otherwise its strikes as being a sore loser .System works more or less .Representative democracy is probably as good as it gets.
I think we would all rather have our politicians working together for the greater good ,but, since what that is open to debate it will always break down to adversarial politics .

[03_SHOOTER]

Would you be having this discussion if things had gone the other way ?If so
its a valid question? Otherwise its strikes as being a sore loser .System works more or less .Representative democracy is probably as good as it gets.
I think we would all rather have our politicians working together for the greater good ,but, since what that is open to debate it will always break down to adversarial politics .

Since you obviously missed it, this discussion has been held every time throughout our history that the Oval Office and the Congress have been controlled by one political party or the other. In fact the struggle over the interpretation of the Constitution has it's origins in the Federalists and Anti-Federalists from before our Constitution was even adopted, with "Federalists" wanting more governmental control and minimizing the power of We The People and "Anti-Federalists" wanting a minimum of governmental control and a maximum of power held by We The People.

[Woody]

I am aware of that .I was asking if he was raising the point in general or just because the wrong side was in power ?
If its the first reason debate is possible .
If its the 2nd reason I don't think its worth it .
Supposedly only option for Republicans to block legislature now is filibuster tactics which strike me as profoundly undemocratic in nature and probably can only be used as a very last resort .

[SlightlyCatholic]

I am aware of that .I was asking if he was raising the point in general or just because the wrong side was in power ?

No, this has nothing to do with sides. Replace "Democrat" with "Republican" or "Group X" or whatever else you want to use. The debate is about: 1) one group taking control over a nation by utilization of democratic politics, 2) if an event like two nights ago is/could be classified as a tyrannizing majority, and 3) what we can/should do about possible future occurrences of such tyrrany (if they, in fact, do happen). I only used the example of two nights ago because it's the most current.

[Woody]

Well democracy can be said to be the tyranny of the majority over the minority anyway.And if you want to live in society you need to conform to that societys norms more or less.
So everyone freedoms are curtailed by that to some degree.Its happened before it will happen again nature of democracy .
If you hate the government so much you can use the democratic principal to try and change it or leave.

[HairyEyeball]

First, woodhead, this is not a 'democracy', it never was, nor was it ever intended to be. It was intended to be a 'representative republic', not mob rule (the ultimate 'democracy') with 'the people' electing 'Representatives' and the State legislatures appointing Senators: One house being 'The Peoples House' and the other protecting the interests of the individual States, giving them equal voice - and protection - despite the differences in population or 'net worth'. That intent was illegally perverted by socialists (aka 'progressives') with Amendment XVII, giving us two 'peoples houses', one merely serving longer terms than the other.

There is also the implicit option, as adopted in Arizona and other States, to withdraw from the voluntarily entered contract that is the Constitution - not by secession, which was unsuccessfully attempted once - but by dissolving the contract for noncompliance on the part of one party (the central government) as a whole.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Let's look at democracy from a different perspective:

According to Plato, there are five types of government: Aristocracy, Timocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy, and tyranny. Each form of government is, to Plato, a degredation of the one before it. Timocracy is a broken aristocracy, Oligarchy a broken Timocracy, and so on. By the time we get to democracy, Plato says the following:

"...how grandly does she [democracy] trample all these fine notions of ours under her feet, never giving a thought to the pursuits which make a statesman, and promoting to honor anyone who professes to be the people's friend." Plato's Republic, Book 8: 558 b-c

"Promoting to honor anyone who professes to be the people's friend"...is that what we do every four years? Very few people in our nation know what to look for when deciding a president,and for many the chief qualifier is popularity. Are presidential races nothing more than grandoise popularity contests, and if so, are we doing ourselves more harm than good by extending that process?

What about the "pursuits which make a statesman"? Do we really know what makes a good statesman? Our schools don't teach our children how to vote once they're of age to do so, and the only real education we receive regarding our presidential/governmental choices is from an often skewed media.

A few things to think about:

1) Plato never meant for his ideal Republic (a virtual aristocracy) to ever be implemented into reality. However, even things that aren't "real" can shed light on things that are.

2) Plato wanted a class of philosopher-kings in charge of his ideal state...people whose sole duty was to govern and think about what would be best for their subjects. In our society, philosophers (or anyone with a Ph.D) struggle to find jobs. Why is this? It seems that we believe thought to be a means to and end, rather than an end in itself. Thinking as a profession, it seems, isn't of the highest esteem today...not to mention the fact that our sports players are paid more than our elected officials.

3) Plato's biggest problem with democracy is its commitment to creating a plateau of equality in which all citizens are placed. In his mind, democracy treats all men's abilities to govern (this means women, too) as equal when they really aren't. The real danger for him is the possibility of someone of lesser intelligence subjugating someone of greater intelligence. One, it would be incongruent with the way in which people were supposed to fulfill their roles in society according to their intellect and talents. Two, it would permit a precedent that if you're liked enough, you can govern someone who is more qualified than you are. Once popularity is secured, things like intelligence, trustworthiness, integrity, and character are thrown to the wayside.

4) Plato states that the only step lower than Democracy is Tyranny, which is someone who uses the democratic process to gain election and then use that election to tyrannize the people under him or her. Have we had instances of that already? "Freedom, I replied; which, as they tell you in a democracy, is the glory of the State- and that therefore in a democracy alone will the freeman of nature deign to dwell...I was going to observe, that the insatiable desire of this and the neglect of other things introduce the change in democracy, which occasions a demand for tyranny." Book 8: 562 b-d "The ruin of oligarchy is the ruin of democracy; the same disease magnified and intensified by liberty overmasters democracy- the truth being that the excessive increase of anything often causes a reaction in the opposite direction; and this is the case not only in the seasons and in vegetable and animal life, but above all in forms of government." Book 8: 563 d

The issues raised by someone like Plato are real and relevant in 2008. Why do we have a democratic election of leaders? Do we really know what's best for us? Will we admit it if we don't? As citizens, it's important to know why what we're doing is right and (arguably more important) why what we're NOT doing is wrong.