“There you go again” is that famous phrase made by Ronald Reagan in his debate with President Carter. If he were alive today and reading The Union on Aug. 10, he would most likely use the same phrase about Nancy Eubanks’ “Other Voices” article entitled “U.S. system ruled by ‘tyranny of the minority.’” Ms. Eubanks again goes through her usual litany of issues she claims only Democrats support.
Ironically, Ronald Reagan’s comment was referring to a similar situation, and the subject of that discussion was health care. Noticeably absent from Ms. Eubanks’ litany is the signature legislation by Democrats, the Affordable Health Care Act, (Obama Care). Why? Because support for this lengthy, complicated bill is eroding rapidly, with a Fox News poll finding 57 percent feeling ObamaCare was a “joke,” and 63 percent believing the health care law needs to be changed. It is also a perfect example of tyranny of the majority … passed by the House on Saturday, Nov. 7, 2009, at 11:19 p.m. without a single vote by a Republican.
And no … not “everyone would agree” that the Founding Fathers wanted to form a representative democracy. In a democracy, the individual or group of individuals composing any minority has no protection against the unlimited power of the majority. The Founding Fathers repeatedly and emphatically said they founded a republic … a representative government ruled by law (Constitution).
A republic recognizes the individual’s inalienable rights; democracies are concerned only with what the majority wants. The composition of the Senate is designed to protect the minority from mob rule by the majority (see Carol Dexter’s article in the Aug. 16 edition of The Union).
But since Ms. Eubanks sincerely believes the majority of the citizens in the United States agrees with all of her opinions, it is no wonder she would like a “representative democracy.”
She says 90 percent of the American public supports background checks for gun purchases. Polls do show strong support for background checks. But there is more at work here than the Senate’s failure to pass such a bill. People are afraid this is just the first to come from an administration that believes in collective action over individual liberty and also believes the elites in Washington know what is best for the rest of us. This is called tyranny. Thank you, Senate Democrats from Alaska, Arkansas, Montana and North Dakota who voted against this bill, halting the drift toward unreasonable gun control laws.
She argues that the Republicans won the House through gerrymandering because Democrats received more overall votes than Republican candidates. The Democrats did get more of the popular vote, but that isn’t how these elections work. These are local elections. As political scientist Eric McGhee says, Democrats “waste votes on huge margins (in cities) when the party could put many of those votes to better use in marginal seats.” Incumbency also helps keep those elected in the House.
According to Ms. Eubanks and other progressives, voting fraud is “essentially nonexistent.”
How naive to think that in politics, where stakes are high, money is rampant and emotions are at fever pitch, there is no attempt to cheat. One survey claims that 70 percent of Americans support voter identification measures.
In March of 2010 the sheriff and county clerk in Lincoln County, West Virginia, stuffed enough absentee ballots into ballot boxes to change the outcome of a Democratic primary election.
Nationwide there are 1.8 million dead voters still on the rolls; almost 3 million Americans are registered to vote in more than one state.
Many counties have more registered voters than residents. Many downplay voter fraud because it benefits those politicians they support.
And as for those 900,000 voters in Texas Ms. Eubanks claims would be adversely affected by voter ID laws, these are the people who receive Social Security disability benefits. They are exempted from the voter ID law — a little fact Ms. Eubanks neglected to mention.
As for all those other complicated issues Ms. Eubanks outlines, Carol Dexter had a good suggestion when she said, “I suggest that we stop trying to pass comprehensive anything and instead tackle big issues the way you would eat an elephant — one bite at a time … No pork, no riders, no more than a few pages long, no nasty surprises …”
If that advice had been followed in 2009, the country wouldn’t be mired in this Affordable Health Care Act that no one person can or ever will understand.
Linda Erdmann lives in Grass Valley.