Thursday, February 17, 2005
the article i linked to above, from the center for individual freedom, advocates ending the filibuster with the following rationale:
The irony is that the very majoritarian rule suggested by the text of the Constitution is deemed "nuclear" by those who have sworn an oath to uphold "the supreme Law of the Land."of course, this is an entirely too common recasting of history and the intent of the founders to serve current ideological expediencies. with the possible exception of jefferson, the founders feared democracy, as well we should -- for they had read their plato, and viewed majoritarian democracy as unstable, chaotic and ultimately tyrannical. they intentionally constructed the senate and the supreme court to be insensitive to the will of the mob and replete with conservative tradition and powerful weapons for the minority. the founders were english parliamentarians, not french revolutionaries. they read burke, not rousseau.
Bush has never been interested in building concensus. Despite the best confirmation record in a generation, Bush refuses to brook even the mildest dissent.i have to say, it is to be expected from here on out.