Around the dinner table an old friend, my girlfriend and I were talking some politics, discussing some of the current affairs, especially where universal health care and it’s current hold-ups are concerned. We’re all liberally minded people and I think it’s difficult for us to understand some of the conservative arguments against healthcare, many 0f which can feel more reactionary then rational. But, for a moment, forget the specifics of current discussion, we’re not talking health care here, or any policy. We’re talking about how to deal with disagreement in a democracy. The general plight of any political discussion is the balance between wanting to feel right and having faith that an intelligent human being can come to a different conclusion than you.
For the purposes of discussion, I’ll risk generalization and say that a proposition was made by one amongst our table, that Universal Health Care is morally right. This idea lead to another, that as much debate is being made of Obama’s proposals for health care, and as much purported fear as there is that such proposals (and all other democratic party platforms for that matter) will engender some horrible outcome for the state (and some seem to truly hold these beliefs), it can in no way be rationalized that Obama poses a greater threat than George W. Bush. Put simpler, it seems rational by liberal thinking that W. Bush, with a trend for angering people, starting wars, and alienating allies, could have lead this country to all out nuclear war. The person’s point wasn’t plainly that Bush was going to start a nuclear war, just that, if we were to compare the worst fears of the conservatives about Obama to the worst fears of the liberals about Bush it seemed as though Bush posed a much greater threat.
Regardless of this little, relatively inconsequential thought experiment in whose president is better/worse, it is a good example of how our two parties, on the extremes, do not see eye to eye.
Their final point? “Why doesn’t Obama just push the legislation, the promised change, through?” If he’s got the right answer and, in the normal, democratic process, so many are getting in his way, don’t seem to understand, or are just generally making things difficult, why can’t the democrats simply apply their majority and Obama his authority as the executive?
And this is what I wanted to discuss. The problem that this question elicits, really is, how does one balance between feeling right and preserving the democratic process? Were Obama to push through (and please pardon the simplifying of the issues, as though ‘pushing through’ is just a matter of saying so and putting a stamp on it) it would risk being done without any consent or consideration of the minority opinion. And I’m not talking here about merely having the majority pass the bill in the house and senate, but using that minority without compromise, without hearing the other side.
When the liberal person says, the other side are idiots, we are left with a problem. Do we choose to disenfranchise them? Is that choice based on how they feel on this issue, or will it stand as a permanent status for all issues, as in, ‘these folks here, they’re idiots. Pay them no mind, cause we sure don’t.’ Now we are choosing for them on this issue, maybe all issues, and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And we realized, sitting around our little table, that some group of conservative friends, sharing a bottle of wine like us, having some laughs like us, could be having just the same comments, just the same concerns as us, from the other side. We could easily imagine them calling our views dangerous, illogical, even stupid.
This isn’t to suggest that I think their arguments are valid. Frankly, I don’t understand a lot of their arguments against universal-healthcare, but I find it just as hard to understand when I hear liberals on my side suggesting we just make the decisions for them.
And here’s the real bitch of it. Let’s say that Policy X (really doesn’t matter what the issue is) is, for the sake of argument, the best thing for everyone. Let’s say that I am actually holding proof that Policy X will make things better for everyone; we know that it’s the best thing to do and, really, it’s not even a matter of opinion, this plan, this policy, it will work. But let’s also say that a lot of people don’t like the policy. Maybe someone has them stirred up, maybe they’ve got the wrong idea. Maybe they haven’t had the evidence explained to them or explained to them by someone they trust and understand. But we know this is the right thing to do. And forget majority/minority. Is it right, in our democracy, to make that policy happen without their consent?
I haven’t got an answer to this yet. In most discussions of policy or just plain what’s right and what’s wrong I am inclined to listen to as much as I can before I take a stance. I prefer to assume I don’t really know the answer to much and wait to make any decision.
If I were in a room with Obama I would ask him, “On matters of policy where you believe your position is right, where you have evidence to back it up and the confidence of intelligent, fair-minded people agreeing with you, indeed where it seems there is a moral imperative to move forward with the policy, but where there is still strong opposition, of the type whose argument seems unsound, how do you balance your duty to serve what’s right on the issue and your duty to maintain a healthy democratic process which could risk ruining your chances of making the policy happen?”
I would ask him this because I don’t know the answer and because, as I’ve watched him address Congress and the nation it seems that he is trying desperately to maintain such a balance. I ask the question in general because I think it’s difficult for anyone to appreciate another person’s intelligence or even their humanity when they disagree with you, especially in matters of self-interest and especially where the question, ‘how ought one to live,’ is concerned.
It isn’t enough for me to just say that someone or some group is wrong. Remember that our goal, everyone’s goal, has something to do with making this nation great, making it’s families, its individuals, its natives and its recent immigrants prosper. I don’t believe that our morals as a people are so divided, so I cannot in good conscience simply discount the other sides opinions. The answer doesn’t lie in discounting them when they are wrong in the end, but in making sure that both sides understand one another, somewhere in the beginning.
Related:
Related posts:
What Do You Think Is Going to Happen to Your Health Care?
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Interesting read. Part of this echoes the classic debate between consensual and majoritarian democracy. Best example of the former is probably Switzerland. Best example of the latter is probably the UK. For one, representation (in a descriptive sense at least) is enhanced at the expense of accountability. For the other accountability is enhanced at the expense of representation. With respect to policy outcomes there’s no conclusive evidence that either system is inherently better than the other at achieving what’s best for the collective interests of society as a whole. The US system is a bizarre hybrid between these two, but by no means is it the “best of both worlds.” Anyhow, another part of these ruminations asks us to balance our valuation of outcomes that are objectively best for for the common good, with our commitment to the sanctity of the democratic process. I would say that characterizing the instance of a minority not getting its way as “undemocratic” is misleading. Tyranny of the majority is certainly problematic and something for which safeguards are necessary in any system (civil rights, Madisonian institutional checks, etc) but it is not anti-democratic. Tyranny of the minority however *is* quite undemocratic, and if you afford a minority veto power over any policy issue (i.e. Senate filibuster with strict Cloture rules), you are coming dangerously close to that. The ideal you seem to be contrasting majority-rule against is full-consensus among all members of society. Clearly, if such a thing were ever possible, it would be normatively superior to majority-rule, but the only conditions under which such an ideal can be achieved are when individual preferences are perfectly homogeneous — in which case any decision-rule you use, be it authoritarian, oligarchical, democratic, full-consensus, whatever would lead to the same outcome. Once we step away from that non-existent world and admit diversity of preferences, the best thing we have left, in my opinion, is majority-rule (with certain protections). And yes I’m sure we can find plenty of empirical examples of democratic processes that led to something bad (e.g. fall of Weimar Republic – rise of Hitler), but that doesn’t throw the fairness of the process into question. Nor does it present us with any sort of tradeoff between that fairness and the achievement of the public good– unless you can somehow show that majority-rule has some disproportionate tendency to lead to bad outcomes… which I think would be pretty hard to do.
That might be the most thoughtful reply anyone has given me on a topic since the infamous Breast essay of 09′.
I’d like to take some time for an answer once I’ve had a bit more time to think (and wake up, which is another story) but, my first impressions:
I absolutely agree that a system where the minory has such massive veto power is quite dangerous (in the Democratic sense). I wouldn’t suggest such a system, nor would I suggest one in which some kind of grand concencus is always reached (or even attempted).
Now, the whole reason I need to think about this more is that now I’m not quite sure what I would be looking for or asking about when it comes to specific forms of government.
What I have got a vague idea of though is the idea that (and perhaps I should say “ideal”) that itelligent people on opposite sides can have a conversation which will, at the very least, illuminate some of their value structures.
I guess what I’m wondering about is how to bridge the diversity. Because, while I think the diversity is necessary and important, it seems to me that an inherant part of the democratic process is the discussion and, within the discussion, the posibility for understanding or variance of opinion. Our system now engenders immediate lines in the sand. And who can listen with all the shouting across lines?
Again. Very thoughtful. I will consider this more.
I see your point, and it is a good one. You have some greats in your corner anyway – Mill, Rousseau, etc. The educational value of deliberation is quite lost among modern democratic institutions, whether of consensual, majoritarian, or hybrid variants. What I’m not so sure about however, is if it ever existed in the first place (and if not, is it a missing ideal really worth lamenting about?). When we imagine the constitutional convention or the early years of Congress we have this idea of the founding fathers engaging in long protracted philosophical debates and enlightening themselves (and others) in the process. Unfortunately however I think that stuff is largely fiction – those guys were brutal – lots of early accounts of violence in the chambers and factional divides (a precursor to parties) that developed almost immediately.
Justin,
If you ever stop commenting about my posts I will find you and bother you, potentially with a stick, ad nauseum. You are a credit to the commenting world.
Meanwhile, I will point to my exact desire. Baltimore, Q&A.
It was incredible and all I could hope for.
Not perfect, but intelligent and honest.
I definitely cannot speak as well as Justin can on this topic nor do I have the massive personal lexicon to use when commenting.
My ex and I used to have very lengthy debates about things like this. I will say that I am libertarian, but not the crazy kind and I’m not a member of that absurd Libertarian party, either. But for the sake of this and future comments I might as well be forthcoming with my beliefs about government so we can understand where we’re both coming from on issues. I know that most people can’t even fathom a libertarian viewpoint but I think that’s just immaturity. OK so I am half-kidding on that one.
There are several examples of when policy that impacts only a minority of people needed to be made and were made. I think that’s precisely what the people who set forth a governing process here in the U.S. were trying to do – keep the “rights” of people protected regardless of whether they are in the majority or minority.
Their genius was in understanding that people in groups are not always good. I think the intention was always to elevate rights over democracy. Democracy was the only thing that made sense in terms of process. But it was never supposed to be the focus. Human rights were supposed to be the focus.
Is universal healthcare a human right? I don’t know. I don’t know who dictates what human rights are. I don’t think anyone knows. I have my ideas on basic human rights but we already nailed those as a society, so the only way for these people to be paid is to come up with new things to argue about every year. So now this is it.
Looking at things from a macro level is disturbing. I wish that I could be as hopeful as you are being; it’s very tough for me to think that way.
Tia,
I had a university professor who brought up a fascinating point about rights. He said (and god forgive me for how poor my recollection is for quoting people, especially from college days) that what’s important to note about “rights” is that they necessarily involve one body defending someone or something against another body. I think about this whenever I think about what is or should be a right.
Health is an interesting example. What group is threatening health care? Whose obligation is it to ensure healthcare if it was a right?
I’m with you that this is still a pretty open discussion. Meanwhile, I just realized how much I need to go back and review some old class notes.