Following the will of the people ... into stupidity

ACA wouldn't have passed Congress and become law if the will of the people had been followed. That's probably the most important example in the last 10 years of the will of the people being thwarted.

How terrible was it--that the will of the people didn't reign? It's actually part of the design of most governments. Representative government is intended to do something other than govern by just majority sentiment. Instead, representatives are chosen who are, hopefully, more thoughtful, wise, and informed than the average voter. Though voters aren't required to vote for someone better than average, the competition makes it likely that the winners will be better.

So we entrust the power into the hands of our chosen representatives, and sometimes they don't do what we want them to. That may happen because what the people want is foolish or impractical or downright impossible. For example, Americans want very good government services in the form of healthcare, a strong military, good schools, good roads, etc. But we also want low taxes.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or Nobel prizewinner to realize that those goals are in direct conflict. So our representatives have to sort out the conflict within what We the People want. The results may be disappointing, but they may also the best possible outcome given all the constraints. More likely, the results are somewhat less than optimal due to compromises/bribes made to get enough votes, but better than a solution straight out of a Gallup poll.

So next time I see some internet jerk complaining about how Congress isn't doing the will of the people, I'll remind the jerk about how stupid the will of the people can be.

Image: buzzle.com

Extra. This column was inspired by this post, which was a reminder of how Americans love the benefits and deride the costs, whether it's Medicare or ACA. It's not a new observation, but timely.

Short: Liberalism is respect, resistance, conflict, and hope

This is a review of a book that tries to tease out the basics of liberal democracy. I won't read the book because the review explains the ideas well enough, and I can already start applying them. So how do these four basic ideas work to undergird liberalism?

• Out of respect for people, none are arbitrarily excluded from the rights and protections that others have.
• Power tends to tyrannize, so it must be checked (resisted) through individual rights, checks and balances in government and society, and the right of the people to decide on laws.
• Conflict is inevitable, since people desire conflicting goals. But the conflict is channeled through liberal practices of competition, discussion, debate, and voting.
• Hope is the belief that change will generally be for the better, so the system shouldn't be frozen at a particular point, but should be allowed to adjust and change. (This is the least developed of the ideas in the review, so I've interpolated, or guessed.)

I was surprised at how well this list of four aspects explains liberal democracy. It really is a surprisingly full and satisfying explication. Who would have thought it would boil down so compactly? Amazing.

Image: milleniumpost.in