SD Blogospheric Discussion of Democracy
There is some blogging traffic concerning the benefits of democracy, stimulated by the continuing debate over the SD abortion law that was recently passed. The Chief will avoic commenting on THAT at this time – I have other fish to fry here.
Firstly, CCK and others of that ilk commenting on his site appear to be offended by the concept that a representative republic actually has authority to pass laws without direct democratic approval. (Or is the problem here that it is without Democratic approval?)
Whether or not one agrees with the point he is making, Chat at SD WAtch goes on to pour more vitriol into the mix, stating that there is “hatred for democracy” being expressed in SD. (“There’s Trouble right here in River City!”)
Horrors! How evil and diabolical to oppose DEMOCRACY!
Sibby commnents on this at some length by presenting a very good history lesson on the difference between democracy and a republic. It’s worth a look for sure. Going back into history, the Chief cannot find any examples of true democratic rule that had a good outcome, either for itself, or anyone else.
That’s why we have a Constitutionally based legal government that was specifically designed to limit both the scope of the government to act arbitrarily, AND to exclude direct democratic control of the government.
Government by popular feeling or emotion is just as arbitrary and tyrannical in it’s authority as any other form of authoritarianism. It was one of the arguments of the Revolutionary War era loyalists that they could see no advantage over being ruled by 3000 tyrants one mile away, instead of one tyrant 3000 miles away.
Fortunately, with the initiation of the Constitutional system, both of these undesired alternatives have been held at bay – at least until now.
What’s the solution to Chad and Todd’s unhappiness over the limiting of democracy/Democracy? Win some elections if you can – they your guys get to pass the laws for a while. That’s what it means to have a republican government.
It’s interesting that for once it seems that the names of the political parties is actually beginning to mean something. The Epps/Schuldt Democrats truly are democrats, who do not want to continue to live (or have the rest of us live) under the republican government established by the constitution, with all those pesky limits to untrammeled expression of the “popular will” of the moment.
The Chief knows there are some good Democrats around, both in SD and nationally, but all too often they are over-ridden by the other democrats, to the detriment of their own party, as witnessed by their election results.