So I'm trying to figure this out. When courts impose gay marriage, conservatives tell us, that's undemocratic. These decisions should be left to the political branches, which are accountable to the people.
OK, I get that. But when two states' legislatures approve gay marriage of their own free will, with no court compulsion, and when the governors sign gay marriage into law, that's...undemocratic?
Right! Here it is, in an article by one Mark Hemingway at NationalReview.com. Apparently the goalposts have moved a bit: now only plebiscites are democratic:
"Of the recent states that have legalized same-sex marriage - Iowa, Maine, and New Hampshire - none has done so through democratic means, and the actions of the courts and legislatures run against public opinion."
One can only wonder: have these people any integrity at all?
18 Comments for “Oh, Those Undemocratic Legislatures!”
posted by BobN on
Surely, you stopped wondering that a long, long time ago.
posted by Jim on
“now only plebiscites are democratic”
Well of course. The English term for “democracy” is “mob rule”.
Q: What have you given us, sir?”
A: A republic, if you can keep it!”
posted by TS on
Actually, it would be stupid but internally consistent to say that plebiscites are the only valid form of democracy.
There are several ways I can tell this is not the case with these people.
-One, I presume that they support the system as it stands except when it doesn’t deliver the result they want, especially the politicians among them who would be wiped away by only subtle changes to the system.
-Two, they are currently raging against Obama, who was swept in by a plebiscite demanding the bigger government Obama spent his campaign promising. I know it’s hard for fiscal conservatives to understand this, but the masses only like the free market when times are good. When they go bad, they wouldn’t say it but what they want and what they will vote for is socialism.
-Three, they aren’t fooling me: all activists have a bad habit of being goal oriented. The only time they bother to praise or curse the means of government as they range from plebiscite to court is when they are or aren’t producing the results they want. E.G. The one-issue gay bloc.
posted by Bobby on
You’re generalizing Jonathan Rauch, most conservative writers don’t mind if people vote on same-sex marriage or if the state legislator passes same-sex marriage because in the end the voters can reward or punish legislators based on how they vote.
“I know it’s hard for fiscal conservatives to understand this, but the masses only like the free market when times are good. When they go bad, they wouldn’t say it but what they want and what they will vote for is socialism.”
—What masses? According to the Pew research center most Americans disagree with Obama’s policies but like him as a person. Only the far left agrees with company bailouts, the stimulus package, closing Guantanamo, etc.
This country gives you the right to pursue happiness, but it does not guarantee it. Our bill of rights doesn’t say that we have the right to free health care, affordable housing and free education.
posted by Arthur on
Republicans only support states rights when they agree with the outcome.
posted by Bobby on
“Republicans only support states rights when they agree with the outcome.”
—Really? Then why is Obama signing a tobacco bill that gives the FDA the power to regulate cigarettes in EVERY state? Democrats are health nazis.
posted by Arthur on
I never said Dems support states rights.
posted by TS on
Bobby, I guess I’m referrng to what people want, not what they say they want. Everybody, every demographic, all but the most extreme activists want the government to “heal the economy” or “get my job back” or “fund my favorite program” while also taking “less of my money.”
Republicans in the tradition of Ronald Reagan pretend to accomplish this impossible goal by making a show of lowering taxes while also slicing some ribbons off of government programs, which doesn’t save nearly enough money for their expensive proclivity toward defense spending. Democrats in the tradition of Lyndon Johnson had no pretension of lowering taxes to fund their expensive alphabet soup, but increasingly nowadays the parties are just doing the same thing: lowering taxes for universal popularity and spending more to please every industry, interest, and lobby.
Right now, people might say they don’t support the specifics of what the administration is doing, but they quite obviously support the gist of it. They would be in an absolute furor right now if Herbert Hoover, the most principled fiscal conservative ever, were in office refusing to make a show of “fixing the economy” and “securing your future.”
posted by Shawmut on
It is worth noting here that gay marriage in Massachusetts moved via the courts as well.
When a referendum gained in opposing it, the legislature just refused to regard it.
The solons glad-hand in the lobbies, but don’t want to encounter whatever parochial negatives (either side) in their districts.
posted by Rob on
But Shawmut, why didn’t the people voted out the representatives who voted against the referendum? Even more odd, how come those that were voted out were all against same-sex marriage?
And to answer Rauch’s question: no, they do not have any integrity at all.
posted by Jim on
“Republicans only support states rights when they agree with the outcome.”
Thye only support states rights since the Southern Strategy. Once upon a time the Republicans lad the nation in a bloody, bloody war on the issue of “states rights.”
posted by Clay on
These writers are not genuine conservatives and have no understanding of what conservatism actually is (apparently neither does Bobby, who merely parrots what he hears from a handful of hacks and calls it “most”). Conservatives historically have always striven to place good order above the tyranny of the majority. The sad truth is that conservatism in America has been high-jacked and corrupted by neocon ideologues, political hacks and theocrats in waiting. It’s useless to look for logic in their positions, all you’ll find are rationalizations and pretexts.
posted by tavdy79 on
Seeking integrity in the religious right is like seeking honesty in politicians. Occasionally you’ll be fooled.
posted by Bobby on
Good answer, TS.
“These writers are not genuine conservatives and have no understanding of what conservatism actually is (apparently neither does Bobby, who merely parrots what he hears from a handful of hacks and calls it “most”)”
–Really, Carl? So to you Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannitti aren’t conservatives? Because my views are very similar to theirs with a few minor exceptions. It’s very insulting that someone who’s clearly not conservative like you would attempt to define conservatism. That’s sort of like me explaining the female orgasm. And calling people neo-con just because they don’t fit your narrow-minded definition of “conservative” is really insulting.
posted by Larry on
The fact that Bobby admires Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity explains a lot about him. And no, they are not really conservatives in a traditional sense. Right wing, yes. But that is not the same as being conservative. Bobby would benefit from reading Andrew Sullivan’s book “The Conservative Soul”.
posted by Bobby on
Larry, Andrew Sullivan is no longer a conservative, he’s barely a moderate. I define liberal and conservative based on political viewpoints. Sure, a pro-lifer can be a liberal and a pro-choicer can be conservative, but if you look at a wide variety of issues such as the death penalty, gun control, environmentalism, etc, you can pretty much narrow-down a person’s political philosophy.
Laura, Ann, Rush and Sean are conservatives because 99%-100% of their political viewpoints fit in with the right. Glen Beck on the other hand is a libertarian, so is Judge Napolitano.
Andrew Sullivan is a liberal because 1: He hates Bush. 2. He’s intolerant of religion. 3. He hates pro-lifers. 4. He supports gun control. 5. He believes in global warming. 6. He supported Obama.
When you put all that together, you have a liberalal. I don’t demand a perfect adherence to conservative values, I myself stray from the party when it comes to some issues, but Andrew Sullivan is a traitor while Laura, Rush, Sean and Ann are ideological heroes of the right and conservatives.
posted by Larry on
I knew that I could get such a response out of you, Bobby. Who has a narrow-minded definition of what it means to be conservative now? I won’t argue further with you about what it means to be conservative. That was not my intent, and it wouldn’t be productive anyway. This was just an exercise to prove a point about you. You are a predictable right-wing ideologue, and you proved the point for me. Thank you.
posted by Bobby on
Larry, it’s rather boring when instead of offering a counter-argument you engage in personal attacks.
I don’t have a narrow-minded definition of what it means to be a conservative. I’m simply a realist, and if out of 10 conservative issues you only support 1 or 2, you’re not really a conservative.
That’s like me calling myself a liberal just because I support legalizing drugs and prostitution. Those 2 issues don’t make me a liberal because I’m right-wing or libertarian in pretty much everything else.
But according to you, being a conservative is whatever you want it to be. Gandhi felt the same way about religion when he said he was a Jew, a Buddhist, a Muslim and a
Christian.
Isn’t liberal logic fun? You can be anything you want to be. However, we don’t live in liberal logic land, we live in the real world where labels clearly mean something.