We often hear Democratic politicians talking about the will of the people. That's a loaded phrase meant to invoke the hallowed principle of democratic voting. Supposedly, a democratic people vote, and express their will at the polls. Whatever they decide, that is considered right and good.
That's why we're all supposed to fall in behind Obama, and accept his win in November. He's the president, and as he likes to say when being bipartisan, he won, and that trumps anything the Republicans want to add to the conversation.
Except, that's not the way democracy works, and that's not what the will of the people means.
The will of the people is the concept of "consent of the governed." A government can not govern if the populace chooses not follow. Jefferson's quotation doesn't say the will of the people is right or wrong - he says it's the foundation for legitimate government. To ensure that a government is legitimate, the political process has to be open and the vote honest.
That's the extent of it. There's nothing in the concept of the will of the people that confers a moral or ethical outcome to a vote. A vote is the will of the people (assuming of course the outcome is followed by a peaceful transition). That vote can be the right thing for the country, or the wrong thing. The next vote can take us further down a path, or reverse course. This is true in all democracies, as anyone familiar with Athens can attest (they did vote to make Socrates drink hemlock), but it's especially important for republics. We don't vote for policies. We vote for people, who we expect to govern. In no way can a republic ever give a "moral" victory to a vote.
Unfortunately, for Obama voters, and "progressives" in general, winning a majority is not enough. The will of the people has to be transformed from the result, which is the election of Obama as President in an open election, to a moral statement that the election of Obama is some kind of good sanctified by a vote. This is the natural outgrowth of fetishizing the will of the people. We see this in politicians all the time. They talk about doing good for the citizens they represent, or for some greater national or international good. The impulse is a deeply undemocratic one, and those trained in classical history instead of postmodern nonsense recognize it immediately.
If you believe that you alone represent the will of the people, it's difficult to reconcile why your political opposition doesn't obey you. If you believe that your actions are the will of the people, or are for the good of the people, the desire to get something done outweighs concerns about the damage you do to the system. George Bush understood this. So did Cheney, and the Republican administration over the last 8 years. They actually discussed the impact of their actions, and made responsible, adult decisions weighing security versus the rights of the public.
They may have been wrong or right, but serious people admit the discussion took place. In the Obama administration, it seems that nothing matters but the outcome. From the rhetoric calling Republican Senators patriotic for supporting the stimulus (thus questioning the patriotism of the nay votes) to the unconstitutional moving of the Census to Rahm Emmanuel from the Commerce Department, Obama and his staff are proving they don't understand how government is supposed to work. In their eyes, they are the government, and it will work any way they want it to.
The will of the people? No. This group has a vision of what they want to achieve. They're not going to let something insignificant like the people, the Constitution, or common sense get in their way.
Comments