There is a problem of definition as to what type of democracy we wish to have and as to when majority rule on a single political issue stops being the ideal to be pursued as pertains to civil rights. In the midst of so much lack of clarity in the political discourse only the president can clear the path forward.
Two of the major political and social arguments currently on the national discourse present both the opportunity and the challenge to help redefine the instances where the right of the majority rule becomes the ideal moral compass to guide our ethical and legal views. On the one hand we have the movement for filibuster reform which is a system of senate rules not based on the constitution. The second issue is that of the building of the islamic center in lower Manhattan, a cultural project whose main obstacle to being realized are not legal or constitutional but rather a perception that "deference" must be the priority as there is a number of people who have an emotional (if irrational) reaction to what building such a center so close to the grounds of the former world trade center "means" or "represents" both to them and to the "victim's families" (even if a considerable number of these families don't oppose the said project)
This week many of us were surprised to hear that Dr. Howard Dean, had decided to stand on some "middle ground" regarding the issue of the islamic cultural center. On his interview with Keith Olbermann, he had a chance to explain his concern. I felt I understood the reason for it but even if his intention is good his position on the issue exemplifies an escapist logic in which you both respect constitutional rights of the said group and also recognizes the fact that the prohibition of such a project would subvert governments supposed non-role in religious and cultural affairs as it pertains to a group of lawful citizens in their pursuit of happines (in this case the center). Yet at the same time expresses that deference must be made to the angry mob of irrational opposition as documented on some national poll (65% of people opposed). Now he may wish that the whole discourse on this subject were a more amicable one and might have genuine concerns whether the completion of this project as planned could further inflame anti-muslim sentiment in the national psyche. I believe that is why he calls for a conversation to happen but this logic clearly fails when a direct comparison is drawn with any other important civil rights issue of the last 50 years is made. Im sure that many people, perhaps even a majority of people in some states were 100% against racial integration and that many of them were in fact angry indeed furious about the fact of having to share lunch counters with people of a different race but because the constitution is there to protect the rights of all citizens these laws were enforced and the south was integrated and now some 50 years later almost no one would dare to call this "an affront" or a "provocation" to white people because there was no other choice. There was no ground to "negotiate" how many people could get in the front or back of the bus...should they just be content to sit in the middle of the bus? So a rational, constitutional view of the situation made it clear that whatever subjective emotional feelings the opponents of racial integration "felt" did not have an equivalence when weighed against the suppresion of the individual civil rights of any citizen to receive equal treatment and protection under the law. One side of the equation is clear and quantifiable, the other is simply a mixture of emotional reactions by one given group of citizens (in this case a majority of americans according to one poll).
The other main issue regarding majority vs. minority takes place in the fight for the change of the US senate rules in order to eliminate the practice of allowing filibusters to block the "posibility" of having up or down votes and allowing thus the public citizens to know the true will of the senate in a given issue of legislation. As we all know, to make a long story short, in the current system, the minority party can pretty much block any action on voting (or even worse just debating!) any piece of legislation up for consideration of the senate through the invocation or "threat" of filibuster (the threat seems to be already enough) This in turn obligates the majority party to obtain a "super majority" threshold of 60 votes in order to be able to carry out most actions regarding any legislative issue. Now these so called rules which have been in use for quite a while have been used before by both parties but never to the point of excess that the last 2 years have shown and anyone who wishes to look at the statistics of filibusters during the last 40 years will be able to see this readily. The supposed reason for these rules are the protection of the minority party (those who lost the election) from the "tyranny" of the majority party. So somehow, the losing party of an election cycle may not have the same power to enact laws as the party who controls the 3 branches of government but but it sure can prevent the majority party from enacting any law it does not agree with.
This has got to be the most twisted understanding of democratic principle I have ever seen. So does the fact that a party in power get to enact laws equal tyranny? What about if the majority happens to win 65 seats of the senate and are therefore immune to the filibuster "threat". Would that be the equivalent of living in tyranny? So somehow the majority is allowed to be tyrannical as long as they have 60 votes in the senate but if they have a clear majority of 58 votes the minority has the right to paralyze any action they dont happen to agree with? Now what is democratic rule all about? We seem to be living in a time when an elected majority on the three branches of govenrment is not allowed to move forward in a comprehensive agenda due to fear of tyranny but the fact that a minority party can block just about anything they wish is seen as justifiable because they need to be "protected"...If there is anyone who cant see that this is a recipe for disaster I would like to hear them speak out and defend this in a rational way. Right now it seems that for some, the majority can rule on public opinion issues that are subjective but when it comes to elected officials the minority is just as important as the majority and must be protected at all costs!
Many of us are disappointed with Barack Obama and I believe rightly so. He fails at just about every step of the way to be willing to take a stand unless he is sure that he can win. And sometimes the real possibility of winning is simply not foreseable leading to more stagnation and foot dragging which in aggregate exacerbates the problem of government paralysis. Yes, he inherited this senate, with this ridiculous rules and the whole rest of the mess with the economy. Nobody disputes this but crying about this is not going to appease the corporate owned republicans. It is President Obama's right and duty to be the champion of the majority who elected him and who elected the majorities seated in both houses. Only he can set the example and present the necessary leadership. Yes Mr. President, you are the president of all americans but that doesnt mean that you have the duty to ditch those who put you in power. This type of logic is psychologically and politically self defeating and is the real reason why your party stands to lose in November making it even more difficult for you to govern. You are supposed to be pragmatic...well be pragmatic! Use your talents! You showed them during the election and everyone (including republicans) were impressed. Your passivity however is not impressive to your enemies. I believe that it is the time for President Obama to show whether he is really a leader and fight for once the irrationality that dominates in government thanks to a lack of definitions as to how democracy funtions according to a constitutional government.