Andrew Villeneuve has treated us to yet another of his screeds, packed full of progressive invective. And, as usual, he is wrong.
Villeneuve protests that the United States and the state of Washington should be democracies. He demands absolute majority rule – whatever 50 percent plus one of those voting want, they should get. But neither the USA nor Washington are democracies. They are republics.
Neither the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, nor the Constitution of the State of Washington use the word “democracy” or declare our form of government to be such. But Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution says “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”.
A republic is based on the principle that the people are sovereign, that individuals have rights given to us by God, that the only power possessed by government is what is delegated to it by the people in a written constitution, and that the constitution strictly circumscribes the power of government.
A republic is designed to protect the rights of individuals from the whims of a tyrannical majority.
Villeneuve attacks Republicans as “The Party of No,” in the apparent belief that objections to the overreaching proposals of Obama and Gregoire are simply because they are Democrats, and are pure politics. He’s wrong about that, too.
Republican opposition is based on fundamental principle and on the constitution. Republicans are right to remain steadfast in opposing any proposals that violate individual rights or exceed the enumerated powers delegated to the government in the constitution. They are right to use every parliamentary tool at their disposal to prevent the majority from violating the constitution.
Villeneuve complains that Republicans are holding up progress, and preventing Democrats from bringing about quick, massive, transformational change. Republicans are right to do that, too.
Our governmental processes were designed by the founders to prevent exactly the kind of radical change that Villeneuve and other progressives desire. The economic strength and prosperity America has enjoyed for most of its existence can be directly attributed to the stability of our laws and institutions, which exists precisely because they are difficult to change.
Nobody would be willing to invest in any economy in which their investment is at risk of being lost at any time at the whim of a simple majority. In fact, one of the main reasons the current recession is being extended is due to widespread uncertainty about future government policy. Why invest in trying to grow a business when it’s unknown what Congress, the president, the legislature, or the governor will take next?
The one thing Villeneuve is right about is that we are engaged in a grand debate about the nature of our government.
Do we want to be ruled by a tyranny of the majority, in which a charismatic leader can stir up the population with a crisis du jour, and entice them with promises of safety and security to give up precious liberty that would be impossible to regain?
Or will we require our government to respect individual liberty, remain within constitutional limits, and do what Article I Section 1 of our state constitution declares to be its very purpose: “to protect and maintain individual rights”?
Villeneuve says that legislators were elected to “respond to the extraordinary challenges of our time.” I want legislators who will do so as well, but in a manner consistent with their oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Washington – and that means defending individual rights and government limits in spite of the demands of the majority.
Toby Nixon, Kirkland
