Megan McArdle is worried about politicians passing legislation that isn’t supported by the voters:
Are we now in a world where there is absolutely no recourse to the tyranny of the majority? Republicans and other opponents of the bill did their job on this; they persuaded the country that they didn’t want this bill. And that mattered basically not at all. If you don’t find that terrifying, let me suggest that you are a Democrat who has not yet contemplated what Republicans might do under similar circumstances.
My question is this: is there anything we can do to fix the long-term fiscal problems of this country that won’t be opposed by the majority of the population? From where I’m standing, any path out of this fiscal mess is going to involve politicians making hard, unpopular choices. We’ve got some bitter pills to swallow, and since we are about to use up some of least painful cost savings in this upcoming bill, the pills just got even more bitter.
If Megan is correct, and tomorrow we are going to wake up in “a different political world” where it is easier for parties to pass large, important legislation that doesn’t have broad public support, then I say good riddance. We’re going to need some.
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
Monday ~ March 22nd, 2010 at 10:56 pm
anon
“Republicans and other opponents of the bill did their job on this; they persuaded the country that they didn’t want this bill.
…What I hope is that the Democrats take a beating at the ballot boxand rethink their contempt for those mouth-breathing illiterates in the electorate. I hope Obama gets his wish to be a one-term president who passed health care. Not because I think I will like his opponent–I very much doubt that I will support much of anything Obama’s opponent says. But because politicians shouldn’t feel that the best route to electoral success is to lie to the voters, and then ignore them.”
Hello Megan McArdle, what do you think about the tea party crowd? Judging by the signs I see at their protests, I really would characterize them as “mouth-breathing illiterates” without too much exaggeration. Most of their concerns are ridiculous, and yet Republicans keep egging them on. I would say that the Republicans did most of the lying in this debate, actively and by omission. Is it ok in this case because they’re not ignoring the electorate but doing it in an ends-justify-the-means way? Does that count as contempt?
Wednesday ~ March 24th, 2010 at 9:28 am
jazzbumpa
My question is this: is there anything we can do to fix the long-term fiscal problems of this country that won’t be opposed by the majority of the population?
No.
Megan:
Parties have passed legislation before that wasn’t broadly publicly supported. But the only substantial instances I can think of in America are budget bills and TARP–bills that the congressmen were basically forced to by emergencies in the markets.
Oh, the civil right bills of 1964 and 65, for openers.
Republicans and other opponents of the bill did their job on this; they persuaded the country that they didn’t want this bill.
Wow. “Persuaded” with lies about death panels, bureaucrats making your decisions, etc, etc. Favorable numbers declined during the debate as misinformation spread. Besides, if you totaled favorables with those opposed from the left (doesn’t go far enough, a la Kucinich) it was always a majority.
And favorables are increasing already.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/poll_health-care_reform_more_p.html
Megan is either a fool, a tool, or an idiot.
In the future, I would recommend quoting someone whose sentences are worth reading.
Cheers!
JzB