Is it The Will of the People or Mob Rule?
Dave Muskera, M.A.
November 20, 2007
The "will of the people" is a sound bite heard a lot these days in political and cultural debates, especially in regards to gay related issues like gay marriage and hate crimes legislation. We hear it frequently mentioned on TV, talk radio and written in print media. As the 2008 election nears, I expect to encounter the phrase even more. It´s usually offered like it was (is) the gold standard for democratically made decisions - as if God him (or her) self inscribed the idea in stone just below the ten big ones. The folks, usually politicians, pounding the "will of the people" drum don´t want you to think about it too deeply. For example, the reality that Jesus was crucified as a result of the "will of the people" is a fact they hope you don´t remember. In today´s reality, they very much want to get by with continuing to use idea to justify all sorts of bigotry and to whip voters into a fainting frenzy. They want to silence dissenting voices, unpopular beliefs and just about anyone who happens to disagree with their concept of what constitutes "mainstream America".
However, history records countless shameful and sad events perpetuated under the thumb of the "will of the people". From the death of Socrates to the burning of witches in early New England, the hanging of minority members in the south and elsewhere and on to the support of human slavery and the forbidding of inter-racial marriage, the will of the people has often supported heinous group behaviors. But despite the historical realities, there are still people today who want you to believe that the will of the majority is all that matters.
Our country´s Founders and those who wrote our Constitution were keenly aware of and concerned about the bad things that could happen when the "will of the people" was applied simplistically. In response, they deliberately constructed a system of government designed with checks and balances on power that, in reality, protect minorities from the tyranny of the many and the many from the tyranny of the few. It´s called a "constitutional republic" and within it, all three branches of government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) play important and necessary roles.
It´s easy to forget that the United States is not - in the purest sense - a "democracy" but rather a "republic". Actually, the United States is a mix of two concepts of government: Under common law, it´s republican. Under statutory law, it´s democratic. In a republic, people claim and enjoy God-given "natural rights." In a democracy, only government granted privileges known as "civil rights" are recognized.
Think about it, even our salute to flag and country has us repeating the words: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands.......". The distinction between a republic and a democracy has significant legal implications that should be remembered by "will of the people" drum-beaters.
In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. Pure Democracies do not recognize "significant minorities" and except for certain civil rights or privileges granted by the condescending majority, no inherent rights are recognized. Only the will of the people (or the will of the majority) counts. More simply, a pure democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. It was under the rule of such a democracy that Socrates, mentioned before, was executed. Not because he harmed anyone but because the "majority" found his ideas threatening, distasteful and not reflective of common values and traditions.
Fortunately, in the "republic" form of government such as exists in the United States, we are dedicated to the principal that there will be "liberty and justice for all" - not solely for the majority - but for all! In a republic, people have natural rights instead of just civil rights. Our countries founders believed this so strongly that the entire Bill of Rights is essentially a set of principals existing primarily for the protection of minorities. Remember too, in a republic, one vote on a jury overrides the majority. In a pure democracy, such an event would never happen.
Several current debates are essentially a tug of war between these two concepts of government: Republic and Democratic. One of those continuing hot topic debates is the idea of gay marriage as mentioned at the beginning of this article. "Activist" judges (who I´ve written of before) are now often viewed as opposing the will of the people, which on a state-by state basis has soundly denied same-sex couples the same marital rights and benefits as granted opposite-sex couples. But in a republic such as we have here in the United States, these same judges are, in reality, doing the job they are suppose to do. In some cases, they overturn will of the people decisions because such decisions deny equal treatment under the law or are an abridgement of the inherent rights of minorities. Though such decisions are decried by some, they are actual indications that our system of government is working as it was intended, not the other way around.
Remember, in a pure democracy, the will of the people expressed at 51% or greater is the only determining factor in any decision making process. But also take note (as only one example - and like it or not): the outcome of the 2000 US presidential election was determined not by the will of the people, but by a series of decisions made within the judicial branch of our Federal Government. This occurred precisely because the United States is a Republic and not a pure democracy!
The "Will of the People" has long ago joined an ever growing list of catchy terms and repeated phrases. Most of these terms and words have vague and ill-defined meanings. Still, they have become so successfully associated with negative spin that their very mention sounds ominous and evil. "Activist judges" as mentioned earlier is only one of many examples. If you think about the meaning, it really translates to a description of any judge who makes an unpopular ruling or a decision with which you disagree. "Family values" is another term that has become nearly meaningless except as used to condemn the values of others with whom you might also disagree.
In a country where the average high school graduate cannot name the last five US presidents, cannot locate Iraq on a map and cannot reliably distinguish between socialism, communism and a constitutional democracy and who will readily tell you how much they hate the subject of "history" (and be proud of their ignorance), do we really want to imply that the easily swayed and stampeded "will of the people" is the decision standard to aim for? Do we really just want a continuing string of social and political crucifixions?
To keep our form of government healthy, we must resist the easy lull offered by the use of mean-spirited and negative spin terms. We need to think through a debate and not succumb to the dumbing-down of complicated social issues presented in sound-bites because they fit better into a fifteen second TV news or commercial spot or because they flow more readily from vitriolic mouths of talk radio personalities. What we need is a better educated and informed electorate. An electorate that is not satisfied with being spoon fed a particular diet of political or social drivel. An electorate not so lazy as to just sit back and watch and believe some version of the world as it goes by on their 52 in. HDTV.
So, next time you hear someone pounding the drum for the "will of the people", dive underneath and try to get to an understanding of how that "will" was determined (or will be determined) and by what methods it might have been manipulated. Sad to say, we humans can be stampeded almost as easily as a herd of cattle.
Still, I want to believe that deep down most reasonable folks realize that the will of the people is often not the simple rational product of some neutral process. We know in our hearts there is a fine and fragile line between the will of the people and mob rule. So speak up and pound your own shoe even if the will of the people seems to oppose your position. If you´re gay, don´t make apologies. Demand your rights as a citizen. If you´re straight or somewhere in between, stand up for anyone who has their human rights threatened. Get involved. Do something. Our government made a promise to "we, the people" well over two hundred years ago and it´s high time that promise was kept. And to hell with the will of the people if it takes away individual rights granted under the rule of law.
I don´t want my life or the lives of others to be determined by mob rule. Do you?
However, history records countless shameful and sad events perpetuated under the thumb of the "will of the people". From the death of Socrates to the burning of witches in early New England, the hanging of minority members in the south and elsewhere and on to the support of human slavery and the forbidding of inter-racial marriage, the will of the people has often supported heinous group behaviors. But despite the historical realities, there are still people today who want you to believe that the will of the majority is all that matters.
Our country´s Founders and those who wrote our Constitution were keenly aware of and concerned about the bad things that could happen when the "will of the people" was applied simplistically. In response, they deliberately constructed a system of government designed with checks and balances on power that, in reality, protect minorities from the tyranny of the many and the many from the tyranny of the few. It´s called a "constitutional republic" and within it, all three branches of government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) play important and necessary roles.
It´s easy to forget that the United States is not - in the purest sense - a "democracy" but rather a "republic". Actually, the United States is a mix of two concepts of government: Under common law, it´s republican. Under statutory law, it´s democratic. In a republic, people claim and enjoy God-given "natural rights." In a democracy, only government granted privileges known as "civil rights" are recognized.
Think about it, even our salute to flag and country has us repeating the words: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands.......". The distinction between a republic and a democracy has significant legal implications that should be remembered by "will of the people" drum-beaters.
In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. Pure Democracies do not recognize "significant minorities" and except for certain civil rights or privileges granted by the condescending majority, no inherent rights are recognized. Only the will of the people (or the will of the majority) counts. More simply, a pure democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. It was under the rule of such a democracy that Socrates, mentioned before, was executed. Not because he harmed anyone but because the "majority" found his ideas threatening, distasteful and not reflective of common values and traditions.
Fortunately, in the "republic" form of government such as exists in the United States, we are dedicated to the principal that there will be "liberty and justice for all" - not solely for the majority - but for all! In a republic, people have natural rights instead of just civil rights. Our countries founders believed this so strongly that the entire Bill of Rights is essentially a set of principals existing primarily for the protection of minorities. Remember too, in a republic, one vote on a jury overrides the majority. In a pure democracy, such an event would never happen.
Several current debates are essentially a tug of war between these two concepts of government: Republic and Democratic. One of those continuing hot topic debates is the idea of gay marriage as mentioned at the beginning of this article. "Activist" judges (who I´ve written of before) are now often viewed as opposing the will of the people, which on a state-by state basis has soundly denied same-sex couples the same marital rights and benefits as granted opposite-sex couples. But in a republic such as we have here in the United States, these same judges are, in reality, doing the job they are suppose to do. In some cases, they overturn will of the people decisions because such decisions deny equal treatment under the law or are an abridgement of the inherent rights of minorities. Though such decisions are decried by some, they are actual indications that our system of government is working as it was intended, not the other way around.
Remember, in a pure democracy, the will of the people expressed at 51% or greater is the only determining factor in any decision making process. But also take note (as only one example - and like it or not): the outcome of the 2000 US presidential election was determined not by the will of the people, but by a series of decisions made within the judicial branch of our Federal Government. This occurred precisely because the United States is a Republic and not a pure democracy!
The "Will of the People" has long ago joined an ever growing list of catchy terms and repeated phrases. Most of these terms and words have vague and ill-defined meanings. Still, they have become so successfully associated with negative spin that their very mention sounds ominous and evil. "Activist judges" as mentioned earlier is only one of many examples. If you think about the meaning, it really translates to a description of any judge who makes an unpopular ruling or a decision with which you disagree. "Family values" is another term that has become nearly meaningless except as used to condemn the values of others with whom you might also disagree.
In a country where the average high school graduate cannot name the last five US presidents, cannot locate Iraq on a map and cannot reliably distinguish between socialism, communism and a constitutional democracy and who will readily tell you how much they hate the subject of "history" (and be proud of their ignorance), do we really want to imply that the easily swayed and stampeded "will of the people" is the decision standard to aim for? Do we really just want a continuing string of social and political crucifixions?
To keep our form of government healthy, we must resist the easy lull offered by the use of mean-spirited and negative spin terms. We need to think through a debate and not succumb to the dumbing-down of complicated social issues presented in sound-bites because they fit better into a fifteen second TV news or commercial spot or because they flow more readily from vitriolic mouths of talk radio personalities. What we need is a better educated and informed electorate. An electorate that is not satisfied with being spoon fed a particular diet of political or social drivel. An electorate not so lazy as to just sit back and watch and believe some version of the world as it goes by on their 52 in. HDTV.
So, next time you hear someone pounding the drum for the "will of the people", dive underneath and try to get to an understanding of how that "will" was determined (or will be determined) and by what methods it might have been manipulated. Sad to say, we humans can be stampeded almost as easily as a herd of cattle.
Still, I want to believe that deep down most reasonable folks realize that the will of the people is often not the simple rational product of some neutral process. We know in our hearts there is a fine and fragile line between the will of the people and mob rule. So speak up and pound your own shoe even if the will of the people seems to oppose your position. If you´re gay, don´t make apologies. Demand your rights as a citizen. If you´re straight or somewhere in between, stand up for anyone who has their human rights threatened. Get involved. Do something. Our government made a promise to "we, the people" well over two hundred years ago and it´s high time that promise was kept. And to hell with the will of the people if it takes away individual rights granted under the rule of law.
I don´t want my life or the lives of others to be determined by mob rule. Do you?
Print
Email
