I posted some comments on "Filibuster vs The Tyranny of the Faux Majority"

["Dave Farber" <dave () farber net>]

------- Original message -------
From: Bob Frankston  <Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
Sent: 6/4/'05,  1:29

As an aside perhaps it's telling but Tom Friedman seems to have started his new book tour on Jon Stewart's The Daily 
Show.

http://www.frankston.com/?Name=Filibuster

For those who like zero clicks ...

The Filibuster vs the Tyranny of the Faux Majority

This week we are facing an attempt to do away the filibuster. The dictionary describes the "filibuster" as an 
obstructionist ploy but given that the checks and 
balances of the US government are being subverted by an alignment of people selected for a philosophical system of 
moral simplicity we must have a way to raise 
at least some issues to a level of high importance and require something more than a simple majority. We must rethink 
the filibuster as a mechanism for demandin
g extra caution on vital decisions by requiring a super-majority such as a two thirds vote. This isn't a perfect 
solution but it does provide some protection fo
r minorities in a society that is acting as if it were a theocracy and that the majority's beliefs must be imposed on 
the rest of us.
I don't believe such a view accurately reflects our diverse society as a whole. Those who seek simple and unambiguous 
answers to a small set of issues to the ex
clusion of other considerations gain leverage as the other voices balance each other out. By focusing on primary 
elections where political parties choose who wi
ll run in the full election, the politicians must court the single issue voters if they are to be elected at all. 
That's a political reality in the current syst
em and leadership is for naught if you don't get elected.
The recent Schiavo circus once again demonstrated a huge disconnect between the demands of these voters and the rest of 
us. ABC showed 63 to 28 against the gove
rnment's action, CBS found 85 opposed to the government's action. Jeff Jarvis his shown that the campaign for "decency" 
is even more out of alignment with peopl
e's tolerance. How could protecting us from the sound of "fuck" trump the US Constitution? The mystery to me is why the 
press amplifies the distortion -- are th
e guardians of our rights incapable of seeing past the political framing of these moralistic crusades?
It has made me rethink the filibuster. Obstruction is a way to demand extra caution before enacting laws. It's a way of 
saying that an issue is important enough
 to require a "super-majority" of two-thirds of the senators. By its nature it is not used casually.
Though it was used to thwart tolerance when civil rights legislation was introduced, the larger societal goals did 
prevail. Today's attempt to impose morality o
n all of us is not symmetric. It's not just about intolerance but a fearful retreat from science. After all, science 
questions the accepted wisdom and raises th
e possibility that we are merely inhabitants of this world, not simply the masters. At very least, you should read 
Jared Diamond's Collapse! to understand the d
angers of willful ignorance.
Today the filibuster is about the only tool left that protects us from the tyranny of this false majority. If we lose 
this protection, we will be left with no p
rotection against a judiciary vetted for ideological purity.




Bob Frankston http://www.frankston.com



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/