"Tyranny" is the vogue word for political and judicial outcomes that certain politicians and pundits oppose. We need to take a deep breath.
1. The pedigree of "tyranny".
"Sic semper tyrannis." ("So always to tyrants.") John Wilkes Booth shouted this as he leaped from the balcony in Ford's Theater after murdering probably the greatest man to occupy the office of the presidency.
"Tyrant" is a dangerous word. It can lodge in a fanatical mind and manifest itself in an explosion. In the recesses of our minds, we know what tyrants deserve and how to deal with them. From Caesar to Hitler, tyrants have been removed by blood and violence. But the fanatic cannot distinguish between the real tyrant and the tyrant of the imagination.
I don't know that Timothy McVeigh specifically spoke of "tyranny". But his thoughts walked in that way before he murdered 168 people, including 19 children, in Oklahoma City. A psychiatrist visited McVeigh on death row and described him as a decent person who had allowed rage to build up inside him to the point that he had lashed out in one terrible, violent act. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1321244.stm
I question the "decent person" part of that, but certainly the part about rage building up rings true.
This is the immediate risk of talk of "tyranny".
2. The purpose of "tyranny".
I doubt that the persons who have in our time re-inserted "tyranny" into political vocabulary intend to incite violence, however much that might be the risk. Instead, I believe they intend to whip up white-hot fervor to drive their base to the polls, to gain political power. But the fact that the polling places of America are the solution to this "tyranny" strongly suggests that it is no tyranny at all.
"Tyranny" strongly connotes illegitimacy. That's why it is used -- to delegitimize a political outcome or judicial decision. So, passing healthcare legislation -- so that sick people don't die just because they are poor, so that the unisnured don't get free treatment that drives up insurance costs for the insured -- this is "tyranny". A judge striking down Proposition 8 -- the California proposition that outlawed gay marriage -- that is "tyranny". That is, these are not just outcomes that one can disagree with or even strongly oppose. They, being "tyranny", are entirely illegitimate.
3. The operation of democracy is not "tyranny".
But these are not tyranny. These are our political and judicial systems operating as intended. Obama won the presidency and Democrats won Congress. That permitted enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This happened after eight years of perceived Republican mis-rule. And elections have consequences. So healthcare reform became law. Also financial reform. And repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. It is the political process doing what it was designed to do.
The Proposition 8 decision is the progeny of Marbury v Madison. Marbury is the two-hundred-year-old Supreme Court decision that declared that federal courts have authority to declare laws unconstitutional. Agree or disagree with Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Judge Walker's authority to make this ruling is rock solid. Judge Walker was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. Now, the Supreme Court will have the last word.
At any time in the last two-hundred years, Marbury v Madison could have been repealed by amending the Constitution. But that hasn't happened, because most people think it is appropriately the law of the land. Which means that, right or wrong, Judge Walker was just doing his job, calling Constitutional balls and strikes.
And all of these political and judicial outcomes have a political solution. After passage of health-care reform, Republicans took back the House of Representatives. In the next election, they might take back the presidency and the Senate. If this is tyranny, it is a peculiar kind of tyranny.
4. The dictionary definition of "tyranny".
The politicians and pundits who have laid claim to "tyranny" are like Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass. Humpty Dumpty defined words as he pleased: "When I use a word, . . . it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." "The question is which is to be master – that's all." Lest we be Humpty Dumpty, here is the dictionary definition of "tyranny". (Skip this if definitions bore you.)
"[T]yranny ... n. ... 1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power. 2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler. 3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly. 4a. Use of absolute power.... b. A tyrannical act. 5. Extreme harshness or severity; rigor." (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition.)
Or: "2. Cruel or oppressive government or rule." (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th Edition.)
Russia under Putin has enacted a law that allows the state to impose fines on protesters that are equal to the yearly income of the ordinary Russian. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has rigorously undermined the economic independence of his opponents. These are tyranny. These fit the definitions. When politicians and pundits equate American political outcomes to these genuine examples of tyranny, they are like the princess who was unable to sleep on high-piled matresses, because of a pea underneath the matresses.
5. "Tyranny" claims are selective.
Claims of tyranny are selective. In Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court struck down the law that prohibited unlimited corporate spending to influence political campaigns. Americans overwhelmingly supported the stricken law. Sixty-five percent of Americans strongly supported it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021701151.html
There were no cries of "tyranny" after Citizens United.
Nor were there cries of "tyranny" after America turned on the Iraq war, but still had to pay taxes to support it. Dick Cheney's one-word response to a question about America's opposition to the Iraq war was "So?"
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SypeZjeOrY4
These seem no less "tyrannical" than passing healthcare reform and Wall Street reform, or striking down Proposition 8.
6. "Tyranny" claims are toxic to democracy.
Democracy has a doubtful future if citizens come to believe that any political outcome that they disapprove is evidence of tyranny. People who say that say, in effect, that their political sensibilities are entitled to prevail not only when they win elections, but also when they lose elections. This is a fundamental refusal to acknowledge the democratic process and the importance of electoral outcomes. This attitude is fundamentally un-democratic.
I do not take for granted that democracy in America will survive. History shows times in our history of democracy at risk. President Wilson prosecuted and imprisoned labor leader Eugene V Debs for speaking against the draft during World War I. Huey Long ran Louisiana like a dictator; Franklin D Roosevelt feared that America would lose patience with the New Deal and turn to Long, who would rule America like he ruled Louisiana. Whether that would have happened is unknowable, because Long was assassinated.
Widespread belief in the "tyranny" of the outcomes of ordinary democratic and judicial processes produces fissures in our political bedrock. These fissures risk to crumble this bedrock in case of great crisis, collapsing the house that the Constitution built.
7. The solution: take a deep breath.
The solution is to stop. Just stop. But not only to stop, but to go the opposite direction. Nelson Mandela united a fractured South Africa by his extraordinary decency to the White minority.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22friedman.html?_r=1&ref=thomaslfriedman
We can use a little Nelson Mandela in American politics. And any American politician who acts in that way deserves our strong support and admiration.
Because we have heard it said from when we were toddlers: "United we stand, divided we fall." And, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." We don't have to agree on all issues. We won't. No vibrant democracy has perfect consensus. But we can agree that it is illegitimate to delegitimize. We can agree that the political processes and judicial processes working the way they were meant to work is not "tyranny".
8. Democracy eats itself.
But let me carve out an exception to what I have said. Government is legitimate because it operates with the consent of the governed. When democratic processes are used to undermined that core principle of democracy, democracy undermines democracy.
In the name of eliminating a problem that largely does not exist -- voter fraud -- states are deliberately shrinking the voter pool. In the name of democracy, this bludgeoning of democracy must stop.
No comments:
Post a Comment