The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : The Myth of Majority Rule

Text Size

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, laying the groundwork for the possibility of using reconciliation to ram a health care bill through Congress, put a different spin on the maneuver yesterday: “Majority rule, we call it.”

The “majority rule” talking point has has been gaining traction among liberals who have been on a long crusade against the filibuster in the Senate. Ezra Klein chimed in with this lesson:

[I]t’s always worth noting that the radical vision of filibuster opponents is … majority rule. The majority rule that Congress used until very recently, the majority rule that is explained to children when they learn about the American government, and the majority rule that we use to run, well, everything else. Scott Brown, for instance, got 51 percent of the votes in Massachusetts, not 60 percent. In fact, you never hear anyone say that we’re a more polarized country now, so we should subject elections to a 60 percent requirement. Majority rule works just fine, thanks.

Ezra is right that children are taught about “majority rule.” But then they grow up to be big boys and big girls, and they learn that the reality is much more complicated. They’re taught that we live in a republic rather than a pure democracy, and that our founders put a number of protections in place to make sure that the majority didn’t trample over the minority. And the founders also made it intentionally difficult for sudden, sweeping, change to get implemented in the heat of passion.

If the founders wanted majority rule, they would have created a parliamentary system, with everything decided by the House, where representation is based on population. Instead, they created something called the Senate, where lots of smaller states with less people in them could get equally represented, and be in a position to block objectionable legislation being pushed by the big populous states. They also inserted the idea of a supermajority in the Constitution – for instance, two-thirds requirements for amending the Constitution or overriding a presidential veto.

In the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote repeatedly about the need to protect minority rights. In Federalist No. 10, he addressed complaints “that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”

In Federalist No. 51, Madison wrote: “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.”

While the filibuster was never in the Constitution, the practice is as old as Congress istelf. “In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster,” the U.S. Senate website explains. “As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.”

The rule of cutting off debate by invoking “cloture” didn’t emerge until 1917, when it required a two-thirds majority. The threshold wasn’t lowered to 60 votes until 1975.

And while Ezra complains that the use of the filibuster has increased over the decades, it’s also worth noting that the existing entitlement programs were imposed by supermajorities. The Social Security Act received 77 votes in the Senate and the legislation creating Medicare and Medicaid passed with 68.

If liberals are genuinely interested in majority rule, however, instead of focusing on legislative shortcuts, maybe they should be concerned about the fact that just 30 percent of Americans want Congress to pass a health care bill similar to the one currently being pushed by Democrats.

Franklin| 1.28.10 @ 4:37PM

Pelosi has that wrong as she doesn't understand history and that our nation is a Republic.

It's not "majority rules", it's PEOPLE RULE.

Liberal Reader| 1.28.10 @ 6:03PM

Mr Klein --

I don't strongly disagree with most of what you write here. Clearly our government is set up to give the minority a strong voice in legislation.

However, you perpetuate one big, very odd illusion propounded lately on the right.

You say that the Founders gave us a "republic," not a "democracy."

This is not the case, and I'll explain why.

A democracy is any form of government that is subject to the will of the people as it is expressed in regular elections.

Our Founders founded a democratic society that is a constitutional republic.

Don't believe me?

Take a look at virtually any decision written by Justice Scalia, who is always writing about the importance of deferring to the democratic process (not the republican process).

One of the great classics of political science is called "Democracy in America." Maybe you've heard of it. (Or maybe you were assigned Republicanism in America.)

Democracy is a very general term that also has different more specific meanings.

We say that in general amendments to the Constitution have made the republic progressively "more democratic." For example, consider the amendments regarding the election of senators.

The United States of America IS a democracy. And, just as a square is a kind of quadrangle, the United States is a democracy (quadrangle) that is a constitutional republic (square).

I don't know how else to get this through. I think Rush Limbaugh must've said once we weren't a democracy, because this claim vibrates like an article of faith out here on these absurd fringes. I urge you back to high school civics, and a sober recognition of truth no matter how much it inconveniences your other rhetorical purposes.

Philip Klein| 1.28.10 @ 8:05PM

Just for added clarity, I changed it to "pure democracy," but either way, I think I'm on firm ground. Here's what Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10:

"A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."

Conservative Bob| 1.28.10 @ 6:36PM

While I have great respect for Justice Scalia and his decisions, I suggest for a clearer understanding you read more of the ratification debate between Mr. Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and their associates.
Their intent is clear in their discussions in fact it was on just this issue that the Constitution was almost not ratified. Until a solution could be agreed upon to protect the smaller states from the larger they were at a terminal impasse.

Their intent is clear in their discussions in fact it was on just this issue that the Constitution was almost not ratified. Until a solution could be agreed upon to protect the smaller states from the larger they were at a terminal impass.

Liberal Reader| 1.28.10 @ 7:03PM

C.B. --

I don't think really the terminology current with the founders is dispositive here.

The fact is political science recognizes a broad category of government systems called "democracies."

In a way, the term is not so useful because it includes the U.S.A. and Iran.

But there you have it. A democracy is ANY government that submits to the will of the people in regular elections. Period.

It is NOT necessarily a government that is constantly beholden to the electorate. All that is required is some regular election by citizens deemed eligible to vote by the state.

Narrower uses of the term are acceptable of course, which is why I used the example of the Constitution growing more "democratic" over time.

Still, the Constitution ratified in 1791 established on this earth a DEMOCRACY called The United States of America.

Bob| 1.29.10 @ 9:32AM

Philip, the myth of "majority rule" goes even farther. The largest group of voters are now "independents", not Democrats or Republicans. Democrats account for just 38% of the electorate and Republicans about 23%. The "majority" of the electorate really has no voice. Instead, we must choose between extremes on either end of the spectrum.

All most people want is a good job and a safe environment to raise their children. They really don't care about all of the policy details we discuss here.

But the use of the filibuster is greater than in the past. Primarily because we are represented by the extremes of both parties, and not by people who actually represent the electorate.

By the way, I agree with your point of view on this, but this has made governing all but impossible. Even if Republicans regain control, Democrats will now use the filibuster just as much as it is being used by Republicans. Obama had it right when he said that because of the filibuster, Republicans actually had as much power as the Democrats in governing. The only problem is that with both parties being comprised of extremists, there is no longer such a thing as "compromise".

Kyle Smith | 1.29.10 @ 11:19AM

Hey Phil. You must be related to Ezra; you sure love quoting him as the lion of liberal thought at his ripe old age of 25. Yep, the Dems should follow the advice of a 25 year old, and we conservatives should worry about what the kid has to say, given that we all are propping him up as the most influencial blogger since Andrew Sullivan. Say hi to Ezra for us at the next family reunion.

Darren | 1.29.10 @ 5:21PM

Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether the US is a democracy or a republic, the experiment has failed. We live under an elected dictatorship. It's just as Patrick Henry predicted:

"There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government. What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances?...It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs should they be bad men; and, sir, would not all the world blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad? Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt."

Pingback| 1.31.10 @ 9:40AM

The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : The Myth of Majority Rule Tools links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : The Myth of Majority Rule Tools About Tools The Sponsors The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : The Myth of Majority Rule The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : The Myth of Majority Rule Tags: different-spin, farmers-abuse, laying-the-groundwork, maneuver, nancy-pelosi, palestra-on-wednesday, serve-instead, the-possibility Koei has unannounced Natal titles, but…