This week, the headline for my column — “Unbridled majorities are as tyrannical and cruel as unlimited despots” — is a quote from John Adams when he served as Vice-President of the United States under George Washington.
Adams made that statement in a letter to John Stockdale in 1793. This was at the time of the French Revolution, which Adams did not support.
An unbridled majority is what the French Revolution became. In the 10 months from September 1793 to July 1794, this majority arrested as many as 300,000 Frenchmen and women for political purposes — 1 in 50.
During what was called the “Reign of Terror” up to 17,000 French citizens were put to death by the guillotine. Ironically many of the leaders of the Terror met that fate.
It does not take a revolution for a majority to cause injustices. A majority in the south determined slavery was legal in the United States until 1865.
One of my favorite writers, Walter E. Williams, in an article he wrote in October 2018, explained why “the founding fathers had utter contempt for majority rule” because “they saw it as a form of tyranny.”
This is why we have a Representative Republic and not a Democracy. Our founders hated democracies.
For example, Williams pointed out that our Constitution has many anti-majority provisions. They include a supermajority to override a presidential veto, proposing amendments to the Constitution which requires a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress or two-thirds of state legislatures to vote for it, plus three-fourths of state legislatures for ratification.
Having a bicameral system of government places another obstacle to majority rule. With two houses, 51 senators can block the wishes of 435 members in the house in addition to the other 49 senators.
The filibuster rule in the United States Senate was created in 1806 by mistake when at the suggestion of another Vice-President, Aaron Burr, the Senate eliminated the rule allowing a simple majority to stop debates on legislation.
Although it was a mistake, it has had the effect of making the Senate a more deliberative body, forcing compromise between Democrats and Republicans on controversial issues.
Both Republicans and Democrats have sought to eliminate the filibuster in the not-so-distant past. Now it is the Democrat’s turn.
In 2020 during the Trump administration, Democrats used the filibuster to stop legislation no less than 327 times. Democrats filibustered a bill, as recently as last week, to put sanctions on the Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
In 2005 then Senator Biden argued against eliminating the filibuster, which Democrats want now to push legislation through the 50-50 split in the Senate. “It is not only a bad idea, it upsets the constitutional design, and it disservices the country,” Biden argued. “No longer would the Senate be that ‘different kind of legislative body’ that the founders intended. No longer would the Senate be the ‘saucer’ to cool the passions of the immediate majority.”
In 2017 27 Democrats — who still hold federal office — including Kamala Harris, signed a letter calling for the preservation of the filibuster. All of a sudden, they have changed their minds. Also, in 2017 Senator Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, said, “Ignoring the other party creates rushed garbage legislation. When you do 60, it’s a compromise.”
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., at one time was a staunch defender of the 60-vote Senate rule when he was minority leader.
In 2017 Schumer said if you can’t get 60 votes, “you shouldn’t change the rules.” In 2005, he said, eliminating the filibuster would “turn what the Founding Fathers called ‘the cooling saucer of democracy’ into the rubber stamp of dictatorship.”
He must have amnesia. Now, in 2022, Schumer believes the filibuster must go.
Fortunately, it looks like he cannot even get 50 votes from Democrats to change the rules with Senators Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va. and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz. expressing their opposition to the change.
For her stance, Sinema is labeled a racist and bigot, demonstrating if you don’t follow the party, Democrats will attack anyone without mercy.
If the filibuster is eliminated, the party in power, Republican or Democrat, will be able to govern without regard for the minority, something the founding fathers did not want.
