Why US Senate must keep the filibuster
The flawed oversimplification for doing away with the filibuster in the Jan. 24 letter gave me pause. The so-called filibuster is the only thing preventing “tyranny of the majority.”
In 1831, while traveling the U.S., Alexis de Tocqueville wrote “Democracy in America.” He marveled at our system, but noted the possibility of tyranny of the majority he’d seen in Europe. This is exactly what the filibuster prevents, and that’s why the party in power, Democrats now, want to dismantle Senate rules about cloture, the procedure for ending debate to vote, thus allowing simple majority, or 51 of 100, to pass laws that adversely affect millions in the minority.
The warning about the tyranny of the majority is based on human nature that is “an inherent weakness of majority rule in which the majority of the electorate peruses exclusively its own objectives at the expense of the minority factions.” The filibuster is the only prevention.
Cloture now needs 60 votes of 100 senators. Seriously, if the bill were such a great idea for the electorate, they could muster 60 votes. After all, they represent all Americans, not just partisans. Perhaps gridlock in Congress is good for most Americans. The idea that it prevents modernization of our country and the government could better respond to challenges of the present age is a smokescreen for more government intervention in our lives with empty promises of more free stuff exalted by socialists to garner votes to obtain more power.
Most people mistakenly believe the U.S. is a democracy. It’s not; it’s a constitutional federal republic with officials elected through democratic elections. Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution or Bill of Rights is the term democracy found. Neither is filibuster, but it was wisely created by senators in the early 1800s. In their wisdom, the founders of the U.S. rejected pure democracy. They had seen through history that democracy can exist only until the majority learns it can vote itself largess or more free stuff, out of the public treasury until it’s depleted, and that’s exactly what the elimination of the filibuster could do.
As if the nation can afford more debt — but it doesn’t matter to the anointed ones. It’s not their money — it’s yours.
The same people who want the filibuster eliminated are no doubt in favor of eliminating the Electoral College, and just like the elimination of the filibuster, unless it benefits them. With the volatile state of politics now, the elimination of either will surely lead to a totalitarian regime. The endgame here for the Democratic / Socialist Party is a one-party tyrannical government.
ALAN T. MASAITIS