-By Dan Scott
With the recent pushback by the public against the rushing legislative juggernaut of Pelosi, Reid and Obama, they have suffered a loss of credibility. The DNC has begun running ads basically saying paid mobs by the GOP and insurance industry are trying to derail Healthcare Reform. The problem for Democrats with such a strategy is it is an exercise in self-delusion leading to defeat. The old dictum of “the customer is always right” tells us if you want to sell something you don’t insult, belittle, or dismiss the customer. No matter how correct you believe yourself to be, an angry customer is not one whom will not be returning to your establishment anytime soon. The Democrats are operating under the delusion that since they won the election, they have the unchallengeable right to do as they please. The public has responded accordingly. Hilariously, the DNC ads actually imply that conservatives and GOP voters are sore losers preventing the will of the majority.
A sore loser may act in bad form, but an ungracious winner is far more unacceptable and immature. But let’s examine this idea of sore loser as implied by the DNC. The idea of an election in a Republic is to represent the interests of the majority with deference to the point of not trampling on the rights of the minority. In the most elementary form, any person elected to public office does not just represent those who voted for them otherwise they would not have any credibility and more importantly would lack the authority to legitimately govern all the people. Our system of government is based on SELF GOVERNANCE, which means the governed have to CONSENT to any action by those who would govern. This consent is not merely a one time iron clad commitment granted as a blank check upon winning a popularity contest, it is EARNED by the consistent representation of the governed who in turn continue to consent. While the public reasonably gives the benefit of the doubt (Public Trust) to elected officials, it is the responsibility of the elected officials to keep faith with this trust as they represented it. Any misrepresentation by someone campaigning for office is a violation of the public trust and voids any claim of legitimacy even if they garner a majority of votes by such a misrepresentation. An interesting side note here, Robert Gibbs when recognizing the government of Iran as legitimate by virtue of an obvious fraudulent election seemed to choke on that statement. At some level, even Gibbs realizes an election does not necessarily confer legitimacy.
Given the repeated flip-flops by Obama and the Democrats in general, the public has good reason to stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. Numerous statements by the Democrats saying one thing conflicting with actual bills before Congress written by Democrats, indicating the opposite cannot go on indefinitely without a loss of credibility. As Groucho Marx said, “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”
While we would agree one shouldn’t interrupt a speaker because it is bad form or poor decorum, these people are upset because they believe they have been lied to and because the Congress IS NOT LISTENING. The whole point of a shouting match is to be HEARD because the other person isn’t listening or bothering to consider any valid points in a discussion. A discussion becomes a monologue when one side refuses to listen. The fact that people feel they have to shout at a legislator means the legislator has failed to carry themselves with humility and has acted in a manner to rouse that feeling by misleading them and ignoring their concerns. Far from the DNC characterization of mob action, it is the legislators who are at fault here as ungracious winners of a political game. When Congress fails to take people seriously, then they have no right to demand decorum from those who believe they have misled. It’s called being insensitive and condescending.
The Health care debate as handled by Democrats is not a debate; it is a cram down based on the arrogance that they know better. A Democrat Strategist proclaimed there was no point in bipartisanship if they (GOP) won’t agree to pass the legislation as proposed. It is a sad day when elected representatives fail to recognize that any legislation they are considering or proposing is supposed to be at the self-evident CONSENT of the GOVERNED. That’s the point of a Republic form of government. What Democrats have done is not representation; it is an arrogant meritocracy where they make the decisions despite the objections of the governed. And they wonder why people are upset and shouting liar in town hall secessions?
Democrats seemed to have gone so far out on the ledge on this issue they are now urging the legal authorities via false accusations to tamp down basic first amendment rights of public dissent. This not the first time an Obama supporter has made false accusations to involve law enforcement. If you remember the whole ordeal by a Mormon Sect prior to the election having their children illegally taken from them due to a false accusation. The behavior by Democrats is not one of debate but of intimidation tactics. Furthermore, Senator Chuck Schumer (D) is openly saying they can pass the healthcare bill by changing the rules to set aside the 60-vote majority rule. So what part of any of these actions, which are over the top in and of themselves, smacks of debate and listening to the concerns of the public?
———-
Dan Scott calls himself a “Member of the Global Capitalist Cabal preaching Capitalism and personal responsibility as the economic solution to world poverty.” He is also a member of the 14th Amendment Society — victimhood is a liberal code word for denying the civil rights of others. He is also a proud member of the Global Warming Denier Cabal, insisting that facts not agendas determine the truth.
Dan can be seen on the web at http://www.geocities.com/fightbigotry2002/ as well as http://www.geocities.com/dscott8186/saidwebpage.htm, And can be reached for comments at dscott8186@yahoo.com.
Fair Use: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.