People Unclear on the Concept

In "Why I’m a Democrat and Why I Wish the Democrats Were Democrats, Too", Paul Jacob, a "senior fellow" at U.S. Term Limits, expresses,

You should sit down to read this. I have a confession to make. I’m a democrat. Don’t scream. Capitalization is rather important here. I’m a small "d" democrat.

You didn’t think I was a card-carrying member of the Democratic Party, did you?

Oh, what a clever little put-down....

He then expresses,

While I’m a small "r" republican because I believe government must be limited to those powers listed rather succinctly right there in that forgotten old Constitution of ours, I’m a small "d" democrat because I believe that government must be managed in as democratic a method as possible. These two concepts work together, whether the two parties bearing their names do or not.

Let me get this straight.... He's a "small d" democrat because he favors a republican form of representative government, and he's a "small r" republican because he is a constitutionalist. So he isn't very good with definitions.

And then he gets wacky, attacking Democrats for (supposedly) opposing the widespread use of voter initiatives:

Other Democratic politicians say privately that the voters simply aren’t up to the decision-making demands of the initiative process. The mantra appears to be: "Vote for me, stupid, and then scram." Perhaps these officials see themselves as a "vanguard of the proletariat" that they deem too dull to handle the heavy-lifting of full citizenship. For some reason they find it difficult to use this argument publicly.

Um... so this guy is a "republican" who doesn't favor the republican form of government - he prefers direct democracy - and he is a constitutionalist who has neither read the Constitution nor the Federalist Papers. While certainly a valid criticism can be leveled at the Founding Fathers for their distrust of the unwashed masses, they instituted a form of representative government based upon checks and balances - not just between branches of government, but also against the voting power of the common man. They chose representative government instead of direct democracy. They chose a then-unelected Senate as a check against the elected Members of Congress - a Senate which was theorized as being something of a "natural aristocracy" which would serve as a check against the rabble in the House of Commons - I mean, against Members of Congress. They chose to constitutionally restrict the voters from electing a foreign-born President, and also created the Electoral College as a check against the electorate choosing an inappropriate President. As Thomas Jefferson expressed in a letter to John Adams (1813),

The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature, for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed, it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say, that that form of government is the best, which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government?

* * *

I think the best remedy is exactly provided by all our constitutions, to leave the citizens the free election and separation of the aristoi from the pseudo-aristoi, of the wheat from the chaff. In some instances, wealth may corrupt, and birth blind them; but not in sufficient degree to endanger the society.

While Jefferson acknowledges in that letter that theory and practice don't always coincide - there remained the influence of an "artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talent" - he ultimately concluded

I think the best remedy is exactly that provided by all our constitutions, to leave to the citizens the free election and separation of the aristoi from the pseudo-aristoi, of the wheat from the chaff. In general they will elect the real good and wise. In some instances, wealth may corrupt, and birth blind them; but not in sufficient degree to endanger the society.

Jacob, of course, rejects all of that, and works with an organization devoted to the notion that the people cannot be trusted with the vote, and should be restricted in whom they may elect to represent them. So he is neither a "small 'd' democrat", as he opposes letting the people speak through their votes, nor a "small 'r' republican" as he disfavors republican government in favor of ballot initiatives. In his own words, he favors "government by referendum".

At a certain point, this thesis becomes internally inconsistent. Why does he trust the people not to be cajoled or manipulated into supporting initiatives which take power from their elected representatives, and perhaps result in artificial budget crises as seen in California, while advocating against their right to elect the representative of their own choosing? His closing "example" perhaps betrays the economic motives behind his argument:

Lakewood is a city run by Democrats. In Lakewood, as in many places all across the country, the local government is attempting to take land from some homeowners and businesses, forcibly through eminent domain, in order to bestow the land on developers and other individuals and businesses that local officials believe will provide higher tax receipts. It is legalized stealing from the poor to give to the rich. But elected Democrats not only condone it, they attack the citizen initiative and referendum power through which Lakewood voters were able to block the city’s land-grab plan.

With all due respect, and acknowledging my own cautious response to eminent domain, it is not as if eminent domain occurs in a void - there are legal protections, and any displaced property owners must be compensated for their losses. Municipalities do not apply eminent domain willy-nilly, as it is cumbersome and expensive. When it is applied, it is usually to the advantage of big business - which is, I suppose, why Jacob chose this example for his "reverse Robin Hood" analysis.

But virtually every voter initiative on the issue of "property rights" has a very different focus - restricting governmental powers to apply zoning regulation or environmental protections, so as to enable developers to construct buildings, subdivisions, factories, and industrial parks which are inconsistent with a community's zoning plan or which may cause environmental damage. If you peel away the thin veneer provided by Jacob's single example, his position becomes advocacy for the business interests he pretends to be advocating against. Looking at his organization's website, you can see more of this phenomenon - such as his argument that we should defer to the Eskimos of Alaska and allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge. Jobs and economic development first, environmental concerns last. Local control is great, provided it advances the interests of business.

A small "d" democrat can recognize the flaws of direct democracy, and thus favor a representative democracy. There is no inconsistency in that. A small "r" republican who disfavors republican government, doesn't know constitutional history, pretends to adhere to a Constitution he probably hasn't read and certainly doesn't understand, and who wishes to restrict the rights of the people to choose their own representatives? Such a person should probably recognize that he has no room to criticize.

Whether he truly believes in his own nonsensical argument, or simply believes his readers are idiots, Jacob's piece counts as an idiotorial.

Comments