How Can the Anti-Government Govern?

In our form of representative government, we have to abide by the election results. We can simply wonder what would happen if we elected only those who are anti-government. We have a small group (we know who they are) who are now saying that the reason they won’t come to the table on immigration reform is that they don’t trust President Obama. Isn’t that their predicate for opposing all legislation? Those people don’t understand the “we the people” concept unless they are in charge.

A 51% threshold is all that’s required in the House of Representatives, so the majority (if they have enough votes) can run roughshod over the opposition, but it won’t get their legislation to the committee for reconciliation. That’s the beauty of our form of government. A small group can keep a bill from going forward on a partisan basis. However, that can be overridden on a bipartisan vote, and then it becomes a political decision for the GOP speaker. Point being, a small group cannot hold this country hostage, unless we allow them to.

Representative government keeps the Tea Party from sending themselves into oblivion because they want to impose austerity measures like we’ve never seen before and move this country further to the right socially. Oh sure, the Koch brothers would love to see the EPA, IRS, and the Dept. of Labor gutted but that’s not where the country is. It’s relatively easy to support an economic theory that has yet to be implemented. The Tea party is collectively opposed to Obamacare but just yesterday, New York became another state that is predicting lower health insurance rates because of the law. Sunday, David Gregory had to keep reminding Mitch McConnell that the Affordable Care Act is the law, not a bill. This is part of their strategy: keep calling it a bill, so people won’t know their new options.

I believe the Senate finally reached an impasse, so deal makers on both sides of the aisle went behind the minority leader's party’s back to try to reach an agreement and it enabled the president’s nominees to move forward in their nomination process, except for two; allowing the GOP to save face. This is the only way to break up status quo. Advice and consent does not mean “blanket filibuster” on the president’s nominees, and the majority party needs to respect the opposition right to voice their opinion. Joe Scarborough said it will hurt Democrats because they might lose the Senate next year; even thou the “nuclear option” was not imposed. I think that’s a lot of bull, because a Mitch McConnell led Senate won’t give a damn about the minority party. The president needs his nominees in place to implement his agenda to protect the rights of consumers, the environment and workers. The senate met in a closed-session in the old Senate Chamber where the participants had a unique friendly meeting and came out with a feeling of optimism. We’ll see how long it lasts.

I would be remiss if I didn’t answer the comments of a poster “When persons choose to start a fight or something, they should be aware that the person they are messing with might be armed, and they may die. This is not the fault of the person with the weapon. You make your own choices, and if you choose wrongly, then be prepared to suffer the consequence.” That comment implies that the holder of the gun will always be innocent, and it gives credence to vigilante justice. We need to reinstitute the ideal thing to do is to call the police to resolve disputes, not  pull out a weapon because if we don’t, it takes us back to a 19^th century mentality.