The Consent of the Governed: More Follies

"Consent of the governed" is a wonderful, iconic phrase enshrined in the history of the American experiment in representative democracy.  It has been articulated as kind of guarantee of freedom, a protection against tyranny.   But, does it really exist, did it ever actually exist, or is it simply a "feel good" slogan for masking a grotesque failure of the human intellect to create a truly effective and functional model of social organization and governance?

An individual, who writes under the name of Doctor Zero, recently posted a piece on the website, Hot Air, that speaks directly to this issue. 

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/11/29/the-consent-of-the-governed/

He [I shall presume with some measure of trepidation that Doctor Zero is a he] writes about the "ineffective legislation produced by the quest for the middle ground" and he wonders "how truly desirable these uncompromising contests between capitalism and socialism are."  He goes on to ask:

Aren’t elected officials, especially Congress and the President, supposed to represent all of their constituents? Wouldn’t that mean listening to the concerns of both liberals and conservatives, and trying to craft legislation that satisfies both sides to some degree? Are the members of a winning political coalition supposed to have absolute power to do whatever they want, even if they won with only about half the popular vote, while the other side sits in obedient silence until their next chance at the ballot box?"

He quotes Jon Meacham's Newsweek endorsement of Dick Chaney for President in 2012.

One of the problems with governance since the election of Bill Clinton has been the resolute refusal of the opposition party (the GOP from 1993 to 2001, the Democrats from 2001 to 2009, and now the GOP again in the Obama years) to concede that the president, by virtue of his victory, has a mandate to take the country in a given direction.

And, he responds, thoughtfully,

I don’t think most Americans are under the impression they’re voting for a dictator every four years. Bill Clinton won the Presidency with a mere 43% of the popular vote. What sort of “mandate” did that give him to “take the country in a given direction?”

Doctor Zero continues:

If close elections don’t produce miniature Presidents who just keep the seat warm until the next election, then landslide victories don’t produce super-Presidents with turbocharged authority. A President who carries 49 states, and wins 70% of the popular vote, is not entitled to stuff the opposing 30% of the electorate in the trunk and take America out for a joy ride.

And, Zero points out quite perceptively:

The Declaration of Independence states that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The American understanding of democracy does not envision voters as slaves who enjoy the privilege of voting for a new master every few years. When the Declaration speaks of the right – and, later the duty – of the people to abolish tyrannical governments, it renders the notion of “mandates” to impose radical change on unwilling citizens absurd.

Further, Zero writes:

The vital role of consent in the structure of a just government is one of the most powerful ideas ever advanced by the human race. On the other hand, the belief that consent can be manufactured by democratic majorities is one of the most cherished illusions of activist government. The dissent of a minority is not rendered irrelevant by victory in a popular vote… but the health-care debate in the Senate proceeds on the assumption that victory in a parliamentary struggle between a hundred elected officials will compel the consent of the millions of citizens – now a sizable majority of the population, based on the latest polls – who strenuously object to ObamaCare. If Senate Democrats win this debate, huge amounts of your liberty will be destroyed, and vast sums of money will be seized from taxpayers… and you will not be allowed to object. Any attempt to withhold your consent from this economy-shattering, life-changing radical legislation will end with you sitting in a prison cell [Emphasis added].

Doctor Zero concludes with the following pivotal points that illuminate the fundamental problem in our current political system and raise the very important question as to how this conflict can be resolved.

The consent of the governed cannot be expressed solely through a semi-annual (sic,  biannual) vote for elected representatives. It can only be respected by placing strict limits on what those representatives can vote for. Some would argue that requiring the consent of the entire population to authorize massive government programs would effectively render those programs impossible, because 100% agreement is virtually impossible to achieve. Exactly. The entire apparatus of socialist government is a Constitutional violation that would never receive the total support of those who are controlled by its regulations, or compelled to pay for its agenda. For this reason, its agenda should never even reach the serious discussion stage, never mind legislative implementation.

Americans concerned about the size of their government should not be forced into a permanent defensive posture against an endless series of aggressive initiatives. If the needs and desires of some can transcend the liberty of others, then liberty itself is a meaningless concept. Freedom is not what you have left after everyone else is finished making demands of you. The need for your consent is not respected when your only hope of withholding it lies in historic midterm electoral victories and the rapid construction of huge Congressional majorities. The patriots who declared their independence from England perceived an essential truth about the nature of just government, which we have become almost afraid to contemplate [Emphasis added].

Unfortunately, after very effectively highlighting the central flaw in the current notion of "majority-rule," representative democracy, Doctor Zero remains sequestered in the current political-philosophical-psychological box in which the preponderant majority of citizens cognitively reside.  The question that begs for an answer is:  How do we orchestrate a system of social organization and governance that permits giving true attention to consent by addressing rather than overwhelming objections to a particular, proposed policy?  Or, to put it in another way:  How do we use objections of those in minority positions to create a true consensus that virtually eliminates divisive, partisan politics?

In another venue, I have made a start in pulling together ideas that can lead us in a new direction--toward what I call "Synocracy" rather than simply "Democracy."  By "Synocracy" I mean a kind of synergistic democracy which gives credence to the value of "win-win" solutions to conflicts or resolution of differences in perspective.

http://synocracy.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/synocracy-the-novalia-model-part-i/

http://synocracy.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/synocracy-the-novalia-model-part-ii/