Republicanism at work
The people are angry. Congress has an approval rating of 21 percent. The president’s approval rating has fallen to 45 percent, down from over 60 percent right before Congress passed his infamous stimulus package. In just three weeks, the people will have their turn to speak, and will do so sovereignly. Heads will roll. Political careers will end, some of them distinguished, and others will begin. And media people will prattle about “democracy at work.” It isn’t.
When that Election Day comes, remember that what you will be seeing is not democracy, but republicanism doing what it was designed to do.
With the people as angry as they are with the political class, it would be reasonable to expect a complete change in government. In 1993, Canadian voters were so upset with the Progressive Conservative Party, one of the country’s two major parties, that they reduced the Tory’s 169-seat majority in Parliament to a mere two seats, with even the prime minister herself failing to win reelection in her district. That is what voter anger can do in a democracy. But you will not see that in November.
We could well see a turnover in the U.S. House of Representatives. Control will likely shift from the Democrats, who now enjoy a comfortable majority, to the Republicans. The House is the more democratic of the two legislative bodies, and it would undergo even greater change if our gerrymandered districts weren’t rigged to favor incumbents.
The Senate might also flip dramatically if it were not for an anti-democratic feature of that body that was designed to put the brakes on popular passions. Senators serve six-year terms, and only one third of them are up for reelection every two years. So at any given election, most of the upper house of the legislature is insulated from the tide of popular enthusiasm, be it anger or adoration.
Of course, the president himself is in no personal trouble since he does not have to face the people again until 2012 when the mood may have changed. A more strictly democratic constitution would have held the president more closely to the popular will with the same two-year term Congressmen have.
But it was the intentional design of our Founders to protect our political life from the instability of democracy and its potential for tyranny, or what Alexis de Tocqueville called “democratic despotism.” Our constitution attempts, quite successfully I think, to institutionalize the people’s better judgment while at the same time giving vent to their passing opinions and passions.
On Tuesday, Nov. 2, the world will see powerful men and women toppled from their high places, but they will see this happen in the context of the stability and continuity of a great power. They will see what is all too rare in this world: republicanism at work.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top44 Comments to “Republicanism at work”
They could see more of it if the government(s) had sent the absentee ballots to the military on time. It shouldn’t take until October 13th for the DOJ to finally file suit either.
Report comment to moderator
It does happen every so often that the entire Congress is up for grabs. It should have happened this year.
Report comment to moderator
Voter participation would increase if more states allowed ballot initiatives for things like legislator pay/benefit packages, tax increases. As it is, democratic govt is ill-served when they get in there and gerry-mander themselves “safe seats” and pass so-called election laws tantamount to Incumbent Protection Act.
Report comment to moderator
[Insert obligatory Frank-in-Phoenix insight here]
Report comment to moderator
Now, Sawgunner…..
Report comment to moderator
“The president’s approval rating has fallen to 45 percent, down from over 60 percent right before Congress passed his infamous stimulus package.” — D.C. Innes
Gallup:
Moral: It is true that low approval ratings as midterms approach can roll some heads for the incumbents. But it’s also true that it means little for how history will judge the president. I see a lot of comments here about how Obama is such a bad president, and people wave the latest approval percentages around as proof … but at 45% he’s doing better now than Reagan was at the same point in his presidency, and Reagan, as Gallup reminds us, “has appeared in the Top 10 of Gallup’s annual Most Admired Man list more than 30 times, more often than any other person except evangelist Billy Graham.”
I don’t think many of the Tea Party favorites are going to win in the general elections — a few might, but not most — and I don’t think the turnover in Congress is likely to be as sound as many of you would prefer. But, however the election goes, check back in a few decades to see if Obama has become a Jimmy Carter or a Ronald Reagan in the eyes of history.
Report comment to moderator
We may see republicanism at work on November 2, but starting November 3 we are going to see it manifestly not at work.
The most likely outcome right now is a Republican House and a barely Democratic Senate. Even with the so-called “Super Majority,” the Democrats can barely get legislation passed. Even usually routine legislation — extensions of unemployment benefits, health care for 9/11 workers injured in the line of duty — are blocked. Record number of executive appointments at all levels are unfilled (under “secret hold” by Republican lawmakers). With a Republican House and a barely Democratic Senate? Nothing will get passed.
My prediction: for the next two years at least, Washington will be entirely gridlocked.
Report comment to moderator
You kinda wish sometimes that the Leftys would remember that what’s going on is pretty much unprecedented. Comparisons to any time other than the Great Depression is like comparing apples to oranges. They also forget just how bent out of shape The People are. But then again, Leftys haven’t been able to understand that there even is anger out there. They just think the rabble doesn’t understand anything.
Report comment to moderator
@Innes: And media people will prattle about “democracy at work.” It isn’t. When that Election Day comes, remember that what you will be seeing is not democracy, but republicanism…
Here’s the definition I have for “democracy”:
It certainly sounds like what you’re calling republicanism falls under the broader banner of democracy.
@Innes: With the people as angry as they are with the political class, it would be reasonable to expect a complete change in government.
Short answer: the people (as a whole) just aren’t that mad. Ergo it is not reasonable to expect a complete change in government.
Report comment to moderator
When the Congress has a 21% approval rating, that says mad to me.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe there could be 30-60-90 day terms with complete and exhaustive software monitoring of their every move.
Too much yielding to big-biz lobbyists, avoiding the little folks and their jobs?…
..bye bye.
Good job at the gov’n. post?
You win a bonus of another 30-60-90 day slot…
…WITH PAY!
Report comment to moderator
Nothing much good is at work as long as voter fraud continues to rise. I suspect that it may be as bad in the rest of the country as it is in Minnesota. Over 600 felons voted twice and we actually have about 40 treason convictions (which means a lot when you recall how close the senate vote was that fraudulently got the Hate-mongering Democrat Al Franken into office).
Okay, “treason” is just my word for “voter-fraud” since without the valid consent of the governed, this is simply not America and all that makes su America is undermined.
Fraud was horrific here. Another Minnesota and nationwide problem was that there were more registrants and even more voters in some areas that the population itself.
Nothing else matters when voter-fraud reigns.
Report comment to moderator
Even with his approval ratings in the ditch Obama is still mocking and ridiculing half of the electorate. He arrogantly proclaims that regardless of what happens in November, Republicans are going to have to do what he wants.
Translation: Whatever happens, the backward, do-nothing knuckle dragging, bomb throwing imbeciles may have to finally get off their keisters and let me show them how its done.
Everything Obama accuses Republicans of he has made exponentially worse. He has come completely unglued. He continues to insult the people who put him in office. Every problem Bush handed him he has made worse and Americans surprisingly aren’t falling for the ridiculous rhetoric again.
Report comment to moderator
Obama reminds me of the knight in Monty Python’s Holy Grail who taunts the guy who just cut off his arms and legs.
On the plus side, the guy never quits. He is like the chattering teeth at parties that just keeps doing the same thing ad nauseum regardless of watch the situation is.
Obama could turn America into the Russian gulag with lines wrapping around buildings waiting to purchase toilet paper and he would still be mocking and ridiculing everyone else telling anyone who opposes him how stupid they are.
Report comment to moderator
@NJLawyer: When the Congress has a 21% approval rating, that says mad to me.
What would say “mad” to me is if few incumbents were winning their party primaries. Except they’re winning. There are 19 senate seats in play.
The incumbent chose not to run in 10 races:
Biden (D-DE)
Dodd (D-CT)
Burris (D-IL)
Bond (R-MO)
Goodwin (D-WV)
Martinez (R-FL)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bunning (R-KY)
Gregg (R-NH)
Voinovich (R-OH)
The incumbent won his primary in 7 races:
Boxer (D-CA)
Bennet (D-CO)
Reid (D-NV)
Murray (D-WA)
Feingold (D-WI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Vitter (R-LA)
The incumbent lost his primary in 2 races:
Specter (R-PA) (ran as Democrat)
Murkowski (R-AK)
That’s hardly “throwing the bums out”.
Report comment to moderator
You’ve got nothing til election day. Primaries are within their own parties.
Report comment to moderator
@NJLawyer: You’ve got nothing til election day. Primaries are within their own parties.
Uh, yeah. I realize that. If incumbents are winning their primaries, though, that means that their own party members, at least, are fairly pleased with how they’re doing.
Out of three Republican primaries where the incumbent stood for re-election, voters declined to re-nominate the incumbent in two of them. That, at least, indicates some amount of “anger” among Republicans.
Out of six Democratic primaries in which the incumbent stood for re-election, voters went with the incumbent. So Democrats, at least, are not voting out their chosen representatives.
I’d run the numbers on House races but there are just too many of them.
Report comment to moderator
Big oops on my part. There are actually 37 senate elections taking place. The 19 number represents the ones that are considered to be “in play”; the rest are in the “solid win” column for either party. I’ll go look up the other 18 and add their results to the list.
Report comment to moderator
Yay for Wiki. Wish I’d found their page first before looking up those 19 races “by hand”. Here’s the break down for Senate races:
Incumbent not running: Rep. 6, Dem. 6
Incumbent lost primary: Rep. 2, Dem. 1
Incumbent won primary: Rep. 10, Dem. 12
10 out of 12 Republican senators who stood for re-election won their primary.
12 out of 13 Democratic senators who stood for re-election won their primary.
Here are the House numbers from Wiki:
All 435 seats up for re-election.
37 Reps will retire at the end of their term and not seek re-election.
5 vacancies will be filled by special election prior to November.
That leaves 393 seats where the incumbent ran in a primary. How many lost? As far as I can tell: four. Two Republicans and two Democrats:
Griffith (R-AL 5)
Kilpatrick (D-MI 13)
Inglis (R-SC 4)
Mollohan (D-WV 1)
If people are indeed mad at Congress, they seem to be mostly mad at members of the opposing party, because they’ve pretty much re-nominated all the incumbents.
Report comment to moderator
DEMOCRATS voted for Healthcare even though people said NO!
And now DEMS don’t want people who are voting for them to even know they are Democrats.
If Dems thought they were doing the right thing, then why are they so ashamed of having voted the way they did.
Mitchell just runs ads AGAINST his opponent.
People have put signs next to his signs on the street. The signs say he voted for healthcare. The signs don’t last long–people tear them down. And Mitchell is MAD that someone would put signs like that next to his name? WHY?
Why is voting FOR healthcare such a bad thing NOW?
Why aren’t DEMS proud of what they did?
Report comment to moderator
People are finding out just WHAT is in the so-called “HEALTHCARE” bill. Like the gov’t is requiring each business to send a report each time you spend over $600. Did you buy a car? A refrigerator? An air conditioner? A computer? Why do they want to know that? And why would it be in the HEALTHCARE bill?
Report comment to moderator
@MrsNews2Me: DEMOCRATS voted for Healthcare even though people said NO!
By and large their constituents said YES. Sometimes the majority doesn’t get what it wants. Think Bush 2000.
Report comment to moderator
#7 JJF
wrong, slowing down a hyper-activist and intrusive government is another part of the founders’ design for America – i.e. republicanism at work
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: You kinda wish sometimes that the Leftys would remember that what’s going on is pretty much unprecedented. Comparisons to any time other than the Great Depression is like comparing apples to oranges. They also forget just how bent out of shape The People are. But then again, Leftys haven’t been able to understand that there even is anger out there. They just think the rabble doesn’t understand anything.
This is nothing like the Great Depression. Let’s not overstate it. It’s not even as bad as the late-70s recession. Seen any lines for gas?
The anger that’s out there is no worse than it ever is. We leftys were upset at a lot of what went on in the Bush administration and the 2006 midterms were pretty bad for Republicans. Before that, Republicans set out to undermine and destroy Bill Clinton. Before that …. and so on.
It’s an unfortunate, but normal, aspect of American politics.
When the Congress has a 21% approval rating, that says mad to me.
Maybe. But what are people mad at? Are they mad at the Democratic majority for the legislation they’re trying to pass, or are they mad at the Republican minority for obstructing it? Or some of both?
How do you even measure approval or disapproval of a body made up of 535 individual people? It’s much less meaningful statistic than presidential approval, and the number itself means very little.
Report comment to moderator
If they were mad at the opposing party, it wouldn’t be as low as 21%.
It’s fun to watch you all not face reality though in so desperate a manner.
Report comment to moderator
I remember the lines for gas. I coasted down a hill to my gas station at 5 in the morning. You are still comparing apples to oranges. This is a completely different world with different problems and fears.
And now The People have the Internet. This is so much fun seeing these parties not get it. An instigator couldn’t ask for more.
Report comment to moderator
The false premises in DCINNES’ argument are:
1.) Republicans could still win the House if Obama were on the 2010 ballot, and
2.) Obama would lose.
3.) “Mood” is more significant than demography.
“The people” is an abstraction represented by successive casts of characters of dissimilar size and composition. This time around, angry old white people make up a bigger share of the smaller electorate.
Obama is almost outrageously sanguine about 2010, but he’s probably right in predicting that this is the high-water mark of Republican Republicanism.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: If they were mad at the opposing party, it wouldn’t be as low as 21%.
Maybe. But can you think of a time when Congress, as a whole, has ever had a particularly high approval rating? Congress is a big thing that has a role in a wide variety of issues and there are many, many reasons individual people might be unhappy with it at any given moment.
It’s fun to watch you all not face reality though in so desperate a manner.
Or maybe your gloating is premature. We’ll know soon.
Report comment to moderator
SAWGUNNER (3): Voter participation would increase if more states allowed … [etc. & so forth] … and pass so-called election laws tantamount to Incumbent Protection Act.
SAWGUNNER (4): [Insert obligatory Frank-in-Phoenix insight here]
Frank: I have nothing to say, one way or the other.
But just out of curiosity, what might you have expected that I would say? (I ask out of genuine interest in how you perceive me re. this topic.)
Report comment to moderator
PS: Frank’s been in SPokane for over two years now, but I like that you think of me as being in Phoenix … lets me know you’ve been around here that long!
Report comment to moderator
Well, okay, maybe I have one thing to say:
I oppose term limit laws.
Pat Buchanan once called them welfare for voters. If they (voters) can’t be bothered to a) research the incumbent and his challenger(s), or perhaps even b) field a challenger, they should be stuck with the guy they’ve got.
Furthermore, suppose the voters of a particular district genuinely like the guy they have and want to keep re-electing him? Why should they be restricted by law from sending him back for another term?
In short, we already have term limits.
They’re called “elections.”
[Is that something along the line of what you expected at (4)?]
:-O
Report comment to moderator
@NJLawyer: If they were mad at the opposing party, it wouldn’t be as low as 21%.
If they were mad at their own party they wouldn’t nominate all the same incumbents to represent them again.
Report comment to moderator
Frank #31,
Well said!!
Report comment to moderator
The end result is what matters. I personally don’t expect any Democrat to nominate anything other than a Lefty as a candidate.
The People don’t consist of just Democrats — don’t want to frighten you with that, but it’s a fact. And Republicans and Independents (as well as Democrats who are beyond disgust) don’t vote in the Dem primary.
The only thing that really matters is the end result on Election Day. You can’t prove anything by a primary.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Frank — term limits are built into the Constitution. But I do think we should get rid of gerrymandering. That’s not in there.
Report comment to moderator
@NJLawyer: I personally don’t expect any Democrat to nominate anything other than a Lefty as a candidate.
If Democrats were mad at the current set of Democratic incumbents they would nominate different lefties instead.
If Republicans were mad a the current set of Republican incumbents they would nominate different righties instead.
Outside a few isolated incidents, neither of these seems to be happening to a very high degree.
NJLawyer: You can’t prove anything by a primary.
Wrong. Primary results are extremely relevant to the question of whether Democrats (as a group) and Republicans (as a group) are “mad” at their incumbent representatives.
“Mad” means they nominate fresh faces. “Not mad” means they nominate the same guys they did last time.
Report comment to moderator
“This is nothing like the Great Depression. Let’s not overstate it. It’s not even as bad as the late-70s recession. Seen any lines for gas?”
right, yet they keep talking of it as our “great recession” – not that the government is not capable of producing one if they keep fixing the rules at this rate
gas (or any other) lines are produced by…?
Report comment to moderator
XION misrepresents the NYTimes quote. XION cuts out the topic sentence and inserts, “He says,” which is not there. This manipulation removes necessary, contrary information and context. Here is how XION’s quote looks on the NYTimes website:
Obama expressed optimism to me that he could make common cause with Republicans after the midterm elections. “It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, they feel more responsible,” he said, “either because they didn’t do as well as they anticipated, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn’t work for them, or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way.”
According to the reporter, Obama is saying that he can make common cause with Republicans, not that he can command them “to do what he wants.”
Were it only so!
Report comment to moderator
But Scroop, that’s not part of their narrative.
Report comment to moderator
You’re all so ridiculous, I wish you could see yourselves.
Report comment to moderator
“According to the reporter, Obama is saying that he can make common cause with Republicans, not that he can command them “to do what he wants.””
What part of that makes you think that Obama will do what the Reps want?…
Besides, he’s clearly stating they better get on board with him or else he will make them the fault of any bad policy. Not that he wouldnt anyway, but he’s attempting to leverage their desire to stay in power in accordance with his will.
Report comment to moderator
That’s not what the interviewer reports Obama said.
Report comment to moderator
IF that’s what Obama’s saying, then it’s highly likely a Fox interviewer will ask him about it and report it back to you. Until then, you’re just putting words in Obama’s mouth.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: What part of that makes you think that Obama will do what the Reps want?…
Besides, he’s clearly stating they better get on board with him or else he will make them the fault of any bad policy. Not that he wouldnt anyway, but he’s attempting to leverage their desire to stay in power in accordance with his will.
Republicans never do this when they’re in power. They work very hard to accommodate the desire of the minority, and always take their share of the blame when things go wrong.
Only evil Democrats do this.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!