‘The Loyal Opposition’ Vs ‘Seditious Traitors’
Dissent, Protest, & Justice Series 001.
Originally posted on Facebook 6 Jan 2016
In the eighteenth century Britain was the monarchy, and the new USA passionately democratic. Today the US emperor-president rules by fiat, imposing laws without congressional approval, while the UK is tentatively rediscovering direct democracy.
The juxtaposition of yesterday's reasonable UK announcement of an un-whipped Brexit referendum, and the executive overreach of the US gun control decrees, reminded me of the exchange after the constitutional convention when a lady asked Ben Franklin "Well Doctor what have we got? A republic or a monarchy": his reply: "A republic if you can keep it". It is not being kept well. I do hope the republic can be restored. The problem is that the brilliantly designed checks and balances are difficult to reassemble. They protect individuals and minorities from arbitrary rule by temporary and slender political majorities, but, once torn up by the victor(s) of one election, when the pendulum swings the other way, those newly elected have little incentive to rule within the original bounds.
Consider the impact of the 1987 senate democrats decision to block the nomination of Robert Bork, changing recent convention and rejecting a competent and qualified jurist on grounds of judicial philosophy alone. Reagan was prepared to put forward a compromise candidate. 26 years later, with senate Republicans now blocking Obama federal court nominations because of their judicial philosophy, senate democrats went for the 'nuclear option' of allowing a simple majority (rather than needing a 60% supermajority) to override minority objections to nominations. Within a year the democrats had lost their senate majority...
A large part of the problem seems to be the abandoning of any notion of The Loyal Opposition. Rather than see the other side of the house as sincere but misguided, the US administration seems determined to see them as knaves rather than fools, let alone honourable dissenters. This is dangerous for democracy, and is a significant step towards seeing opposition qua opposition as inherently treasonous / criminal.
Returning to the UK, it might be fair to characterise the Corbyn Labour Party as flirting with treason in terms of its support for the IRA, for the Argentinian desire to ride roughshod over the wishes of the Falkland Islanders, and for its opposition to the Queen. But doing so would be a mistake, not because he is necessarily innocent of treason, but because the consequences of de-legitimising opposition are far more injurious to the health of our free society than any subversion by those that openly oppose our way of life. That said, should Corbyn be elected, SIS would be right to bring in, or destroy all files on, sources in Cuba, Venezuela, etc.