George W. Bush, it was endlessly repeated when he first came into office, lacked a mandate and should therefore hold back on what he wanted to achieve, and just as endlessly it is now being said that Barack Obama has a mandate, and any and all opposition should therefore head for the hills.
May I make a suggestion? It is that all this mandate talk is what should head for the hills. Yes, for a whole host of reasons, it makes a difference whether or not there is substantial public support for a policy, but for even more reasons, other things count for more, such as whether the policy really, truly is a good idea worthy of enactment.
I say this while understanding that democratic self-governance as seen in the voting booth is a means of self-protection, of replacing those who have betrayed the public trust or acted in ways a majority thinks unwise.
It is a means as well of furthering one’s own objectives, of supporting those whose philosophy and positions on issues seem worthy, and whose character and judgment inspire trust. Majorities matter.
But ours happens to be a constitutional republic recognizing that the franchised majority itself can be tyrannical, as in supporting segregation or denying the vote to women. The Constitution limits the possibility of runaway, perhaps dangerous public passions when it puts in place rights hard to change and all sorts of checks and balances.
A pure democracy, we aren’t and shouldn’t be. We have instead a representative government in which elected presidents, governors and mayors deal with elected legislators who are supposed to attend fulltime to public issues, to gather information and study it, to debate and deliberate.
