Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Of opinion polls and populism
There is nothing more annoying than hearing the words, "An ABC poll indicates . . ." As soon as I hear about some new fangled poll my eyes roll back into my head as I am evidently supposed to take this latest survey as Gospel truth of where Americans stand on some particular issue. Really, when it comes to opinion polls of any sort, my general inclination is to ask, "Who really gives a fuck?"
Opinion polls are perhaps useful to dull idiots who cannot form an opinion without knowing where their neighbors supposedly stand. They are also of use to cowardly politicians who have not a strand of principle in their body and whose fingers are constantly moist from licking.
The problems with opinion polls are manifold. Oftentimes they are loaded or ask misleading questions. Further, they are a sampling of the opinions of people who generally have no idea about the issue under discussion. Most people have deeply held beliefs, but do they really know all that much about, say, the Schiavo case or the International Criminal Court? Probably not, so who really cares about their underformed opinion of the subject?
Most importantly, we do not live in a plebiscitary democracy. Well, at least not yet. Luckily for us the Framers did not implement Rousseau's social contract, and as such we live in a constitutional, representative republic which does not cater to the mere whims of popular opinion. Certainly the people have a voice through both voting and other forms of communication with their elected representatives, but there are various mechanisms the Framers set in place to restrict democratic exuberance.
That leads me to another problem, and this, shockingly to most readers of this site, is one that I have with a part of the right. As many of you know I am no fan of the current judiciary. It is an intolerable mess of quasi-despots who have no problems enforcing their political opinions through judicial fiat. That said, some conservatives are under the impression that the way to circumvent this judicial tyranny is through another form of tyranny, though of the democratic kind.
This is unfortunate. Conservatives are suspicious of human nature, and as such inclined not to blindly follow the crowd. Yet a strand of the conservative movement seeks to place leave all important decisions to plebiscites and other mass movements. Michael Federici, among others, has eloquently discussed the rise of right-wing populism and its deleterious consequences.
The solution to judicial tyranny is not democratic populism. The masses can be just as wrong as the men and women in black. For example, many bemoan the constant overturning of referenda results by the Courts. Well, a plebiscitary decision is not inherently constitutional. A decision arrived at by the body public merits no less scrutiny than one decided by the legislature. As such, an unconstitutional action is just that, unconstitutional, as therefore void. Now, I do not know the specifics of each referenda overturned by the judiciary, and I am quite sure that there have been constitutional actions taken that were unduly overturned. And this is what we must deal with.
John Marshall himself did not say that the Courts were the final arbiter. Much like Coke, he has been misquoted in this regard. What he did say is that any legislative act that contravenes the Constitution is of no force, and the Court has the duty to declare such a law void because it is unconstitutional and of no force. But he did not declare that the Courts and only the Courts could make such determinations.
So who has the final authority? This is the conundrum that I must confess I cannot satisfactorily answer. In a technical sense the people are the final arbiters because they are the sovereign power of this Nation. But what does that really mean? In no place in the Constitution do the people act as a collective, thus the only popular recourse is amendment, and even this is not an action of the people acting in the collective sense, but instead through their respective state legislative bodies.
It is frustrating to come to such an inconclusive close. What I do assert most forcefully is that the answer to resolving one sort of tyranny is not another sort. One thing we can do is of course get better judges on the bench. Now if only the Senate would Confirm Them already, we'd be on the right track.
Opinion polls are perhaps useful to dull idiots who cannot form an opinion without knowing where their neighbors supposedly stand. They are also of use to cowardly politicians who have not a strand of principle in their body and whose fingers are constantly moist from licking.
The problems with opinion polls are manifold. Oftentimes they are loaded or ask misleading questions. Further, they are a sampling of the opinions of people who generally have no idea about the issue under discussion. Most people have deeply held beliefs, but do they really know all that much about, say, the Schiavo case or the International Criminal Court? Probably not, so who really cares about their underformed opinion of the subject?
Most importantly, we do not live in a plebiscitary democracy. Well, at least not yet. Luckily for us the Framers did not implement Rousseau's social contract, and as such we live in a constitutional, representative republic which does not cater to the mere whims of popular opinion. Certainly the people have a voice through both voting and other forms of communication with their elected representatives, but there are various mechanisms the Framers set in place to restrict democratic exuberance.
That leads me to another problem, and this, shockingly to most readers of this site, is one that I have with a part of the right. As many of you know I am no fan of the current judiciary. It is an intolerable mess of quasi-despots who have no problems enforcing their political opinions through judicial fiat. That said, some conservatives are under the impression that the way to circumvent this judicial tyranny is through another form of tyranny, though of the democratic kind.
This is unfortunate. Conservatives are suspicious of human nature, and as such inclined not to blindly follow the crowd. Yet a strand of the conservative movement seeks to place leave all important decisions to plebiscites and other mass movements. Michael Federici, among others, has eloquently discussed the rise of right-wing populism and its deleterious consequences.
The solution to judicial tyranny is not democratic populism. The masses can be just as wrong as the men and women in black. For example, many bemoan the constant overturning of referenda results by the Courts. Well, a plebiscitary decision is not inherently constitutional. A decision arrived at by the body public merits no less scrutiny than one decided by the legislature. As such, an unconstitutional action is just that, unconstitutional, as therefore void. Now, I do not know the specifics of each referenda overturned by the judiciary, and I am quite sure that there have been constitutional actions taken that were unduly overturned. And this is what we must deal with.
John Marshall himself did not say that the Courts were the final arbiter. Much like Coke, he has been misquoted in this regard. What he did say is that any legislative act that contravenes the Constitution is of no force, and the Court has the duty to declare such a law void because it is unconstitutional and of no force. But he did not declare that the Courts and only the Courts could make such determinations.
So who has the final authority? This is the conundrum that I must confess I cannot satisfactorily answer. In a technical sense the people are the final arbiters because they are the sovereign power of this Nation. But what does that really mean? In no place in the Constitution do the people act as a collective, thus the only popular recourse is amendment, and even this is not an action of the people acting in the collective sense, but instead through their respective state legislative bodies.
It is frustrating to come to such an inconclusive close. What I do assert most forcefully is that the answer to resolving one sort of tyranny is not another sort. One thing we can do is of course get better judges on the bench. Now if only the Senate would Confirm Them already, we'd be on the right track.
# posted by Paul Zummo : 11:05 PM
