Mob Rule?

Great Debates
1

This is addressed to conservative posters.

Often I’ve seen you use “mob rule” as a caution against democratic inititives I ( or others ) favor. I’d like to know what you on the right mean by the term. To me it brings to mind the French Revolution. Angry groups of people rioting and taking the reigns of government by force. That certainly isn’t a future I would hope for but I don’t see how democratic proposals would lead to such a fate. It seems to me that riots are a release of pent up frustration. Emotion is exploding out of the rioters that they haven’t been able to release in other ways. Elections can drain off frustration directed at government by giving people ( at least the illusion of ) a voice in how things are run. I see “mob rule” as the result of too little democracy rather than too much.

So, are we talking about apples and oranges, or what?

Just my 2sense
Hi! I’m a Weenie What’s your sign?

2

**

Could you be more specific? I haven’t heard people use mob rule against all that many things the Democratic party works towards.

**

I’ve most often heard mob rule associated with a straight democracy. A system in which the rights of individuals aren’t protected from the tyranny of the majority. I don’t agree with every Democratic initiative but I wouldn’t characterize them as mob rule.

Marc

3

Perhaps “mob rule” is too strong a definition, perhaps not.

If all legislation were put to a direct vote, then there would be a host of things changing (Or not changing) that both conservatives and liberals might not approve.

A moments reflection should produce dozens of examples.

4

Using Mob Rule, seems to be one of those buzzwords that one of the (Almost exclusively hypocrites and not that different from one another) two major parties within the US use. They want to scare you into believing what they say, so you’ll make a post talking about how awful that would be, and everyone would read it, and on your drive home you would think, “Hey, wait a minute”, and the damage is already done because about 15 other people have read your post and seen the points you have made supporting his opinion.

Erek

5

Let’s put it this way. If you put “should atheists be allowed to hold public office” to a vote, it wouldn’t surprise me if you could get 50.0001% of the population to vote for it. There are many things the public (and their representatives, the government) should be forbidden to do. The constitution forbids the public from doing many things. You can argue that this is undemocratic, that the public should be allowed to pass ex post facto laws, it should be able to restrict freedom of speech, religion, or the press, or that it should be able to compel accused criminals to testify against themselves.

I just happen to disagree.

6

That’s a little “d”, MGibson. Straight democracy was the issue at hand or at least that was what my opponents were attempting to make an issue of. Presumably under the theory that anything on the road to direct democracy must share its faults.

If the term occurs rarely outside of “tyranny of the majority” discussions then it would seem likely that it has nothing to do with actual mobs but instead refers to the old elitist bugbear “King Mob”. Which would make my argument rather moot.

Tedster,

Your’s was the example that brought it to mind but I have wondered about it in the past. Your definition of “mob rule” is what I want to know, whether it is strong or not.

You aren’t the first to bring up the awful things that might happen if the majority was unchecked. Not to get too firmly seated on my moral high horse but to me it is important how injustice is implemented. A democratic government should follow the wishes of a majority. Last week Pjen noted that British governmental policies of no capital punishment, no large® prison system, and no end to high gas taxes are generally unpopular. Though those are all policies I would strongly argue for here, if they are unpopular there then they should go. I will not maintain that any government should violate the “Will of the People”. That doesn’t meant that I would stop protesting. It will always be more difficult for oppression to keep the support of a majority than a minority, particularly an interested minority.

Just my 2sense

7

I find that no one can honeslty support fairness and equality in voting when we have a representative system of government. The opposite of democratic “mob rule” is minority dictatorship; ie- a segment of the population who knows what is better for you than you do yourself. In reality there are middle grounds such as representatives elected by majority opinion, which attempt to capture the best of both worlds and the worst of none.

I happen to find that both opinions are correct; a representative government set up to be a powerful decision maker invites minority dictatorship, while direct democracy does indeed invite the tyranny of the majority.

Hence my whole problem with government as illustrated in the not-so-enlightening recent thread on anarchy. All government represents is one group of people forcing their opinions on another group of people. Which form of government you support then follows-- rationally-- from your perspective of which side you’d have the most power in, and/or which side bribes you with the best goodies, and/or which side espouses the best ideology (to you; of course, this usually ends up being where we know what sort of goodies and power to expect).

Any attempt to discuss government on factors other than those I just mentioned simply make no sense to me. I don’t know what else a government is for other than handing out power and goodies.

8

Certainly these considerations weighed heavily on the ‘founding fathers’ when they set up our system of government- the idea being to divide and compartmentalize the various sections so that one branch does not become too powerful.

Representative government may seem to be an anachronism in this instant feedback internet/wired age; but I think it’s tempered well with the unfortunate fact that many people are as dumb as a box of rocks, and probably ought not to be let out in polite company, much less vote.

I’ve often thought since one can’t be President till they are 35, maybe that ought to be the minimum age to be able to cast a ballot. By this point in their lifes’ journey, one has likely set themselves in the direction with which they are accustomed or inclined to a large degree and quite possibly raised a family, had children, and tempered the passions of youth and idealism with a moderated maturity that is more in keeping with a steady course in the nations progress.

9

Since I am old, this sounds good to me … but {knew that was coming didn’t you?} Without the enthusiasm of youth, the ideas of the youth and the young ones knowing that they can impact the system, I feel too many would no longer make the effort.

I started getting into it very early but was lucky enough to have been taught that unless I was the exception, I probably would not make that much difference. Of course at that time I knew better. LOL

I think that modern communication can and should be used to improve the communication/checks on representatives/ letting the public in on what is really going on [Cspan etc.} but I can not see a realistic form better than out Democratic Republic.

10

Could you give some actual examples of this?

11

Tedster
DSYoungEsq
Freedom
Whack-a-Mole
SpoilerVirgin

This is the purpose of the term, is it not?
To imply that let the Will of the Great Unwashed Masses prevail and it will be bread and circuses until Rome burns? I somehow never put it together even when it was right in my face as in this thread.

Just my 2sense

12

2sense

I don’t think you’ve made your case that the term “mob rule” is used primarily by conservatives. I’m unsure if all the posters you cite are conservatives. But beyond this, you must surely be aware that the current split of positions on the Electoral College is solely the result of Al Gore winning the popular vote and George Bush the Electoral College and election. Had Gore won the Electoral College and Bush the election, people’s positions would have been reversed.

So I think you may be justified in arguing the case for whether the term “mob rule” applies to direct democracy and the like (I do not intend to debate this issue). But I don’t think you’ve shown any connection to conservative ideology.

13

I wasn’t aware that I needed to argue that “mob rule” is primarily a term used by conservatives.
That certainly wasn’t the point of this thread. I was asking those that do use the term what they meant by it and was offering to argue the point. In my experience, and in those examples, the term is used by the posters on the conservative side of the argument. Of course, if you agree that there are liberal ( pro-democracy ) and conservative ( pro-republic ) sides to this debate then your assertion that the split over the electoral college is solely due to the last election is in trouble. Hopefully I don’t need to argue that in a disagreement between supporters of The People and supporters of the Constitution that the later are on the conservative side of that particular issue. I would agree that more Democrats take the liberal view of the EC since the election and vice versa among Republicans. The numbers I’ve seen show that a minority of Republicans favor abolishing the Electoral College along with a majority of everyone else.

Just my 2sense

14

To be fair to Izzy, the Electoral College issue got a crapload of attention due to the last election. People have always had concerns over it, it just became a hot-button issue very recently.

15

Heh heh. When I saw the title of this post, I thought you might be referring to me, but the whole “conservative” thing threw me. I tend to stay away from GD, and I don’t want to throw out a list of my positions without the resources to defend them all, but let’s just say that on almost every hot button issue I am a dyed-in-the-wool liberal.

In the linked post, I was trying to explain that pure democracy as envisioned in the OP of that thread was neither what the founding fathers intended nor a very good idea. In that context, “mob rule” refers to two dangers which the founding fathers feared right alongside their fear of monarchical tyranny. The first danger is that a majority could oppress a minority – as in Lemur866’s example. The second is that a demogogic leader could sway people to an ultimately oppressive position.

“Mob rule” has nothing to do with rioting, or the people seizing power in some kind of violent overthrow. It has do with the “mob”, that is, the great mass of the people, using their democratic power to oppress and destroy. In essence it is the triumph of liberty over equality, of the whims of the moment and “hey, that sounds like a good idea”, over reason and well-thought-out political choices.

Is there an element of elitism in this view? Not the way I see it. It’s not that the “mob” are some group of unwashed illiterates. It’s that in any large group, be they peasants or Ph.d.'s, the majority can get out of hand.

While our representative democracy is designed to let “the will of the people” rule, this doesn’t mean what many people seem to think it means, that what the majority wants goes. Instead it means that through a complicated system of checks and balances, representation, court review, vetoes, etc., we get the government that is least objectionable to the most people. This ensures that while everyone may not be, in fact will not be 100% satisfied, almost everyone will be O.K. with things, at least O.K. enough that that they won’t resort to violent overthrow of the government.

During the previous discussion on this subject, I came up with an example which I decided not to use because analogies so often go awry in GD. But I’ll throw it out here to clarify a little.

Suppose there’s a group of 100 people who want pizza. And suppose for the sake of discussion that they have some kind of coupon that requires them to order only one topping on enough pizza to serve everyone. Suppose that 57 of those people want anchovies on their pizza. Anchovies it is! Except that of the other 43 people, a good 30 or so won’t eat anchovies under any circumstances. So in a spirit of community, they decide to order pepperoni, which wouldn’t be the first choice of the 57 anchovy people, but which has the advantage of being acceptable to everyone but the 2 vegetarians. Two hungry disgruntled people is better than 30, and will probably prevent a general walkout or a breakup into entirely separate and antagonistic groups.

Alternatively, suppose that one of the vegetarians is a very persuasive speaker. After she urges everyone on behalf of the poor little fishies to choose pineapple as the topping, 52 people go for it. Unfortunately, once the pizza arrives, almost everyone realizes that pineapple was a horrendously bad idea. This is “mob rule” in the form of demogoguery.

In a roundabout way, American democracy is designed to deal with these sorts of issues. We filter all decisions until we reach a compromise position that most people can accept. “Mob rule” in the sense of 30 people going hungry because of what 57 want, or in the sense of everyone being swayed to a bad decision, is avoided.

Strict majority rule sounds like a good idea only when you are on the side of the majority in all of the issues you care about. But given the large size of our country and our very divergent interests, that is true for almost no one. Instead we have government by compromise, which allows positions to coalesce slowly and change to eventually bubble to the surface as the views of the people change. We can see this process in action with drug laws. More and more, communities are voting to allow medical marijuana, which is a compromise acceptable to most people. If the balance tips, not so that 51% of the people support legalization, but so that 95% can live with it, then legalization will become a reality.

It’s a system that has had some great triumphs (the Civil Rights Movement, the end of the war in Vietnam), and some glaring failures (Prohibition, the Civil War). But it has held the country together for over 200 years under essentially the same government, and it’s definitely the only system under which I would want to live. Even though I am a liberal feminist big “D” Democrat.

16

I remember talking to an acquaintance of mine, a staunch Democrat, during the mess in Florida last year and of course the Electoral College came up. His view, an unenlightened one, was essentially “The Electoral College is a bunch of crap, whoever gets the most votes should win, we need to ‘do away’ with that.” Straight out of the lefty playbook, it is.

He vaguely seemed to think the Electoral College was some sort of Republican procedural trick pulled out of the hat just in time for the 2000 election, I guess. The basic political ignorance in this country is staggering. How do you explain why we have the EC when apparently many are rather unclear about the concept itself? Public skooled, I reckon.

Every time I tried to explain even rudimentary election procedure, he took to interrupting and basically trying to shut off any type of rational discourse. Finally, I said, “Look. You brought this whole thing up; sometimes things take longer than 10 seconds to explain, this is the real world, not a tv sound bite.” Eventually he came around to some semblence of formal debate. Okay. Finally.

After I demonstrated how easy it is to win a popular election sans EC by winning just a few key areas- New York, Pennsylvania, Los Angeles, he started coming around… “Really?” Yeah, really. Turn the fucking tv off once in a while and read; say, The Federalistat least, then come talk to me. Everyone’s entitled to an informed opinion, I’ll say.

Unfortunately, many Americans have only a slim grasp whatsoever on basic election procedure and a majority don’t even bother to vote, for that matter.

My whole rambling point here is if, and only if, someone has an informed, rational objection to the Electoral College, I respect that. I disagree, obviously. They’re still wrong, in the final analysis. Whining “The guy who gets the most votes wins” has a clear misunderstanding of how our government works, that’s all. Obviously, had the tables been reversed, he’d have foregone the argument completely, or at least kept quiet about it.

17

OK. Your opening sentences said that you were directing your question at “conservative posters”, and wanted to know what “you on the right” meant, so I thought you felt it was a conservative/liberal issue.

Sorry for the hijack.

18

No problem IzzyR.
As usual I could have been more precise.
I don’t think this is strictly a conservative thing.

SpoilerVirgin,

Sorry, I wasn’t referring to you specifically. I linked your use of the term because you are a current poster. I only remembered our previous brush with this topic when I read your post. I’d like to repeat my offer to compare real life tyrannies that occurred against the hypothetical problems you feel our system prevents. I disagree that the term “mob rule” isn’t elitist. It is a ruder way of saying “tyranny of the majority”. Referring to the citizenry at large as “the mob” certainly does imply that most of us are unlettered brutes. Obviously government should be left to our betters.

Ah, argument by analogy! Ya gotta love it.
I promise to fight fair and not alter your scenarios in any substantive way. In your first hypothetical the vegetarians need to convince the others to change their minds or they will starve. ( I’m having a Kimmi from Survivor flashback here. ) Luckily for them people don’t like to see other people starve. The purpose of ideologies like racism and nationalism is to dehumanize others so we don’t feel bad about doing them wrong. What the vegetarian couple need to do is hang out at the other huts around dinnertime. Then that pepperoni isn’t going to taste so good to their neighbors. The 2nd example isn’t a problem; it’s a blessing in disguise. As it seems to be my mission here in GD to prove, the harsh lessons are the most effective. People learn in a visceral way that thoughtless support can leave a bad taste in your mouth. Our republic insulates citizens the consequences of popular but misguided political opinions. We don’t learn to look before we leap.

This example also illustrates an advantage of a simpler governmental structure: transparency. The system is so straightforward that people know who to blame when things go wrong. Fruity ideas can persist amongst our representatives because they never have to put up or shut up. In fact, they often don’t have to take a real stand at all. Our elaborate system of checks and balances leaves no one responsible for governmental action. Our representatives are thus free to act irresponsibly. Example: The death of campaign finance in the House, which has passed the bill in previous sessions when it was known to have no chance of passing in the other house. Now that it has negotiated the Senate some of its former supporters are nowhere to be found.

Getting back to the hypothetical, it’s inconvenient for discussing anything other than direct democracy, which neither I nor anyone in foolsguinea’s thread is arguing for. If you would care to create an analogy of representative democracy that you feel balances the wishes of the individuals then I will try to show you how a minority can override the convictions of everyone else no matter how strongly held.

It’s now time for me to remind you of our previous discussion. In that thread I state to Pjen that even though I strongly approve of some unpopular British governmental policies, if the majority disagrees then they should go.

Tedster,

I know why we have the Electoral College.
We have it because Term Limits were unpopular at the federal convention. Some thought it eliminated a “great motive to good behavior, the hope of being rewarded by a re-appointment.” ( Gouverneur Morris July 17, 1787 ). Having just come through the War of Independence that required all out effort, the wisdom of forcing accomplished executives from office by limiting their terms ( known back in the day as “rotation” ) was doubted by many of the delegates ( Rufus King July 19, 1787 ). Strong governors like Patrick Henry of Virginia had been forced out by term limits and replaced by ineffective ones like Thomas Jefferson ( Garry Wills A Necessary Evil Chapter 2- “Term Limits” ). There was never any serious consideration of a popular vote; the choice was the College or selection somehow by the national legislature. The later method had been laid out in the Virginia Plan and it looked like it would stick around until the Committee of Eleven delivered a compromise report on September 4, 1787. The problem was that in order to maintain the generally desired separation between the branches it was felt that a term limit was needed to keep the President from being a creature of the legislature that would re-elect him. Madison records this position first taken by Gouverneur Morris ( on July 19th ). He also records others’ support on that page, including his own. So I understand why we have what we have.

What I don’t get is what this has to do with the dissent between the Electoral College and the Popular Vote.
Direct voting by the citizenry was never an option. It was introduced as a bargaining chip to trade for agreement on a system of Electors. It was given a lukewarm introduction by James Wilson ( June 1, 1787 ) in this manner: “he was almost unwilling to declare the mode which he wished to take place, being apprehensive that it might appear chimerical. He would say however at least that in theory he was for an election by the people. Experience, particularly in N. York & Massts., shewed that an election of the first magistrate by the people at large, was both a convenient & successful mode. The objects of choice in such cases must be persons whose merits have general notoriety.” Wilson introduced the first proposal for Electors the following day. Again on July 19th Madison declares a popular vote: “the fittest in itself.” He goes on to point out that the broader suffrage in the North would give the area more influence than the Southern states and suggests Electors as a compromise. He does this again the day after William Churchill Houston ( of Georgia ) and Richard Dobbs Spaight ( of North Carolina ) won a vote re-establishing legislative selection in the working resolutions ( July 25, 1787 ). Madison praises and even defends the plan for Electors. He then pretends that this plan has been killed beyond resurrection by the recent vote and that the only choices are now a direct vote or a legislative vote. He claims that he is in favor of the former though he neglects to defend it and instead again points out the drawbacks to it from a Southern perspective. He goes further this time stating that, “this disproportion would be continually decreasing under the influence of the Republican laws introduced in the S. States, and the more rapid increase of their population.”. IOW- the South will be able to match the electoral power of the North by allowing not only nonlandowners and immigrants to vote but slaves as well. Fat chance. Madison also takes the opportunity to point out another objection to the popular vote. People will vote for the candidates from their own state and that will work against candidates from smaller states. Madison isn’t supporting direct election; he is using it as a scare tactic.

Speaking of ancient arguments of dubious relevance, you brought up the Federalist Papers.
The only argument from those articles I’ve seen raised in the debate over the Electoral College is from #68. The logic of citing this escapes me. It is ridiculous to try to apply Hamilton’s argument that citizens will have enough information to select the wisest local men to elect a leader in a system where the only thing we voters know about the Electors we are choosing is that they are pledged to vote for the candidate their names may or may not be listed next to on the ballot. Even more humorous today is Alex’s false confidence in the mode of election: “The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.” If you would care to argue these or any other points from The Federalist then be my guest.

By all means, please show us how easy this would be.
First of all you need to clear up what you mean by “winning areas”. There are no geographical areas to win in a popular vote, only the votes themselves. If you are using the phrase to mean a single candidate earning all of the votes in an area then I’ve got to say I don’t find that probable in the least. Looking at the stats from Los Angeles County no one has gained more than 69.3% there since Hoover in 1928. The territory of regional despotism isn’t exactly firm ground for EC supporters ( but then what is? ). The current system is more susceptible to this problem because the individuals’ electoral power is always bundled together. Under the allocation for the next go 'round a mere 11 states have enough electoral votes to control the election: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, New Jersey, and North Carolina. The probability that each of these states will cast all of their electoral power behind a single candidate is near 100%. Exceptions ( Faithless Electors ) are rare. So go ahead and demonstrate the chance that a few areas could control a popular vote. Then we can compare the odds.

In the meantime, allow me to suggest that perhaps you should tear your eyes from that BUSH WINS BY COUNTY! Map and recognize that the “Sea of Red” conceals plenty of blue voters. A hair under 40% of those Texans who got their votes counted selected Gore even though they knew there was no chance their vote could help the man. They “bothered” none the less.

The statement doesn’t demonstrate a misunderstanding of how government works. That is how our government works. If you know of any example of any other race at any governmental level where a candidate can win while having fewer votes than an opponent then please post it here. In every instance outside of the EC that I am aware of getting the most votes gets you a win. What your quote there demonstrates is a complete misunderstanding of your opponents’ position. The main objection is that not all citizens are given a voice, those that are have no guarantee their voice will be heard in the final tally, and these voices will not be heard equally.

It doesn’t concern me much whether you respect my arguments or not. Plenty don’t. What matters to me is if you can debate them. If you could mount a defense of the EC that I can’t refute I certainly would have a lot of respect for you. I don’t pretend to know everything about the Electoral College in order to render a final analysis but you would be the first I’ve seen to logically justify the system.

Just my 2sense
We are pious toward our history in order to be cynical toward our government - Garry Wills

19

2sense -

I think what it comes down to is a basic disagreement about human nature. It’s true that I don’t trust the majority in a pure democracy or even in a pure representative democracy to make the best decisions for the nation as a whole. I don’t view this as elitist, because I don’t nominate any particular group of people as more qualified to rule. In a country as large as the U.S., I think the flaws are inherent in the nature of the majority itself, regardless of how that majority is composed (and inevitably, in some cases I will be a member of the majority, and in others I will not). Government shouldn’t be left to our betters, it should be left to the system by which the tyranny of the majority is tempered, a government of laws and not of men.

Ah, what a beautiful, idealistic, utopian world you live in. Unfortunately, people do like to see other people starve (or more often, they just don’t give a damn). Your interpretation might work in a small group, where the starving are your personal friends and neighbors, but it works very poorly in a nation of 300 million. Idealogies like racism and nationalism arise because while humans do have compassion for those nearest and dearest to them, that compassion diminishes rapidly with distance. The tyranny of the majority allows those baser instincts to flourish and rule.

I really don’t want to be the guinea pig used to “set an example” to the people about the dangers of misguided political opinions. The history of religious and political movements indicates that people don’t always learn from their mistakes. Each new generation rises to political maturity with its own set of misconceptions and demagogues. I would only need to invoke Godwin’s law to demonstrate just how badly things can turn out if we don’t insulate citizens from their worst impulses. But since I don’t want to go there, let me just say that I’d rather a system that is perhaps more paternalistic in its attempt to protect everyone than one which allows the majority to make its own mistakes at the expense of anyone who gets in its way.

I see no inherent advantage in having every policy enacted on the basis of majority sentiment. The Bill of Rights exists for the very purpose of preventing some popular majority sentiments (belief in Christianity, opposition to the extremist press, punishing criminals as swiftly as possible) from being enacted into law. I fear a system under which any majority can impose its will on everyone.

I am interested in hearing your examples of the dangers of majority rule being suppressed.

20

Right off, let’s dispense with the “Rule of Law” myth.
It doesn’t exist. All governments are governments of men because Law can’t rule, only people can. “Rule of Judges” is a more accurate term since they interpret the law. If the Supremes decide the law says a man is a mule then legally, he does. The Bill of Rights means what they say it means. As long as the Executive branch enforces the court rulings, that is. The Supreme Court ruling that Natives owned their land ( Johnson v McIntosh 1821 ) didn’t do the Cherokee much good when gold was discovered in Georgia.

Someone must rule, the questions are: who? and how?
I don’t believe we should hold a vote to see how everyone feels about each proposal. I think direct democracy is a bad idea because it is unwieldy. It is the other objections to it that I don’t agree with. I feel that we should govern by consent of the governed. I don’t agree that our representatives should be strictly bound to their constitutents as erislover was working towards. I just don’t think we should set up our system to thwart the express opinion of a majority of the voters. Representatives need to be able to wheel and deal but come Election Day a majority should not be prevented from voting in a new majority of representatives empowered to fulfill their mandate. That is the “tyranny of the minority”. Why is it better for the minority to impose its will on everyone?

I do my best to live in the real world.
I don’t believe my view of people is idealistic. I believe instead that it is the general consensus in Psychology. My layman’s understanding is that if someone doesn’t want to be a good person and doesn’t feel remorse when they aren’t then we don’t consider them sane. I agree with what you are saying about emotional distancing but feel that that you are putting the cart before the horse vis a vis the -isms. People don’t naturally care less about others because of physical distance. Instead racism distances us from others emotionally. Bigots don’t feel more kindly to the local African-Americans than they do to Africans. Unless they get to know one and then it’s “She’s not like the others”; they make an accomodation with their prejudice rather than examine and reject it. We care about us. If an earthquake strikes India we hardly notice; if it strikes San Diego we are horified at the tragedy. It doesn’t matter that that India is far away; it matters that they aren’t US. We don’t identify with them as much.

I wasn’t judging you, SV. I was saying the term “mob rule” was elitist. I am discussing your position but don’t wish to generalize about you. With that in mind I am bothered by your attribution of “baser instincts” to the majority. If you don’t believe there is some ( moral? ) defect in most people then how is it that if they had more influence bad things would happen?

I don’t get what you are asking for. If you mean dangers suppressed by government then the words you quoted were an example. I’m offering no guarantees that bad things won’t happen under majority rule. There are no guarantees. I’m really sorry you don’t want to be a guinea pig. No one asked you. We embarked on this grand experiment known as the United States of America a couple centuries back. We never know where the adventure will take us next and everyone is along for the ride. I think cutting taxes in the face of economic downturn is risky. We’ll have to wait and see.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
That means ( or rather, that’s supposed to mean, since I probably butchered it ) “Who watches the watchmen?”. You say government should insulate citizens from their worst impulses. I say- who decides which impulses are bad? By what logic should the government assume they know best?

In keeping with your discretion concerning the injunction of the poster named for the Anglo-Saxon traitor I will simply direct you to Liberalism Resurgent which hosts a good destruction of the conservative myth that ******'s rise to power was democratic.

Just my 2sense