In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.
The limitation? The truly ardent reformers know exactly what the use of the fence is. Trouble is, what they know for sure just ain't so, and they have no desire to be distracted by such mundania as facts and logic.
What we're seeing right now is a "reform" movement bent on abolishing the Senate and its tradition of allowing unlimited debate in most matters (the "filibuster"). Because... both of them were originally designed to support slavery! And besides, when the Republicans had a majority in the Senate, they kept using the filibuster to stall legislation the Democrats considered important.
The first assertion is historically ignorant and logically unsound; both institutions are in fact meant to protect the interests of minorities against the whims of temporary legislative majorities. The second assertion is just plain nutso; the majority party has no need of delaying tactics.
The current "reformers" seem to want the "one man, one vote, one time" style of democracy, whereby 51% of the electorate may forever disenfranchise and enslave the other 49% and it's totally legitimate, because it's done democratically. And they'll destroy every civil institution in existence to achieve it!
This is also called "cutting down every law in England to get at the Devil", regarding which I'll let Fictional Thomas More have his say:
Speaking of whom:
The charges of high treason related to More's violating the statutes as to the King's supremacy (malicious silence)
Malicious silence was high treason? Good thing we don't have laws against silence nowadays... right?
Comments