Decius wrote:
I have some concern that this debate is going too far. Its not really my intent to drag you into a fight.

I didn't take it that way, and I hope I haven't given that impression. We do tend to spiral away from the main topic, but I don't consider that unhealthy... until we start whipping dead horses. :)

Decius wrote:
Razor thin majorities are then used to impose policies which are completely unacceptable to the rest of the country. The views of that other 49% aren't completely irrelevant just because they mustered a few thousand fewer votes. Those people don't go away just because of a simple electoral victory, and I think its both irresponsible and unpatriotic to govern as if thin majorities represented a mandate for hard line policies.

I really don't disagree with anything there. I believe that the rights of the minority should always be protected form the tyranny of the majority, but when it comes to policymaking, we do have to make some decisions that leave half the country dissatisfied. If abortion, for example, were a 90/10% issue either way, the debate would go away, but when our society is split down the middle on an issue, and there's no room for compromise (and how can there be with abortion?), majority rule makes policy, even if it's 51/49%. Many Supreme Court rulings are decided by 4-3 votes, but those rulings must still be observed as the law of the land... until they're overturned by a future court or superseded by a constitutional amendment... or until we reach the point of civil war or revolution.

*checking my horse's pulse*

I don't think you can expect a series of compromises on important, yet divisive ("wedge") issues to make everyone content all of the time. When there's not a clear majority and there's room to compromise, we should; but sometimes, those of us in the 49% group have to accept that we lost, at least for the time being. Having said that, I'm much more concerned with the increasing power of government than I am with the other half of the country that disagrees with me on any given issue. At least I can argue with the latter.

Decius wrote:
This isn't a war, this is a country, and if we're more interested in imposing our views upon each other than we are in figuring out how to live together in spite of our differences I think a Constitutional crisis is inevitable.

You might be correct.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery.

The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

O.K., now I'm way off topic.

RE: The Conservative Revival - New York Times