The high ground R's are staking out is to be "The Majority Rules"

[HereSince1628]

I heard this meme repeated several times over the weekend by talking heads, and found it this morning in a Buchanan essay over on antiwar.com

It would appear that the R's are falling back on the simple understanding of the playground once again where over simplistic explanations suited to first graders work best. This time domination by one party rule is to be cloaked in the simplicity of the principle of "Majority Rule." That basic social concept is introduced to, and accepted by, American children not later than kindergarten.

Republicans are suggesting protection from the tyranny of the majority is not only nuanced, pesky, obstructionism, it's also a demonstration of liberal's _elitist distrust_ of the will of the people leading the nation. Conservatives, the media, and much of the nation love simple arguments. "Majority rule" is about as simple an appeal as there is in a democratic society.

I'm not quite sure how Democrats best argue in a simple yet forceful manner against this republican tactic. Certainly Democrats see "Domination" where Republicans see "Majority Rule." But my fear is that Rove's favorite tactic of finding the weakness in the opponent's strength has been turned against the Constitution and the Republic. Majority rule is the strength of a democratic society; tyranny by the majority is a democratic society's Achilles heel.

I know it's a little thing, but personally, I'm going to refrain from calling the dominating party the "Majority Party."

[wishlist]

1. People need to be reminded that the Ruling Majority have a tiny majority

Democrats need to keep reminding everyone that nearly half the voters definitely did not vote for Bush this time and more than half definitely voted against him in 2000 and all opinion polls barely give him and his party 50% approval now, with most giving them below 50% approval. In such a case Tyranny of the Majority is an appropriate phrase.

[HereSince1628]

6. True, but this is about votes in Congress, where they are attempting

to abuse their status for the purpose of domination.

The fight on the filibuster will be about the head count of Senators where the R's have a plurality.

[dcfirefighter]

2. Plurality

but first graders don't understand that.

The question begs to be asked: "So you call 44% a majority?" or whatever percent you feel like using.

Or "in 1800, the majority of voters though it was OK to own other people".

"Majority Rules" the wonderful idea that brought us slavery, native american genocide, unequal rights, prohibition, ...

[HereSince1628]

7. true, they want inequality & justify it with simple supremacy of #'s

While the evils of slavery, genocide, and stupidity of alcohol prohibition are a consequence of the will of the people, these things aren't part of the debate on the filibustering of judges. I see them as valid arguments for protecting the minority, but I'm not sure if they can be played effectively in this debate.

[Virginian]

3. Then why isn't Gore president?

He got more votes in Florida and in the rest of the nation.

We may find after an audit of the Ohio vote that Kerry got more votes in Ohio and should now be POTUS instead of the shrub.

[tanyev]

4. Might makes right.

It's been tried many times in history, but I can't think of any time it was a lasting success.

[HereSince1628]

11. Right, but who wants to live with 75 years of Red Domination?

I am afraid at my age I don't have the decades to wait it out patiently.

I'd rather not live out my days sinking into one party domination by Christian phalangists.

[kentuck]

5. Reminds me of the vigilantes marching to the sheriff's office....

at night, with their torches blazing, vocal and swaggering, demanding the sheriff release the "criminal" so they can hang him, because they speak for the "majority"...

[sundancekid]

8. "majority rules" ONLY with checks and balances ... otherwise, we

also teach our children that "absolute power corrupts absolutely." We should further recall civics class, and remind the ignorant folks that, unlike the House of Reps, the Senate (equal treatment of 2 senators from each state) was DESIGNED by the Founding Fathers to be the statesman body that protects and allows the voice of the minority to be heard without railroading it into meaningless dissent.

[July]

9. Cuomo says that Dems in Congress actually represent more people.

That's a majority, too, right?

[HereSince1628]

10. The senate Dems certainly represent more people that the Reds

The "majority rule" ploy is a ploy and the way the pug's are counting they are counting representatives in Congress.

As stated in my OP the point is that they have hooked into a meme that potentially has a strong resonance with Americans, and somehow the Dems need to make sure that Americans hear it as the attempt at one-party domination that it is.

[ClassWarrior]

12. And it's American way for the majority to rule responsibly.

Why do they hate the American people?

NGU.

[alcuno]

13. I'm assuming they will start with the Electoral College...

The thing that saved their asses in 2000, among other things. I'd love to get rid of the Electoral College - then we could get liberal states to really drive up their vote totals. Right now, Illinois is so blue that people think voting won't matter.