Melvin Ashton's Veneer of Democratic Public Policy

Melvin Ashton's Veneer of Democratic Public Policy

Guest Commentary: By Dr. Harold Hillsteat

Editor's note, Jim Boldt: CapitolStuff.com welcomes all, even closely sane, opinions about the function, make-up, and nature of deliberative bodies. Sorry Harold, it's the noise of yes, a democracy. This editor sides with Dr. Hillsteat.

First, having known Jim Boldt for over 20 years I am surprised that he would allow the uninformed dribble of Mr. Melvin Ashton to appear in this otherwise interesting and creative blog. Now to the comments.

CapitolStuff.com has allowed me a limited number of words to point out the lack of logic, historical inaccuracies, and procedural impacts of democratic deliberative bodies functioning with a two-thirds vote requirement for action. I can only point out the most glaring concerns.

The Untied States of America was the product of religious immigrants who eventually were oppressed economically by the mother country. Taxation without representation is the made-for-TV version of the story.

Cloture vote in the U.S. Senate moved from two thirds to 60 percent in 1965 to allow the Civil Rights Act to pass. Ironically, this provided for the very type of civil liberties the religious immigrants originally sought as they fled England.

But a two-thirds vote for all actions of a democratic deliberative body? Excuse me, but contrary to Ashton's pleading otherwise, it is philosophical. We get to pick one, a number, a percentage. Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and John Adams did not go to Wikipedia or Google to look up “appropriate vote ratio for peaceful change in public policy.” They studied it, talked about it, and chose a majority for almost all actions.

It is almost as if Mr. Ashton believes some type of consensus or consent process would actually work. Are we going to ignore the basic nature of the human beings, male and female, as we evaluate this issue? Please, realistic debate can produce realistic outcomes.

With my experience, and extensive study of both established and emerging democracies (which includes exhaustive review of rebel action, and liberating vanguards) my philosophical opinion is: Let's stay with the majority for policy issues, and let's require a two-thirds vote to take our money, that is, taxes.

And, Mr. Ashton, you have hinted that you are working in a deliberative body made up of a majority or greater female population. Do you really think you can ever win that vote, short of forming your own country?

Dr. Harold Hillsteat, Ph.D

Chair, Political Science Department