LETTER 1:
To the Editor:
Mr. Weiner’s thesis is that James Madison would have wanted to see more support in Congress for any legislation as sweeping and enduring as Build Back Better. Mr. Weiner is likely correct, but this is hardly a meaningful argument against voting this bill into law.
There are two realities that argue against the Madison perspective. First, polling shows that many parts of the legislation are very popular with most voters. Second, Republican Party “no” votes are predominantly based on opposition for the sake of opposition.
Substantial public support far outweighs any thoughts Madison may have had about a need to justify laws of enduring impact by counting margins of victory in congressional voting tallies.
Joe Grossman, Boulder, CO.
LETTER 2:
To the Editor:
Greg Weiner’s essay is carefully reasoned and eloquent. The takeaway is that American democracy as envisioned by James Madison is structured to keep narrow majorities from making large policy changes quickly, and that this is one of the great virtues of our Constitution. I take exception.
For at least two decades our government has been unable to reasonably respond to a great variety of social, economic and environmental issues because a supermajority is required for any contentious legislation to pass the Senate.
We are quite likely past the point of no return on global warming, an issue President Biden appropriately calls “existential.” I can think of no better reason for eliminating the filibuster (and gerrymandering for that matter) and getting on with the monumental work that’s needed if we are to avert the end of human civilization. David Sligar, Grants Pass, OR.
LETTER 3:
To the Editor:
Greg Weiner argues that progressive Democrats unhappy about the failure to pass social legislation should blame James Madison, who wisely engineered a constitutional system that filters and constrains majorities and requires the slow building of support for legislation. But these are not “normal” times.
The reason progressives are anxious to legislate before 2022 is that they know that a Republican reconquest of the House will not represent a “normal” midterm electoral defeat but the victory of a far-right party, with an even farther-right base, and that this endangers democracy itself.
Quoting Lincoln, Mr. Weiner waxes eloquent about “a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people.”
But Republicans are now systematically changing state-level election laws to restrict voting and to place vote-counting in the hands of partisans. Under these circumstances, patient confidence is a recipe for disaster. Democrats must use their legislative majority to pass social legislation and the Freedom to Vote Act now if democracy is to have a future.
Jeffrey C. Isaac, Bloomington, IN.
The writer is a professor of political science at Indiana University.
Response to “Another Democrat to Be Mad at,” article by Greg Weiner (Page B2 in this issue)
Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle
