Incomprehensible Hubris

As I was sitting down to my lunch today, I watched a C-Span press briefing with Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R, KY). McConnell was discussing the recent appropriation for Iraq War spending--totaling some 28 billion dollars which would last through April, 2008. He was quite happy about this and emphasized that General Petraeus's plan "is working" and that the Senate Majority should just keep pouring money into it. But he wasn't all that happy about the Democratic Majority for he then segued into discussing the underwhelming performance of the Majority over 2007. He claimed that they "just hadn't done anything". By this he meant to imply that the democrats were ineffective and therefore didn't deserve to be in power; conversely, since the Republicans are effective at getting legislation passed (or, rather, acting as gatekeepers of "passable" legislation), they deserve to be in power.

We ought to notice that indeed Mitch and the Senate Republicans have been tremendously effective in preventing the democrats from doing anything--that they have acted in an obstructionist manner so as to prevent them from doing anything. The evidence speaks for itself. Consider, for instance, the attempt on the part of the Senate majority to give Habeas Corpus rights to the detainees at Guatanamo Bay and elsewhere in our far-flung secret dungeons. Yep, wouldn't you know it, Ol' Mitch had a hand in filibustering that one. Or, for that matter, consider the entire record of minority filibusters over the whole 2007 Senate Session. Again and again, the Minority has blocked transparency reforms, ethics resolutions, clean energy resolutions, minimum wage increases, motions to get out of the Iraq War, etc., etc., etc.

So, Mitch's points about the lackluster performance of the Democrats in Congress over 2007 can be understood in this way:

What he argued was that:
1. Very little substantial legislation was passed by the Senate in 2007.
2. If the democratic majority had been effective, much substantial legislation would have been passed.
3. Therefore, the democratic majority are ineffective.

And, what he implied is:
4. The effectiveness of the Republicans is measured by how well they thwart the Democrat's legislative agenda.
5. Very little substantial legislation was passed by the Senate in 2007.
6. Therefore, the Republican majority has been effective in 2007 at thwarting the Democratic's progressive agenda.

From this:
7. It follows that the Republican Majority is effective. (6, simplification)
8. The Republican Minority is effective and the Democratic Majority is ineffective.
9. Only "effective" politicians should be in power. (implied premise)
10. Therefore, the Republicans should be in power.

But, look, some suprising results follow from this.
Suppose we add the following true statement:
11. The Democrats were voted into a Majority in the House and the Senate in 2007 because they promised to make substantial changes to the way the Republicans were running Congress: to deal with Iraq, to get clean energy passed, to raise the minimum wage, and so on (i.e., "substantial legislation").

We also know that in our system of electoral politics:
12. The public will is expressed by their voting preferences.

We can see that:
13. The Republican Minority has been effective at blocking the will of the American Public in the 2007 Congress. (by 6, 11,12)

14. To thwart the will of the Public in democratic politics is, de facto, antidemocratic. (by definition)

15. To act in a way that is antidemocratic requires good justification. (principle of public reason)

16. Conversely, to act in antidemocratic fashion without good justification is an illegitimate usurpation of power, manifestly opposed to the design of democratic, consitutional Republics.

17. The Republican filibusters of 2007 are without good justification. (self-evident if you'd look at the reasons given by the filibusterers in the 2007th Congress).

18. Therefore, the Republican Minority has acted in an antidemocratic fashion without good justification and they have thwarted the democratically elected Majority in their efforts to express the Public Will.

19. Those who act in their official, public capacities without justification against the public will ought not to be allowed to remain in office as stewards of the public will. (a standard, uncontroversial legal concept broadly obtaining in democratic societies)

20. Therefore, the Republican Minority (including esp. Mitch McConnell) ought to be removed from public office. (by 1-19, QED)

The American voter will have the opportunity to decide in 2008 yet again: well-justified democratic reason OR obstructionist, self-seeking, incomprehensible, arrogant, antidemocratic hubris.

You decide.