The Fear of Majority Rule

By Gus Tyler

Published November 26, 2004, issue of November 26, 2004.
  • Print
  • Share Share

Is the fabled American democracy paving the way for an American tyranny? Simply to ask the question seems downright foolish. At least it does to most of us. But to the Founding Fathers, who composed the Constitution, it was a real question. They were concerned about what they called “the tyranny of the majority.”

In James Madison’s Federalist Paper No. 10, he spells out the threat. If a governing majority were composed of a coalition of different elements, there would be little to fear because it would be many-minded and internally divided. But if a governing majority were composed of a homogenous mass where its basic commitments were uniform, there was the real danger that it would show little tolerance for any who disagreed.

Madison believed that it was easier for such a tyranny to evolve in a small nation than in a large one —- such as a union of many states into a nation with a variety of economic, ethnic, political differences. Indeed, Madison wrote his paper to persuade the colonies, especially New York, that the promotion and preservation of liberty would come more easily as part of a multihued society than it would in smaller states where such diversity was lacking.

But the founding fathers were not satisfied with this diversity of cultures as a guarantee that our democracy would not evolve into a tyranny. They took two other steps to avoid the tyranny of the majority. They wanted a separation of the powers of government — with an independent legislature, executive and judiciary — to set up a system of checks and balances. And mindful of many historic situations where the church took over the state and vice versa, they called for a tall wall to separate church from state.

However, these poignant points were all made at a time before the development of the modern political party system. Although there were political parties in the earliest days, such as Democrat-Republicans (Jefferson) and Federalist (Hamilton), and later Democrats and Republicans, these parties were loose coalitions and internally divided.

The Republican Party, for instance, counted among its prominent personalities an Abraham Lincoln, a Theodore Roosevelt, a Robert LaFollette and a Jacob Javits who were red-hot liberals, and the Democratic Party had its racist, reactionary Dixie wing. Since then, the number of prominent liberals in the Republican Party and the number of racist reactionaries in the Democratic Party can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

This change in the nature of our two great political parties has revived the danger of a tyranny of a majority. Right now, the GOP controls all three branches of government, thereby wiping out the whole system of checks and balances based on the separation of the three branches of government. While the Supreme Court is not totally in the grip of the GOP –– since it is divided, four to four, with one swing vote –– it is expected that in the next four years, Bush will try to pack the court with his kind of people.

Democrats have, up to now, been blocking Bush’s nominations of lower court judges by use of the filibuster. The GOP is now trying to change Senate rules to outlaw the filibuster.

As to the separation of church and state, the GOP has been vigorously pursuing strategies to break down this historic wall. First, in an unprecedented move, the GOP has appealed openly to churches to distribute GOP campaign literature. More important, however, is its attempt to change a doctrine of some churches that abortion is sinful into a law that would repeal Roe v Wade and make abortion illegal. This is the equivalent of Israel passing a law making the eating of nonkosher foods a crime.

In short, under Bush the separation of departments and the separation of church and state are being negated to usher in the long-feared “tyranny of the majority.”

Find us on Facebook!
  • “I don’t want to say, ‘Oh oh, I’m not Jewish,’ because when you say that, you sound like someone trying to get into a 1950s country club, “and I love the idea of being Jewish." Are you a fan of Seth Meyers?
  • "If you want my advice: more Palestinians, more checkpoints, just more reality." What do you think?
  • Happy birthday Barbra Streisand! Our favorite Funny Girl turns 72 today.
  • Clueless parenting advice from the star of "Clueless."
  • Why won't the city give an answer?
  • BREAKING NEWS: Israel has officially suspended peace talks with the Palestinians.
  • Can you guess what the most boring job in the army is?
  • What the foolish rabbi of Chelm teaches us about Israel and the Palestinian unity deal:
  • Mazel tov to Idina Menzel on making Variety "Power of Women" cover!
  • "How much should I expect him and/or ask him to participate? Is it enough to have one parent reciting the prayers and observing the holidays?" What do you think?
  • New York and Montreal have been at odds for far too long. Stop the bagel wars, sign our bagel peace treaty!
  • Really, can you blame them?
  • “How I Stopped Hating Women of the Wall and Started Talking to My Mother.” Will you see it?
  • Taglit-Birthright Israel is redefining who they consider "Jewish" after a 17% drop in registration from 2011-2013. Is the "propaganda tag" keeping young people away?
  • Happy birthday William Shakespeare! Turns out, the Bard knew quite a bit about Jews.
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?

We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.