NYC Mayor de Blasio: We have a “democracy problem” in America

Big Apple Mayor Bill de Blasio is a busy guy. He’s got more than enough on his plate already, needing to deal with his city’s skyrocketing crime rate, crushing poverty in the areas that the TV cameras don’t cover and a police force which doesn’t much care for him. Still, he took time out of his busy day on Sunday to talk to John Dickerson on Face the Nation. Strangely, he wasn’t there to talk about Gotham, but rather about Hillary Clinton and her recent calls for expanded early voting around the nation.

I can see how de Blasio would feel that we have “a democracy problem” because not all Democrats in New York City are big fans of democracy, at least from what I’ve observed. It’s also interesting that he would opine on how a lot of incumbents prefer a very small electorate. He’s referring, of course, to places without early voting and limited hours when the polls are open. So would he count himself among the “lot of incumbents” since he was the victor in an election where the polls were open for a grand total of fourteen hours?

This is the new meme coming out of the DNC this season and Hillary wasn’t the first one to roll it out… just the most high profile one to date. The emerging theme is that any state which trims down the number of early voting days is trying to “suppress the vote” or keep certain people from the polls because… racism, of course. And God forbid you pass a voter ID law, because then you may as well just put on a white hood and a bed sheet and go chase minority voters away from the ballot box on horseback. It’s all become rather boring.

What these fact free sound bites which pass for “analysis” all seem to miss is two of the fundamental truths about voting in America. The first is that whatever rules the state passes in terms of voting apply to everyone. If minorities, women or whoever only have fourteen hours to vote, then all of the evil white men only have the same fourteen hours. Nobody, at least to my knowledge, has proposed a rule where the white men get a month to vote and everyone else can only go to the polls between 2:00 and 4:00 on Tuesday.

The second reality is that the voting laws, for the most part, are put in place at the state level, not the federal. They reflect the will of the people who elect the legislators who then pass or amend those laws. Not every state winds up going for the same methods, but that’s all part of that “democracy” thing which de Blasio seems to have so much trouble with. People in Washington decided they wanted to vote by mail and to have a whole month to do so. In the state where the Mayor and I live, the voters settled long ago on the idea of doing all the voting on a single Tuesday, with the polls opening before the crack of dawn and not closing until after dusk. Is that the best way? Beats me, but it’s what we’ve got. And the rules apply to everyone equally.

The other DNC idea being pushed by Hillary Clinton and Mayor de Blasio is that there should be automatic voter registration for everyone, taking effect the moment they turn 18. I suppose if the voters really wanted to do that there’s nothing stopping them… at least on paper. But in reality, how do you plan on implementing this? We live in a fluid, mobile society. People move all the time. It would be hard enough tracking the residence of each and every resident of each and every state even if they lived in the same county for their entire lives, but what about the family who moves from New York to Pennsylvania to escape the outrageous taxes and lack of opportunity? Who would be responsible for identifying the precinct where they settled down and adding them to the rolls? Does that responsibility fall on the voters themselves? And what if they don’t do it? Are you going to fine them or toss them in jail?

Voting is a right for law abiding citizens but it is not a responsibility. And if you don’t feel like registering and taking part, you basically submit yourself to the will of the rest of your fellow residents… but that’s your choice. Having a generous list of rights such as the ones we enjoy in America includes the right to be stupid.

The Mayor's comment reflects either total lack of understanding of the form of self government America's Constitution structures, or it reflects a deliberate attempt to defy and to change that form without abiding by the Constitution's own process for valid change.

In New York City, in the Year 1839, a man was invited by the New York Historical Society to deliver a major Address, tracing the first 50 Years under that Constitution.

New Yorkers de Blasio and Clinton might benefit from reviewing the history lesson provided by the speaker at the request of the Historical Society. Perhaps they then understand the reasons for the Founders' rejection of outright "democracy" in order to avoid the catastrophic consequences other nations had endured.

Both de Blasio and Clinton would be hard pressed to find a nation in all of the history of civilization whose form of government has allowed freedom and has provided more individuals in its boundaries with more opportunity for participation in its government processes than has America.

Where, in all the history of civilization, has their existed a constitution for self government that limits the power of imperfect individuals in government and, at the same time, provided freedom for likewise imperfect individuals in society, as long as they do not harm their fellows?

Perhaps de Blasio and Clinton should develop a better understanding of the Founders' struggle to fulfill the philosophy and principles underlying the Declaration of Independence from an oppressive government by taking the time to read John Quincy Adams' "Jubilee" Address.

That Address may be read, in its entirety, as indicated below, but for those who prefer to read a brief synopsis, consider the following:

John Adams' son, John Quincy, was 9 when the Declaration of Independence was written, grew up in a home where his father and his mother, Abigail, understood the struggle for liberty, and he was 20 when the Constitution was framed. From his teen years, John Quincy served in various capacities in both the Legislative and Executive branches of the government, including as President. His words on this subject should be instructive and enlightening, considering the article referenced in this post.
In the Year 1839, he was invited by the New York Historical Society to deliver the "Jubilee" Address honoring the 50th Anniversary of the Inauguration of George Washington. He delivered that lengthy discourse, and in it, he traced the history of the development of the ideas underlying and the actions leading to the establishment of the Constitution which structured the United States government.
His 50th-year summation seems to be a better source than those of recent historians and politicians for understanding the kind of government the Framers, in 1787, framed .
He addresses the ideas of "democracy" and "republic" throughout, but here are some of his concluding remarks:
"Every change of a President of the United States, has exhibited some variety of policy from that of his predecessor. In more than one case, the change has extended to political and even to moral principle; but the policy of the country has been fashioned far more by the influences of public opinion, and the prevailing humors in the two Houses of Congress, than by the judgment, the will, or the principles of the President of the United States. The President himself is no more than a representative of public opinion at the time of his election; and as public opinion is subject to great and frequent fluctuations, he must accommodate his policy to them; or the people will speedily give him a successor; or either House of Congress will effectually control his power. It is thus, and in no other sense that the Constitution of the United States is democratic - for the government of our country, instead of a Democracy the most simple, is the most complicated government on the face of the globe. From the immense extent of our territory, the difference of manners, habits, opinions, and above all, the clashing interests of the North, South, East, and West, public opinion formed by the combination of numerous aggregates, becomes itself a problem of compound arithmetic, which nothing but the result of the popular elections can solve.
"It has been my purpose, Fellow-Citizens, in this discourse to show:-
"1. That this Union was formed by a spontaneous movement of the people of thirteen English Colonies; all subjects of the King of Great Britain - bound to him in allegiance, and to the British empire as their country. That the first object of this Union,was united resistance against oppression, and to obtain from the government of their country redress of their wrongs.
"2. That failing in this object, their petitions having been spurned, and the oppressions of which they complained, aggravated beyond endurance, their Delegates in Congress, in their name and by their authority, issued the Declaration of Independence - proclaiming them to the world as one people, absolving them from their ties and oaths of allegiance to their king and country - renouncing that country; declared the UNITED Colonies, Independent States, and announcing that this ONE PEOPLE of thirteen united independent states, by that act, assumed among the powers of the earth, that separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitled them.
"3. That in justification of themselves for this act of transcendent power, they proclaimed the principles upon which they held all lawful government upon earth to be founded - which principles were, the natural, unalienable, imprescriptible rights of man, specifying among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that the institution of government is to secure to men in society the possession of those rights: that the institution, dissolution, and reinstitution of government, belong exclusively to THE PEOPLE under a moral responsibility to the Supreme Ruler of the universe; and that all the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed.
"4. That under this proclamation of principles, the dissolution of allegiance to the British king, and the compatriot connection with the people of the British empire, were accomplished; and the one people of the United States of America, became one separate sovereign independent power, assuming an equal station among the nations of the earth.
"5. That this one people did not immediately institute a government for themselves. But instead of it, their delegates in Congress, by authority from their separate state legislatures, without voice or consultation of the people, instituted a mere confederacy.
"6. That this confederacy totally departed from the principles of the Declaration of independence, and substituted instead of the constituent power of the people, an assumed sovereignty of each separate state, as the source of all its authority.
"7. That as a primitive source of power, this separate state sovereignty,was not only a departure from the principles of the Declaration of Independence, but directly contrary to, and utterly incompatible with them.
"8. That the tree was made known by its fruits. That after five years wasted in its preparation, the confederation dragged out a miserable existence of eight years more, and expired like a candle in the socket, having brought the union itself to the verge of dissolution.
"9. That the Constitution of the United States was a return to the principles of the Declaration of independence, and the exclusive constituent power of the people. That it was the work of the ONE PEOPLE of the United States; and that those United States, though doubled in numbers, still constitute as a nation, but ONE PEOPLE.
"10. That this Constitution, making due allowance for the imperfections and errors incident to all human affairs, has under all the vicissitudes and changes of war and peace, been administered upon those same principles, during a career of fifty years.
"11. That its fruits have been, still making allowance for human imperfection, a more perfect union, established justice, domestic tranquility, provision for the common defence, promotion of the general welfare, and the enjoyment of the blessings of liberty by the constituent people, and their posterity to the present day.
"And now the future is all before us, and Providence our guide."
In an earlier paragraph, he had stated:
"But this institution was republican, and even democratic. And here not to be misunderstood, I mean by democratic, a government, the administration of which must always be rendered comfortable to that predominating public opinion . . . and by republican I mean a government reposing, not upon the virtues or the powers of any one man - not upon that honor, which Montesquieu lays down as the fundamental principle of monarchy - far less upon that fear which he pronounces the basis of despotism; but upon that virtue which he, a noble of aristocratic peerage, and the subject of an absolute monarch, boldly proclaims as a fundamental principle of republican government. The Constitution of the United States was republican and democratic - but the experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived; and it was obvious that if virtue - the virtue of the people, was the foundation of republican government, the stability and duration of the government must depend upon the stability and duration of the virtue by which it is sustained." - Excerpts from John Quincy Adams 1839 "Jubilee" Address

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.