Big “D” Democrats or Little “d” Democrats

The moment of decision is fast approaching for congressional Democrats. They will soon be required to reveal their true colors. Where does their first loyalty lie? Are they more committed to their party affiliation or to our democratic institutions? How they handle the impending health care legislation will tell the story in a way that they may not be able to deny.
The polls suggest that a majority of Americans are against a drastic overhaul of our medical system. They may want reforms, but they are afraid of the costs and of the implications to their personal care of a government controlled program. As such, they prefer modest changes; e.g., ensuring medical portability or instituting tort reform.
If congressional Democrats defy these wishes and nonetheless pass a so-called government option, they will not be representing the will of the people. Still, they can claim to be “democratic” in the sense of meeting the needs of their constituents. They may honestly believe that it is their duty to provide what the people “need” as opposed to what they mistakenly “want.”
No, the real problem will come if the Democrats are forced to use the so-called “nuclear” option. If, in the senate, they cannot muster sufficient votes to override a Republican filibuster and instead resort to a reconciliation process to implement their desires, they will have dealt a body blow to our democratic traditions. They will have demonstrated that they no longer believe in “majority rules, with minority rights,” but are more devoted to their own well being.
Back when Franklin D. Roosevelt was president, he was very upset with his inability to implement many of his New Deal programs. Despite these having passed the congress, the Supreme Court struck them down. Roosevelt decided that this was intolerable and sought to rectify the situation.
Roosevelt’s plan was to defang the court. He would get the congress to increase the number of justices on the bench and then appoint candidates favorable to his program. Since the Democrats held a significant majority in the legislature, this seemed eminently doable.
Nevertheless, an impediment soon arose. A number of congressional Democrats were horrified by the prospect of “packing” the court. Democratic Senators such as Burton K. Wheeler, Harry Byrd, and Millard Tydings worked with Republicans such as William E. Borah, Charles L. McNary, and Arthur Vandenburg to make sure it didn’t happen.
These legislators resented the threat to their lawmaking prerogatives, as well as to settled democratic traditions. Although they had it within their constitutional rights to effect these changes, they could not bring themselves to violate judicial practices that had been over a century in the making. Many of them were Roosevelt loyalists, but their primary commitment was to the nation as opposed to their party.
Now it is time to see what stuff contemporary Democrats are made of. Do they care more about what Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi want or is their first commitment to long established congressional practices? Do they possess the kind of backbone their predecessors did, or are they willing to capitulate to the pressures of party leaders?
Liberal Democrats have been complaining for decades that Republicans impugn their patriotism. Despite the fact that their rivals explicitly deny this claim, they charge them with disrespecting their honor. Now it is up to Democrats to demonstrate whether this indictment has merit. If they blatantly ignore settled legislative precedents, perhaps it is valid after all.
So do the Democrats have the courage to uphold legislative principles or are they party ciphers? Do they care most about the people and the nation, or are they more concerned with party interests? We will soon find out.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University