I & R

To Benjamin Franklin is attributed this particular pearl of wisdom:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

Our Framers understood full well the difficulties associated with pure democracy, and drafted a system of government designed specifically to avoid its excesses. While representatives purport to govern under the authority of the people, the system – quite properly – checks the ability of the people to convert their desires into policy. Far too often, that which the people want – i.e. someone else’s property or income – is something to which they have not right and upon which they should not be permitted to vote. A republican system of government (coupled with a Constitution which takes certain subjects – i.e. "dinner" – off the table, so to speak) tends to prevent unreasonable, but popular, demands.

Unfortunately, powerful cabals of special interests discovered how to infiltrate a representative system of government and secure privilege for the few at the expense of the many. Whereas a democracy suffers from the possibility that the majority will oppress the minority, representative systems sometimes permit the minority to oppress the majority.

Put another way, as recent circumstances demonstrate, it’s easier to bribe one representative than 250,000 constituents. And not merely "bribes" of the sort which tend to trip the radar of the US attorney, but the (presently) perfectly legal sort, such as sweetheart deals to public employee unions or massive public subsidies to preferred constituencies, like Abbott districts.

In a rationale system, with an engaged populace, these outrages could not occur. But, sometimes, an arrogant Court imposes its will upon a reluctant populace, abetted by a complicit or impotent Legislature. Sometimes, a Legislature, elected through artfully (and, in the case of NJ, illegally) drawn legislative districts and backed by powerful, monied interests, imposes foolish – not to say corrupt – policy, to the detriment of the State, without fear of the electoral consequences. In both cases, the people possess no remedy to check those folks purporting to serve their interests.

Consider the case of racial quotas and preferences. The elites in virtually all states, and especially in academia and the media, support grouping people by color or ethnicity and apportioning out benefits accordingly. The public overwhelmingly opposes such racialism, believing that policy should be color blind. Frustrated by the refusal of the political elites to eliminate racialist policies, the people in several states took matters into their own hands, drafted initiatives, securing public support through signatures, and got the measures placed on the ballot. The political elites birthed whole litters of kittens and opponents spent huge sums of absurdly misleading advertisements, all to no avail. As a result, California, Michigan, Washington, and other states now boast racial policies infinitely more enlightened than those in NJ.

The difference? Those states trust their people, within broad limits, to make policy. NJ political officials, jealous of their own power, do not.

Can you imagine how long Abbott, Mount Laurel, or the various tax hikes imposed upon the people by arrogant Democrats would last in the face of popular referenda? Our Supreme Court would no longer be the last word on the Constitution; the people would be. And our Legislature might still fear the NJEA, but it would be compelled to respect the people, too.

Virtually every special interest opposes I & R precisely because it undercuts their ability to tilt policy in their own favor. Few issues unite both the business community – which, quite properly, fears demagogic but cute policy initiatives (see "sheep", above) – and public employee unions – which know full well that a 55 year-old retirement age and lifetime, taxpayer-funded health benefits would never survive a referendum – but I & R manages that feat.

The trick, then, lies in permitting the people to check the excesses of government, while preventing them from playing the part of the wolves in Franklin’s example. Banning racial discrimination is one thing; voting yourselves your neighbor’ money is quite another. Alas, both proposals would probably pass.

Jefferson once observed that the Revolution was not fought to create an elected tyranny; I & R cannot be permitted to metastasize into an engine permitting the majority to oppress the minority.

Since virtually all bad policy finds its genesis in the affirmative actions of the government, the proper solution may lie in simply according the people a veto on governmental action. Call this "negative I & R"; the people may, via petition, invalidate any action by the Legislature or by the Supreme Court.

If an appropriate number (say 5% of the registered voters) of people sign a petition, a simple question appears on the ballot: "Should public law X be invalidated?" A simple explanatory statement of what the law does would be included, and the people would decide. Say, for instance, a referendum on Governor Corzine’s massive sales tax hike. If it passes, the tax is invalidated and spending must be cut accordingly. Simple.

Or "should the Supreme Court decision in Abbott v. Burke be reversed"? If so, the power to set educational spending levels would revert to the Legislature (where it properly belongs.)

Certainly, NJ needs some form of I & R; a system that enables the people to negate governmental excesses while preventing the sort of majority tyranny Franklin, Jefferson, and the Framers feared.

Most of the wolves these days do quite nicely – at the expense of the sheep – through special interest influence on the Legislature and through importuning an imperious Court to impose via judicial diktat that which cannot be achieved even through the clearly corrupt political process. Affording the people the opportunity to supervise – and over-rule – those who purport to speak in their name affords both democrats and republicans – both sans caps – with the power they deserve and the protection they require.