Obligation and the Body Politic by Joseph Tussman was published in 1960. It was assigned in grad school, and I recently picked it up to review. Tussman notes something that seems so obvious we don’t even think about it.
When we have a democracy, we make a unanimous decision to be bound by public decisions that are not unanimous. We agree ahead of time that if we lose, we will make our own beliefs subordinate to those of the majority. In other words, we unanimously agree to forego unanimity.
I thought that was profound, but there are some major holes in Tussman’s formulation. Suppose the decision isn’t made by a majority, but by a Senate that is not representative? Suppose it is made by an electoral college that is not representative of “the public”? Suppose there is a segment of the population that refuses to accept the outcome of the public decision? Suppose you have Trump and his MAGA followers claiming a fair and free election is fraudulent?
Maybe Tussman discusses such matters. I’m only a fourth of the way through the book.
Since the parties originally agreed to abide by the rules of the particular democracy, they should still abide by them. I give the exception of the filibuster, which I think is unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteIn 1860, the South did not know how democracy works, or even how elections work. I wonder how things would have worked out if Stephen Douglas had won.
I think they would have stayed in the Union. Trump's followers, for example, did not complain that Clinton didn't win, even though she had millions more votes.
Delete