In the system of government established in the United States, disagreement over policies and direction occurs in the context of broader agreement about governmental and procedural structures. That is why a mere majority vote is required for some matters, whereas amendments to the constitution itself require a two-thirds majority vote of the states. This is to ensure that basic governmental structures, in which we express our disagreement and live out our democratic freedoms, are not destabilized.
Radical congressional voices threaten this arrangement because, when things don’t go their way with regard to policy and direction (the things that can be civilly disagreed upon) they increasingly threaten to tamper with the structural certainties (the things that are part of the broader agreement, that should not be tampered with). This is like someone who is upset when they are losing at Monopoly, so they refuse to turn over the dice when it is the other person’s turn. This is like someone on a ship who is upset at a captain’s decision, so they attack the structural integrity of the ship itself, hacking away at the hull.
If you are proud of those who are taking this approach, please consider that it is the structural integrity of the governmental system that is being jeopardized. Words like “conservative” and “liberal” will no longer have meaning when the container for civil disagreement has been demolished. We will not be arguing about who pays for medicine or who can get legally married at that point, but about who is responsible to keep electricity on, keep water running, define what is the law, and who is to keep the semblance of law and order.
Those of you who consider yourselves patriotic, yet support this particularly disruptive version of congressional obstructionism, please consider what a stretch it is to claim that you are representing American values, which were won at the price of blood, and codified through a deliberative process by people who had lived through the nightmare of failed political systems, and who were uniquely prepared by history and education to introduce to the world a new solution for the problem of human governance. Lest we think we can match their vantage point, and reestablish a system equally stable and robust (should we so casually drop the one we have), please proceed with caution.
