Protest Too Much

As a general rule, I've always thought broadening initiative and referendum excessively was a lousy idea. There's a reason that we're a Republic, one that elects representatives to handle the minutuiae of government rather; it protects the rights of political minorities, for starters.

But there are upsides to referendum as well. One key reason Switzerland has been the most sensibly-run, prosperous nation in Europe for the past few hundred years is their plebiscitory form of democracy; it's very easy to refer bills, especially spending bills, for a popular vote. Thus, the big spending socialist dreams of the liberal northern cantons are pulled back to earth by the conservative southern cantons' more sensible residents, meaning that while Switzerland's government is relatively intrusive (for reasons as much cultural as political), it's traditionally vastly less so (at least in terms of legislative fiat) than other European governments.

Which has got to scare the Star/Tribune.

The Strib's editorial this morning describes the issues and problems with I and R - and their argument makes a certain amount of sense.

Then it ends with a whimper:

Instead of having to spend money on both elections and lobbying to get their way, I & R allows elections alone to do the job. It eliminates the middleman.

Unfortunately, it also eliminates the expertise the middlemen and -women of the Legislature develop. It eliminates their deliberation, the openness of their procedural structures, and their collective judgment. That's a whale of a lot to lose.

Openness of their procedural structures?

Maybe if you get paid to follow the "procedural structures", they're "open".

And while there are some genuine experts among the "middlemen", I could handle a whole lot less of it on some issues; Wes Skoglund's on gun control, Ellen Anderson and Phyllis Kahn's on domestic and family court law, and so on.

It would be a shame if a bad patch of gridlock made Minnesotans think I & R would be better

Actually, the best thing about properly-applied I and R is that it would tend to induce gridlock, at least as far as "progressive" big government goes. Which is actually a reason to adopt it.

The ease with which such far-reaching legislation can be wrapped in misleading slogans and sold to the public explains I & R's appeal to well-heeled advocates of change.

Does the irony escape anyone - the Strib's well-heeled publishers, using a misleading slogan, disparage "well-heeled" dissidents' misleading slogans.

Posted by Mitch at May 26, 2005 07:31 AM | TrackBack