It seems impossible for a conservative to write anything about Wisconsin without noting, for their records, that elections have consequences. The original context of Obama’s statement, you’ll remember, is a conversation he had with Eric Cantor on his third day office. Having been handed a helpful list of deficit-reductions suggestions by the Representative, the newly minted President responded “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.” At which point, as you well know, the Republican faithful graciously bowed out of public life and allowed the President to impose his will on the nation, which is why Guantanamo is now closed; the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are now over; single-payer healthcare is the law of the land; and the Caliphate is nearly installed.
Because that’s how conservatives are using this phrase: “Union members of Wisconsin,” they say, “Scott Walker was elected, and elections have consequences, so quit bitching and go home. We won, and now we’re going to do whatever we want. You lost the right to complain when you lost.” The problem with their rhetoric is plain to anyone who noticed—which includes all those linked above—that the Tea Party held a counter-protest yesterday, i.e. the Tea Party exists precisely because they didn’t accept the very same logic they’re launching at the protesters. ”Elections have consequences” doesn’t mean, as they’re currently construing it, “Roll over and die.” It means what they thought it meant two years ago, which is that they’re in for a political fight.
There is, of course, one more crucial difference: conservatives protested over fictional abuses of authority—czars, death panels, long-form birth certificates, etc.—whereas the protesters in Wisconsin are fighting against the bill as stated both by the person who drafted it and every conservative cheering on the union busting.
Maybe you could also give us something on how the filibuster is a violation of basic democratic principles.
Posted by: Fritz | Sunday, 20 February 2011 at 10:38 PM
Fritz, that's not a filibuster. The Wisconsin Democratic legislators are preventing the legislature from having a quorum, and thus rendering it powerless to pass laws. A filibuster allows a single member to extend debate for as long as she can hold the floor.
Posted by: Davis | Sunday, 20 February 2011 at 10:58 PM
A filibuster allows a single member to extend debate for as long as she can hold the floor.
That's the old definition. The modern American filibuster allows a minority to block action on anything as long as they want at no personal cost or effort. Which is what distinguishes it from the Wisconsin quorum move: that actually takes effort!
Posted by: Ahistoricality | Monday, 21 February 2011 at 02:14 PM
Posted by: Fritz | Monday, 21 February 2011 at 07:20 PM
I'll see your bluff and call. I've now read the Wisconsin State Constitution, and I see the clause about attendance, but I don't see the part where the state legislature has authority to compel action beyond state boundaries. In fact, it specifically limits the actions of the Speaker to those within the powers of the state, and contains no sanction for legislators beyond state borders.
Posted by: Ahistoricality | Monday, 21 February 2011 at 07:39 PM
Ahistoricality,
Good to see that you're picking up on some of the finer points of federalism. On that point, I'm not sure that any state legislature has power to compel action beyond state boundaries (extradition in the U.S. Constitution is at the behest of the executive of the state).
Aside from whether the state can enforce its rules, is what they did in violation of the state Constitution or not? I would tend to answer that yes, their actions were in violation of the Constitution, even if they managed to get away with it. I hope that you can see that they certainly violated the spirit, if not the letter, but probably the letter too.
Posted by: Fritz | Monday, 21 February 2011 at 09:51 PM
That it contains a clause allowing the speaker to compel attendance of legislators within state boundaries suggests to me that they acknowledged the possibility that legislators might want to avoid providing a quorum. That it contains no sanction for legislators who fail to be within state borders during their terms suggests that - after generations of this sort of thing happening - the Wisconsin Constitution is OK with extraordinary measures to prevent a budgetary quorum.
Posted by: Ahistoricality | Tuesday, 22 February 2011 at 01:39 PM
" Guantanamo is now closed; the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are now over; single-payer healthcare is the law of the land; and the Caliphate is nearly installed."
So, other than that last one, which of those were you under the impression Obama was planning on doing?
Posted by: nutellaontoast | Wednesday, 23 February 2011 at 11:04 PM