The morning after Martha Coakley lost, Roy Edroso's headline at the Village Voice read:
Scott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate
And it turns out that's true -- if Republicans stay on the right side of the issues. I'll explain.
Consider the way Democrat legislation works. Liberals are all about special interests. Their legislative efforts center around correcting "injustices" that occur when the free market -- free will -- doesn't produce the results Democrats would have.
Liberals don't represent everyone -- they represent victims. When liberals vote in favor of any group, they do so at the expense of everyone else. It's not just Democrats sacrificing the constituents of Republicans -- they're sacrificing a lot of their own constituents, too. Even liberal voters -- who fundamentally agree with this application of government, and who feel guilty for not being victims themselves -- get sacrificed.
Democrats can demonstrate unity, but only to the extent that they can unite around favoritism. They make it politically correct to help a cause or a group, and then they challenge voters to support that cause or be accused of being unjust, cruel, or at the very minimum indifferent to the plight of the suffering victims.
Very few people benefit from these policies, but nearly everyone pays for them. And right now, only 60% of Senators are necessary to institute them. Think about it: Filibuster opponents now want it to take only a bare majority to compel everyone to provide for their special interests. Could that possibly make things any better?
On the other hand, conservatism is about the rule of law. Unlike a Congressional mob whose favor is curried from every direction, conservatism is about policies that benefit everyone. We want the game to have better rules -- not better outcomes. Results are up to the individual, and good policy is about heightening the relationship between the individual's actions and the results he experiences.
For conservatives to prevail -- with only 41 votes -- they only have to concern themselves with the common good. Not what's good for this special interest or that one, or why things should be better for some "victims" than for everyone else. By common good, I mean policies that are good for everyone, rather than policies which pit smaller, popular interests against the majority. What matters is what's best for everyone -- how can a law be written such that nobody is sacrificed?
In fact, the filibuster could be about a minority of Senators defending nearly everyone from the tyranny of politically-protected special interests. Government shouldn't be a process that distributes the cost of one person's good over everyone else -- it's supposed to seek the solutions with the most good for everyone. The common good -- not the "greater" good.
And yes, I think 41 Senators is enough to do that. In fact, I don't think it should take that many.
Comments