A Horse named Walker

One important difference between a tyranny and a democracy is that dictatorial leadership is not constrained by the principle of a quorum, defined as "the minimum number of members of an assembly that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid". Robert's Rules of Order, the quintessential authority on parliamentary procedure, notes that the "requirement for a quorum is protection against totally unrepresentative action in the name of the body by an unduly small number of persons".

The practice of preventing attainment of a quorum, is, like filibusters and re-reading of the Constitution, a long-standing ploy to defer substantive action of a deliberative body either because there is no alternative to a dire outcome, or to protect a minority view from being desecrated by majority action. Both of our major political parties have used these and complementary procedures to effect their purposes. The conservative media have been too quick to cast the quorum rule in the light of a trick that defeats "the will of the people" in the current case of Wisconsin.

In fact, the will of the electorate is to have deliberative legislatures examining issues important to our governance. It is a perversion of any democracy to say that elections resulting in a majority of one party over the other means that minority party members should pick up their marbles and go home. Elections almost always result in a single party being in the majority. What they do with that majority, and especially, how they protect minority rights, is a measure of their mettle. Do we really want to return to the days of party bosses, where the Whip dictated the character of the vote, rather than merely calling for one? The legitimacy of a particular bill's passage is inversely proportional to the degree of "adherence to strict party lines" among its supporters.

And so, we find ourselves in the embarrassing position of having a state Governor unabashedly refusing to debate the merits of a potentially union-busting bill in Wisconsin. How dare he refuse to hear the arguments of dissention? How dare he lie about the available remedies for a budget shortfall? How dare he insert himself into limiting legislative debate? Where abides the "separation of powers" doctrine in Wisconsin? How dare he lock the doors of the state house?

I am reminded of a horse named Walker. A perfect horse to break-in a would-be ploughman. In harrowing the garden, Walker usually did what I suggested. But when it became clear that my guidance would lead us through the lilacs, he quietly came to a stop and awaited further instruction. He even looked back to verify that the reins were telling him what I really wanted him to do.

WALKER, Percheron X Standard Bred (with just a touch of Arab)

How is Walker to be remembered? Stubborn and unerring in plowing his way through the lilacs? Or, strong, unflappable, patient, willing to accept guidance but not blindly so, and willing to pull his share until the work is done. The more harrowing view is that of the south end of a northbound horse.



Cross-posted to The Renaissance Post