Democrats serve by leaving

First and foremost, the job of representatives in a democracy is to express the will and the desires of the people who put them into office. The whole principle of representative democracy is built on the fact that these individuals will truthfully represent the will of their constituents.

By preventing a vote on the right-to-work law, the Democrats are effectively ensuring that their constituents’ voices are heard. If these Democrats did not voice their opposition, they wouldn’t be doing their jobs. At least give them credit for representing the will of the majority of their constituents.

Second, with such an important issue representing the core of party ideology, it makes political sense that Democrats would fight tooth and nail to defend the status quo of unions and teachers. With unions being one of the Democrats’ largest supporters, why wouldn’t these representatives fight to defend their voting backbone?

But the proposed law not only threatens an idea relevant to their voting base, it also threatens to weaken the foundation of unions. The right-to-work law would weaken the power unions have in the economic and political system, thus weakening Democrats’ core voting base. If Democrats allowed a vote on this bill, they would not only be undermining a major political ally, but consequentially undermining themselves.

Any political party seeking to retain its political strength ensures that not only its voting base’s interests are upheld, but the political power of this voting base remains relevant. Therefore, this is not just an ideological issue for Democrats; this is a matter of political relevance.

Third, whether or not you disagree or agree with the departure of the Democrats, there will be political consequences of their actions. Every day the Democrats are gone, voters will notice. The pro-union individuals will see these actions by Democrats as a defiant mark of heroism.

But on the same token, those who favor the right-to-work law will oppose the Democrats’ move. The results from this polarization will be relevant in the next election. If Hoosiers fundamentally support unions, these representatives will keep their jobs. If not, then we will see more Republican gains.

But the idea that such a move by Democrats will result in a Republican quorum-proof majority in the House fails to recognize the political support for unions that exists in these Democrats’ districts.

Overall, Democrats aren’t stupid; they know the consequences of their actions and have decided the benefits to fighting the right-to-work law outweigh the political costs.

Finally, the ability for a minority party to stop debate and prevent an important decision is a fundamental and necessary tool in democracy, albeit inconvenient for political realities. One of the flaws of the great democratic political system is the tyranny of the majority. If there were no mechanisms designed in our political system for minority parties to slow and hinder the political process, the majority party would constantly rule, effectively silencing the minority population’s opinion.

Without the filibuster in the Senate or the rules on quorum in the Indiana Statehouse, 51 percent of the population could dictate 49 percent of the population. Part of democracy is incorporating opposition to ensure everyone’s interests are maintained in the political process. Sometimes that incorporation is through discussion and sometimes it’s through filibuster. But nonetheless, we need all voices heard and relevant in the political process.

Overall, whether or not you agree or disagree with right-to-work legislation or education reform, the Democrats’ move is politically smart and legitimate. Of course it is frustrating to Republicans that Democrats would hijack the political process. It would be equally frustrating to Democrats if Republicans did the same thing about a similar Republican-sensitive issue. But to simply take Democrats’ departure as childish, stubborn or unwise fails to take into account these mentioned motives.

Yes, it is frustrating politically when the process is slowed or stalled, especially when a party is on the cusp of a much-wanted political victory. But it is important for the maintenance of our democracy that such actions are legitimate, met with appropriate voter responses and understood.


E-mail: mdshowal@indiana.ed