Suggesting sometimes the comments are better than the article, a TPM Cafe piece on "democracy not being a suicide pact" had some good stuff including this:
To paraphrase Jefferson, successful Democracies are based on a well educated populace. A strong middle class and a commitment to the rule of law are also essential elements to keep the Democracy functioning. What else can we throw into the mix that has been well documented, let’s see, how about a commitment to country and a true belief in the free rights of others; including freedom of religion.
The best policy for promoting democratic freedoms in these countries is a long term commitment to expanding economic policy that only builds a strong middle class. This necessarily requires the development of a secular education for all citizens.
Until the roots for democracy have been built there is no chance for social development of a commitment to democratic values. The US Bush manifest destiny to create a democratic world through force must be eliminated.
Also, the "suicide pact" deal, h/t a comment there, was discussed here. Whenever I see an article about the perils of majority rule (what if a fundamentalist majority wins?) or the dangers of protecting rights over and above what a majority accepts/votes in, it is ever so clear that we are a republic. Fittingly, Jefferson's party is often known -- if confusingly to some today -- the Democratic-Republican Party since it promoted republican ends with a broad based appeal.
We aren't just concerned about majority rule here, though Bush v. Gore suggests that is not ensured. It is true that we commonly speak of a "democracy," but its a misnomer except to the degree it means we each have some degree of personal sovereignty. So, I guess it is correct, but it has to be qualified -- a republican democracy, one in which mere 50% +1 rule is not enough. So, there is religious freedom, and separation of church and state, or at least some degree of religious equality ... even if some want religious favoritism, sponsored by the government. It means open government.
And, yes, a strong middle (and informed) class with everyone having at least some minimum of basic needs necessary for true equality. We can see the makings of a progressive/liberal platform, huh? Thom "Mr. Jefferson" Hartmann would be nodding his head rapidly. It also means that in various cases the government power will be divided, so strong minority coalitions that stick together might have the ability to block the majority's will. This includes "very respectable and serious" sorts that put nice sounding but ultimately fake measures out there since even they realize they cannot enable Bush so blatantly any more.
Atrios sees the future:
There will come a point where all of the very serious members of Congress (the wanker caucus) will come together on some bill or another which will pretend to force Bush to do something about Iraq but which won't actually force him to do anything. David Broder will applaud, the media will praise the president for not vetoing it, and only us dirty fucking hippie bloggers will point out that it doesn't change a damn thing.
One of the TPM Election Central comments puts out a challenge, given Sen. Reid dismissed the "respectable and serious" Iraq measure by the Bush enabling coalition:
But is Reid going to keep the Senate in session until McConnell "lets" them vote on Levin-Reed? Keep the debate going and force the GOP to defined Bush and his toxic war? Postpone the vote until after the recess if he's not willing to cancel the recess?
Or when McConnell stamps his little foot and says "no vote" is Reid just going to have another futile cloture vote? Ask him that. I'm looking for some teeth here.
Progressives can refuse to go alone with half-measures, even if the Democratic Leadership wants to do so. Congress needs to fund the war and has various other powers to regulate the armed forces that could seriously tie the hands of the President. Dems want to "support the troops," the majority is on their side to do so, reality and morality is on their side ... if "side" is a real change in policy. It will be a tough fight, but if they have the guts, it one they can win. If the other side wants to do nothing, and there is a firm alternative (emphasis on both words) -- there wasn't in May -- there will truly be a line in the sand.
If a minority can block measures by veterans, an ex-Reagan Cabinet secretary, and long term (often conservative leaning) military experts, measures the House in various cases will pass, measures the public wants, reality demands, when even Republicans admit the current policy stinks and do so even when the Democrats in the Senate stand firm, well, we will are in FUBAR territory. But, damn if I would like to see the battle first. We have not yet.
Some signs of true republican values are out there. Fighting for what we believe in, and not just in the lockstep military/authoritarian matter the R. party prefers, is an important part of the mix. Let us do so. Let us give the presumptive Democratic 44th President a fighting chance to build off a baseline when s/he enters the picture.