The View From Here . . .
By Bob Morgan, Jr.

This week marks the 231st anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, a document that heralded broad new theories of equality as well as a new requirement for governing - that it should only be done with the consent of the governed. It is always a good thing to reflect on the courage of the men who risked their life, fortune and sacred honor to establish our great nation.

As very recent events have shown, the nature of democracy first conceived in 1776 very frequently transposes and mutates itself over time as new technologies and new forces become prominent.

An obvious case in point is the firestorm this week that defeated the comprehensive immigration reform bill. While the proposed legislation had the support of President Bush, Senator John McCain and key Democratic leaders in Congress, a huge amount of grassroots opposition caused the measure's overwhelming rejection in the Senate.

The opposition to the bill was led by conservative talk show radio personalities as well as the conservative segment of the blogosphere, including such sites as Free Republic and National Review Online. Opponents decried the bill as an unacceptable "amnesty" (sometimes referred to as "shamnesty") measure that rewarded illegal immigrants, did not take border enforcement seriously and likely would encourage another wave of illegal immigration.

Senators were deluged with letters, telephone calls and emails on the issue, which prompted one Republican senator, Trent Lott, to complain about talk radio "running the country," while a GOP colleague, George Voinovich, stated that he was being "intimidated" by opponents of the bill. For their part, a number of liberal senators proposed reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, which would have the effect of reining in talk radio's influence. In any event, however, the opposition easily prevailed, and the bill only garnered 46 favorable votes to proceed, when it needed 60.

The emergence of powerful forces to defeat the immigration bill is something of a mixed bag. On the merits of the bill, I think that immigration is an issue that will have to be resolved legislatively, sooner rather than later. And I don't think it is particularly helpful to reject as an "amnesty" every realistic measure to deal with the 12 million undocumented aliens presently in our country.

Nevertheless, there was also something reassuring and very democratic about the rebellion. As National Review's Rich Lowry points out, the bill's proponents presented a 300-page "grand compromise" bill as a fait accompli, with no opportunity for committee hearings or line by line review. Inevitably, when opponents finally read the bill, they found serious shortcomings, which they trumpeted loudly. Also, supporters hoped that some wavering members could be persuaded to vote for cloture in the Senate, which requires 60 votes to cut off debate, and then claim to be opposed to final passage, which only requires a majority. But opponents got their message across, "a vote for cloture is a vote for amnesty."

Of course, there are other manifestations of the new, more populist democracy. On the left, such internet sites as the Daily Kos have made sure that Democratic presidential candidates do not venture far from "progressive" orthodoxy. Indeed, pressure from the left blogosphere recently forced the cancellation of a presidential debate on Fox News, derided by the left as not a "legitimate" news source.

Ever since that fateful day in Philadelphia when the Declaration was signed, democracy in America has evolved and generally become more robust. Not every new development has been a happy one, but the overall effect is a vibrant and thriving political culture.