Some baggage to be lost in 2005

The Law of Unintended Consequences 

By Francis I. Broadhurst

The law of unintended consequences isn’t well understood by some movers and shakers especially in politics, law and academe. Common sense flees when “reformers” lose political wars. But their legislative remedies rarely, if ever, are designed to put them into the winning column.

Some of us remember when Republicans in Massachusetts couldn’t win legislative elections. The liberal wing of the GOP-- aided and abetted by traditionally liberal League of Women Voters-- decided to change that. They proposed reducing the size of the House of Representatives which had always functioned as a brake on legislative excesses and governors’ ambitions. The League’s theory was if the numbers of representatives were cut from 240 to160 the stupid voting public would have less opportunity to interfere with good liberal legislation.

The League’s theory was... the stupid voting public would have less opportunity to interfere with good liberal legislation

The measure passed as the 101st Amendment to our state constitution.

It marked the second time since 1857 the House had been reduced. Each town used to have a seat in the House. The benefits for representative democracy were many

• citizen legislators · short sessions-- and
• no truly burdensome legislative bureaucracy
• It worked well and taxpayers were generally the winners all the way around.

In 1970 the 92nd Amendment cut the number of representatives in the General Court to 240. That amendment kept seats for representatives from both Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard as promised when Massachusetts wooed and won the islands from Rhode Island and New York which both wanted these rich little merchant kingdoms.

The 101st Amendment cut the size of the House to 160 and eliminated the two Island seats. The League’s liberal activism earned them the nickname “League of Women Vultures” from Speaker David Bartley who accurately predicted the people would lose in the end.

Guess what? They did.

What was the unintended consequence of this “great reform”? There were no Republican gains. The legislature today is virtually immune to the will of the people. It has become a full-time, over-staffed giant forever seeking new ways to tax the people, impose new and onerous rules and regulations on every soul, spend our money and take care of friends and contributors.

Extremists speak of “reforming” our national institutions

Extremists who still can’t comprehend the law of unintended consequences speak of “reforming” our national institutions. They would abolish the Electoral College, take control of elections from the states to create a national enterprise much like the socialist states of Old Europ; and change the Constitution to allow foreign born, naturalized citizens to become president. All bad ideas to conservatives who love the Constitution and common sense.

Reformist elites are primarily socialist and liberal Democrat by persuasion with a smattering of “greens”, fringe libertarians, Hollywood celebrities, academics and pundits

Reformist elites are primarily socialist and liberal Democrat by persuasion with a smattering of “greens”, fringe libertarians, Hollywood celebrities, academics and pundits. They seem to share in common a penchant for despising the great unwashed mass of citizens who love their country for what it is, what it does and how it works.

My fondest hope for this promising new year is to see these “reformers” marginalized even more than they have marginalized themselves. They should heed Hubert Humphrey’s warning that “The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.”

Another dream for 2005 would be to see an end to judicial law making. Our supreme judicial court chief Justice Margeret Marshall exemplifies what happens when judges re-invent the constitution.

She reached into modern European law to legislate gay marriage as a covered constitutional right. The unintended consequence of her law making was that it triggered a rebellion among religious fundamentalists who turned out in droves in many states to pass laws prohibiting gay marriage and nullifying civil unions.

It was predictable and predicted. Many hard working gay people are suffering as a result. . Massachusetts became a poster child to rally the religious of all denominations – Christian, Jew and Muslim-- against gay marriage. Consequences have been cruel and punitive.

The smug arrogance of our Chief Justice has set the gay community back years. The sooner she retires the better off we will be. It is doubtful that the Bill of Address being filed by some Massachusetts lawmakers to forcibly remove her will gather enough support among the wishy washy legislators who make up the General Court. If she goes, it will have to be of her own accord. Let’s hope she makes a graceful exit, but don’t count on it.

End hate mongering by the left and the right

Also on my wish list for 2005—an end of hate mongering by the left and the right, reduction in the size and scope of our national government, an end to the practice among “gotcha journalists” to run with unchecked gossip.

The fiasco of CBS “fake but accurate” smear of Mr. Bush on 60 Minutes’ is but one of many calamities that befell and befouled the mainstream news media in 2004. Unabashed media bias has led to creation of the “blogosphere”-- now a major player on the Internet feeding good and bad information instantaneously to millions.

Oh! What a more nearly perfect world it could be if character, morality and honesty—three of the most valued virtues of an enlightened society-- come back into vogue.  

Francis I. Broadhurst is the senior political columnist on Cape Cod, having written for the Cape Cod Times off and on since 1964. For many years he authored "The Broadhurst Report" on WQRC, and he is a lifelong registered Republican who has served as Chairman of the Board of Selectmen in Barnstable. You may write him at 88 Stony Cliff Road, Centerville, MA 02632 or e-mail him at FIBcape@aol.com. Francis offered this column to a couple other media which demurred from running it, we assume for the worst "P.C." reasons. We don't often agree with Francis, but like Voltaire we will fight to defend his right to them. - The Editors