LIBERUM VETO BACK?: Congress Hamstrung By Egomaniacs Defying Will of People

Franklin's Question: Can We Keep Our Republic? Again is Pertinent

January 2, 2013
By: Dave Rogers

It takes a heap of reflection to figure out why we are where we are with regard to government.

What comes to mind most aptly is the Liberum Veto of the Polish-Lithuanian Parliament of the 1650s, whereby any one member could block any reform proposed for the good of the nation.

Of course that led to disaster, which apparently is where we are heading with the debt limit and other so-called "fiscal cliffs" fated to plague us indefinitely.

Matthew Iglesias writes in Think Progress: "Equally unfit for self-government and self-defense, it has long been at the mercy of its powerful neighbors; who have lately had the mercy to disburden it of one third of its people and territories. Indeed, Poland would be further partitioned twice more and go out of existence before 1800."

The most over-used word in Washington is "non-starter," which means "don't even talk to me about compromise."

The liberum veto (Latin for "I freely forbid") was a parliamentary device in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It allowed any member of the Sejm (legislature) to force an immediate end to the current session and nullify any legislation that had already been passed at the session by shouting Nie pozwalam! (Polish: "I do not allow!").

Historical sources note: "If the envoys were unable to reach a unanimous decision within six weeks (the time limit of a single session), deliberations were declared null and void. From the mid-17th century onward, any objection to a Sejm resolution -- by either an envoy or a senator -- automatically caused the rejection of other, previously approved resolutions.

From the second half of the 17th century, the liberum veto was used to virtually paralyze the Sejm, and brought the Commonwealth to the brink of collapse."

A World of Progress online journal comments: "Sound familiar? In much the same way, now, the GOP and its tea party faction can bring the government to a dead halt, paralyze its decision-making capability, and abrogate the will of a majority of either body of Congress -- let alone the American people -- with a threat to cause economic and political catastrophe. They just did it, and have made clear they will do it again at the first available opportunity."

There are, obviously, egomaniacs who refuse to compromise at the center of our government. They are insulated from public censure by gerrymandered districts that re-elect them no matter how egregious their behavior. No thought of the general good of the nation is important to these special interest pawns who are purchased through political donations aimed at enhancing the pocketbooks of even more well-heeled special interests.

"Anyone who's ever sat through a coalition meeting where everything got done (or, rather, nothing got done) on the basis of consensus has some idea how this could have ended badly," comments World of Progress.

After the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked "Well, Doctor, what have we got -- a Republic or a Monarchy?" And Franklin supposedly replied: "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Whether we in the 21st century can or will keep our republic remains to be seen. But, as with Poland, the biggest threat to our republic seems to come not from without, but from within.

###