AmEmbassy 7-9 Tudor Arghezi Bucharest, Romania June 23, 1995 Editor International Herald Tribune 181 Avenue Charles DeGaulle 92521 Neuilly sur Seine France Sir: There has been much criticism in your columns, as well as on American TV, regarding the political motivations behind the recent filibuster in the U.S. Senate which defeated the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster as Surgeon General. Of course the filibuster was politically motivated. Every filibuster in American history has been politically motivated. But no one to my knowledge has pointed out that the filibuster is one of the glories of American democracy. Let me explain. Students of Comparative Government are aware that the only original contribution to Political Theory by an American was the notion put forward by John Calhoun that in a true democracy worthy of the name, the strongly held views of a "substantial minority" could not be overridden by a simple parliamentary majority. Indeed, if Calhoun's argument had been more widely understood and accepted at the time, many are of the opinion that the War Between the States might have been avoided. The cotton gin had already been invented, and even more revolutionary farm mechanization was just over the horizon. In another twenty or thirty years massive field labor by slaves would no longer have been economically profitable, and it is entirely likely that the slave question would have been resolved -- most probably by repatriation to Africa. As understanding of the potential of Senate rules became more widespread, parliamentarians learned that when an issue arose contrary to the deeply held views of one third of the senate -- a "substantial minority" by anyone's definition -- this substantial minority had, in effect, veto power to prevent the simple majority from overriding their views. The filibuster has, as a matter of fact, been relatively rarely used. And when it has, virtually always with regard to a matter of deep social significance. Wherever a two-thirds majority vote has been able to achieve cloture, the filibuster has invariably failed. Surely the issues of abortion at will, the spread of pornographic films, magazines, and TV programs are social issues as potentially divisive in our day as slavery was a hundred and thirty-five years ago. Instead of being an undemocratic defect in American democracy as commonly portrayed, this veto on unpopular nominations or legislation by a "substantial minority" in the Senate is one of the glories of the American system of government, having almost always served to avoid offending deeply held contrarian views, thus mitigating social divisions which might in its absence have led to other Civil Wars -- or significant civil strife. It would be encouraging to see the media give some analytical attention to the positive aspects of this unique American contribution to political thought. Sincerely, David Timmins, Professor of Economics and Government (ret.) AmEmbassy 7-9 Tudor Arghezi Bucharest, Romania July 16, 1995 Editor International Herald Tribune 181 Avenue Charles DeGaulle 92521 Neuilly sur Seine, France Sir: I have been slow in writing because, though I feel quite deeply about the issue, I haven't wanted to be identified with the extremist Militia views about the incidents which have found their way into the media. But the recent decision by the Department of Justice to dismiss the second in command of the FBI for direliction of duty in the orders given (and then denied) in the shooting of the Idaho housewife holed up in the woods with her defiantly non-taxpaying husband, and the excessive force used in the Waco, Texas Dravidian cult incident where dozens of inoffending women and children were burned or shot to death, holds forth hope that wiser heads in government are after all willing to take corrective action where corrective action is warranted. During the Haiti action to restore Jean-Bertrand Aristide to the Presidency of which he was illegally deprived by military coup, the media reported a somewhat parallel incident in which an American Army Captain brought to the attention of his superior, sub-human conditions exisiting in a nearby Haitian prison. Being ordered to pay no attention to the matter since it was beyond the limit of his immediate assignment, and after doing his best, without success, to get higher ranking officers to authorize a visit to confirm this violation of human rights, the Captain in question finally left his post of assignment, visited the prison, and wrote a report which he then submitted for attention. As a result, he was court martialled for leaving his post and disregarding the direct order which he had been given to ignore the matter about which he was so exercised. The court found him guilty of direlicition of duty. . Given the application of international law in this respect at Nurenburg , or the clear post-My Lai instructions to U.S. officers to the effect that ethical behavior must always outweigh even a direct contrary command from a superior, many consider that the decision of the court martial in question was wrong prima facie . Reading the chapter on Ethical Loyalty in William Bennett's Book of Virtues , and taking into account the ruined career of the courageous officer in question, I could no longer hold back from writing the Herald Tribune to express the hope that by ventilating the issue in either your editorial pages, or those of your parent publication the Washington Post , you might, at this tactical moment when Washington is fresh from doing what it could to correct these other two other miscarriages of justice, bring about a reversal of the court martial decision, a White House pardon, or other remedial action with regard to the career of this brave officer. We need more examples of this type of courage in the ranks of our career military -- even at the cost of a possible error or two being made from time to time on the side of excessive ethical sensitivity -- not more rigid examples of hochverrat, giving the less ethically sensitive the excuse to avoid rocking the boat when stupidly blind orders are given from on high -- either to shoot unoffending women and children, or to ignore inhuman treatment beyond one's particular fenceline. Otherwise, given Haiti and Waco, can Auschwitz be far down the road?. Sincerely, David Brighton Timmins