He is, as many of you undoubtedly know, a columnist with the Washington Post. He often writes about politics, and he's usually worth a read. He's also often wrong, and as far from a conservative as one can get (maybe that contributes to the former).
An excellent example came a number of weeks ago, in a column Dionne wrote for the Post in early April (you can read the entire column here). In it, Dionne is decrying the Electoral College, how it can lead to someone winning the presidency despite losing the popular vote, such as in the 2000 election, etc etc etc. No surprises here; progressives have been slamming the Electoral College for decades. But so, what does Dionne propose be done about it? Well. First, he writes of what is happening in his native Maryland: "It does not have to be this way. As someone who lives in Maryland, I am proud that my state may pioneer a process that could lead to popular election of the president. The state Senate passed a bill last Wednesday that would commit Maryland's 10 electors to voting for the winner of the nationwide popular vote. The bill is expected to pass in the House of Delegates this week, and Gov. Martin O'Malley has said he would sign it."
Goodness! So, will this law take effect in the 2008 election? Will Maryland's electoral college votes go in '08 to whomever wins the popular vote? Well, no. Dionne continues: "The law would not take effect unless states representing a 270-vote electoral college majority pass similar laws. The idea is to create a compact among states genuinely committed to popular rule."
Now, let's think about this a moment. The Electoral College is part of the U.S. Constitution; the manner in which we elect a president is constitutionally-mandated. So, shouldn't Dionne and other liberals like himself seek a constitutional amendment, if they want a change in our presidential electoral process? Oh, well, but Dionne wants nothing to do with something like that, as he confesses: "Yes, this is an effort to circumvent the cumbersome process of amending the Constitution. That's the only practical way of moving toward a more democratic system. Because three-quarters of the states have to approve an amendment to the Constitution, only 13 sparsely populated states -- overrepresented in the electoral college -- could block popular election."
So there you have it. And I'll tell you why this is so striking (and infuriating) to me. Look, who is it who has been so busy ranting about the constitution and what is "constitutional" lately? Why, our progressive friends such as Mr. Dionne. They complain that the Patriot Act has questionable constitutionality, they complain that President Bush's plans to engage in surveillance and wiretapping of potential terrorists has questionable constitutionality, they say that the president's refusal to let his aides and ex-aides testify before congress concerning the U.S. attorney firings issue is an attempt to get around the constitution, and so forth. Oh, at times, our liberal friends say we must, absolutely must, strictly abide by the constitution.
Er, well...except when it comes to issues like the Electoral College. When it comes to changing the EC, we need to kinda skip constitutional processes (or so Mr. Dionne is implying), because to him they're just not convenient. (Never mind that the founding fathers intended for the process of changing the constitution to be a slow, deliberative one; that way, demagoguery and the passions of the moment would not be able to sweep away the foundations of our government).
Sometimes, when others talk about the Constitution, you have to watch carefully to see how consistent about it they really are.
