By David Harsanyi
Friday, June 17, 2016
Not long ago, I met up with a progressive writer from a
well-known liberal outlet to discuss democracy. At one point, he told me that
while the Constitution contained some superb ideas, it was an impractical and
antiquated document unworthy of 21st century America. The Second Amendment, he
argued, was a violent relic, and the Constitution’s penchant for diffusing
direct democracy an affront to equality. I don’t think we’re far away from this
being a common view on the Left. It might already be so.
It’s not exactly surprising that Democrats and the media
have transformed an Islamic terror attack into another finger-wagging national
conversation about Christian “homophobia” and the NRA. Gotta keep the focus on
the real enemy, after all. What is surprising is how boldly illiberal many
Democrats have become in trying to achieve their objectives.
It’s not just some Rolling
Stone writer calling for gun confiscation or Vox calling on the president
to discard the Constitution unilaterally; it’s West Virginia’s Joe Manchin
openly arguing that due process is what’s really “killing us.” A senator, sworn
to uphold the Constitution, actually said this. Playing on the fears of
Americans after an act of terror, his colleagues — led by Connecticut’s Chris
Murphy, who believes calls for due process are a “red herring” — are proposing
to bar Americans from buying guns if the FBI decides they belong on a list. The
Senate will take up four bills on Monday.
This is an attack on the Fifth Amendment, not only the
Second. We’re talking about approximately a million people. These watchlists
are tools for law enforcement, not a way to adjudicate your rights. (It must be
pointed out that not all liberals are on board. The ACLU and others have
remained consistent on the issue.) And since Omar Mateen wasn’t on any list
anyway, similar legislation Democrats proposed last year wouldn’t have stopped
him. None of their proposals would have stopped him. So what do Senate
Democrats do? They propose we create a new list that isn’t even tied to law
enforcement concerns. Via The New York
Times:
The Democratic legislation,
sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, would seek to prevent
individuals on the government’s terror watchlist from purchasing guns on the
recommendation of the Justice Department alone. Ms. Feinstein unsuccessfully
proposed a similar measure last year, after 14 people were killed by an Islamic
extremist couple in San Bernardino, Calif. The
legislation she is now proposing goes even further, covering not just people on
the watchlist at the time of purchase, but anyone who had been on the list in
the preceding five years.
Or, in other words, the Democratic Party believes the
Trump administration should be allowed to put any citizen it deems suspicious
into a government database — maybe they
flew one-way to the wrong country or have a funny sounding name. Then, for
whatever reason the Trump administration decides — and without offering any
evidence to back up its suspicions — this American citizen can be denied an
individual right explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution and upheld by the
Supreme Court. And then, that person could lose this right even if he has been
taken off the list. (The Washington Post’s
Greg Sargent has more specifics of Feinstein’s amendment here.)
On this, I’ve seen people offer a thought experiment:
Let’s replace the First Amendment with the Second and then imagine what the
liberal press coverage would look like. Well, I think they’re giving the
contemporary Left too much credit.
It all depends on the topic, doesn’t it? Most of the same
Democrats fighting against due process also support overturning Citizens United, a move that would
empower the government to ban movies and books in a similar way. They support
allowing the IRS to lord over Americans participating in the political
discourse — in groups with subversive words like “patriot” in their titles.
Many liberal attorneys general who support circumventing due process also
support the idea of prosecuting individuals and companies that are skeptical
about apocalyptic climate change theory.
What about those troglodytes who believe you can’t choose
your own sex? Let’s get them next. For many on the Left, neither the process
nor the right matter more than the outcome. Guns. Climate Change.
Discrimination. Immigration. These things are too important to be bogged down
by the limitations of republicanism. When listening to Murphy’s case for
sidestepping legal norms, I was reminded of an entry in Robert Nisbet’s
“Prejudices”:
This distinction between
authoritarianism and totalitarians throws light upon the degradation of
liberalism in the West in the 20th century, when liberalism began to change
from an ideology based in the main upon the ideas of Tocqueville, Mill, and
Spencer — ideas that pivoted upon freedom — to an ideology based more and more
upon the goals of equality, redistribution, and social reconstruction. … This
above all is the reason that liberals have such an equivocal attitude towards
political power in the modern age.
For some, political power is the wellspring of most
goodness. The Constitution limits power and thus often gets in the way of
Left’s notions of equality, redistribution, social reconstruction, and safety.
These days, the only two inalienable rights in the founding document are
abortion and gay marriage. The rest — self-defense, speech, due process—is all
up for debate and modification.
We have a president who demands Americans answer for
those who take advantage of our liberalism but refuses to do the same for the
illiberal culture that produces jihadists. We have a presumptive nominee of the
Democratic Party who won’t even say she believes in a constitutional right to
bear arms. We have an administration that ignores the Tenth Amendment to crush
states that diverge from progressive orthodoxy on sex-specific bathrooms. The president spent six of his eight
years arguing that separation of powers should be circumvented because he was
frustrated that constitutional norms would upend his agenda.
People are okay with this. Democrats love to point out
that polls show Americans want more gun control or more speech controls, and so
Republicans should do something about it. To stand against the majority is to
“defy” Americans, Barack Obama likes to say. Even if it were so simple, isn’t
this why we have constitutions? To codify rights and protect them from the
vagaries of democracy and abusive politicians who will use fear and anger and
emotionally blackmail citizens to enact their agenda? Complain about Donald Trump
all you like; it’s a big target. But let’s not pretend he’s the only one
putting the Constitution and our norms at risk. It’s just that you have
different ideas about why these things aren’t important anymore.
No comments:
Post a Comment