First appeared in print in The Rhinoceros Times, Greensboro, NC
Judges, filibusters, and Hillary
I believe in Democracy. I wish the Democratic Party did.
Unfortunately for Democrats like me, it appears that the leadership of the Democratic Party will throw out democracy and the Constitution in order to keep the dictatorship of the courts in charge of making America over in their utopian image.
They wouldn't feel that way if the courts weren't forcing the PC agenda on the American people.
That's what this whole business of filibustering judicial appointments is all about. Having shown that the courts can ram the private agenda of some elite group down the throats of the American people, without even a nod to democratic process, the Left now lives in terror that the Right will do the same.
Even though the "worst" that conservative judges have advocated is to repeal the fiats of judicial dictators and return issues that were never the courts' business to the legislature.
A party called "Democratic" should have no fear of that. Persuading the people to elect legislators who will pursue their agenda -- isn't that what party politics is supposed to be about?
But no, it's much easier to insist that only judges who have the approval of left-wing law school faculties and left-wing bar associations be appointed, and then give the judge the right to decide all matters of social law.
In fact, that's what the attempt to steal Florida for Al Gore in 2000 was all about. The Democratic leadership didn't care diddlysquat about Al Gore. Nor did the thousands of left-wing lawyers who flooded Florida.
They cared about having a leftist in the White House to appoint judges.
And when Bush ended up prevailing because the U.S. Supreme Court actually voted five to four that the Florida supreme court didn't have the right to change the laws willy-nilly in order to get the desired outcome ...
Well, judges changing laws to get the desired outcome is the only way Democratic social-change legislation ever gets into law these days.
Most Americans -- including a good number of Democrats like me -- are actually fed up with ignorant elitists deciding what's "good" for us and ramming it down our throats, even though they have no evidence whatsoever that these massive social changes will actually do what they claim.
Indeed, the opposite is the case -- we have ample evidence that most of the Left-wing agenda has had most of the deleterious effects on our society that more conservative people warned that it would have.
Not all that agenda was forced on us by the courts -- we chose to embrace easy divorce ourselves, for instance -- but it is now sustained and made legislature-proof by the courts, and the judges in many venues seem grimly determined that if left-wing social change has been a disaster, the solution must be to move even farther to the left.
The reason the left-wing agenda is always in danger of repeal, if the state legislatures or Congress were not blocked by the courts, is that the consensus-building legislative process was short-circuited.
One of the glories of the American system is that most issues are not -- or were not -- federal, and therefore could be worked out piecemeal, state by state.
Rather like the lottery issue. Most states have been persuaded to try the lottery. But now, the last couple of hold-out states are able to see how false or downright fraudulent all the claims of the lottery proponents are. That a lottery is nothing but a tax on the poor that very quickly becomes like an over-aged toll road -- you have to keep charging tolls to pay the salaries of all those toll-booth operators.
But what if lotteries had been forced on all the states at once by judicial decree, and now the courts were forbidding any state from doing away with their lottery? We'd never stand for it.
Except that we do stand for it, and on issues far more important than state-sponsored gambling. Even in states where easy abortion at any point in a pregnancy and for any reason is detested by the overwhelming majority of the people -- and that's most states, by the way, when you ask the poll question that way -- you can't put even the slightest limits on the "right" of women to kill the genetically unique being growing inside her, even if it came to life because of its mother's voluntary sexual behavior.
That's what the Democratic Party has been reduced to. In order to allow women to kill their babies at any point up to and including birth, without the consent of the baby's father, without regard for the baby's humanity, they will toss out the Constitution's provision giving the President the right to appoint federal judges.
Even now, when the Congress has passed the partial-birth abortion ban and President Bush is bound to sign it, the Democratic Party is counting on the federal courts to throw the law out as unconstitutional -- because it would violate a "right" that appears nowhere in the Constitution.
Since the Left long since abandoned patriotism, considering it a dangerous fascist mindset, and now is committed to shredding the Constitution to allow women to evade motherhood no matter when they change their minds, I guess all that's left for the Democratic Party to embrace is apple pie.
And people wonder why Democrats like me have to class ourselves as "embarrassed Democrats."
There are actually people saying that Hillary Clinton is the "hope of the Democratic Party."
The hope? This woman who we know is a crook, and is only outside of jail because her co-conspirators, mafia-style, refuse to talk?
This woman who hates the traditional American family and wants the government to dictate how children should be raised? This woman whose book is full of self-serving lies and who denies her hatred of traditional American values only in order to get elected?
Sure, that's right.
She is absolutely the best hope of the Democratic Party. And here's why:
If Hillary is the Democratic nominee this year (and she is so tempted to run), it will be a disaster. She is the easiest target of the right. She would make George McGovern look like a real contender.
And in the ashes of the Democratic Party after her nomination swept a veto-proof Republican majority into Congress, the rank-and-file Democrats might actually go through some soul searching and realize that maybe, if you want to govern America, you should try getting the consent of the people first.
Maybe the Democratic Party will abandon the strategy of ramming social change down the throats of the people, and instead try that brand-new concept (brand-new in Iraq, anyway) of teaching and persuading the people and gradually bringing them to vote for the changes that you think would be good.
Maybe the Democrats will even accept the idea that sometimes the people don't want to create your utopian vision (especially when your track record is disastrous and your "utopias" keep looking like hell), and when they reject your ideas, it's time to move on and look for other "good" things to accomplish.
The Democratic Party ought to be standing as the bulwark of the little guy against big money and rapacious free-market capitalism, here and abroad. After all, the Republicans seem to be dominated by their own group of insane utopians -- when they're not making huggy-huggy with all those leftover racists from the segregationist past. (Though George W. Bush seems to be trying to put a stop to that, at least.)
But having been captured by lunatic groups that hate marriage and family and democracy and freedom of choice on practically every issue except abortion, the Democratic Party has abandoned its responsibility and has embraced the very fiscal policies that they ought to be opposing. Instead they expend all their effort on trying to turn America into a university English faculty, where there is no morality, no religion, no "privileged idea," only "texts."
Those of us who are tired of the elephant footprints that Republican free-market policies are leaving all over the world have no party to turn to. Because the Democrats are busy leaving their own elephant footprints all over the American family.
So yes, the only hope we old-fashioned liberals have is for someone like Hillary to lead the Democratic Party to such a debacle that a new leadership can emerge -- one that will stand tall for freedom abroad and embrace democracy in America as well.
Meanwhile, folks like me are reduced to calling ourselves "Tony Blair Democrats," because even though Blair ain't perfect and he ain't American, he's a lot better than anything we've seen in the parade of Democratic candidates so far this year.
If you get a chance, look at the July/August issue of The American Enterprise magazine. Several articles devoted to the American news media are eye-opening even to those of us who already find the quality of American reporting laughably bad.
Unfortunately, the leftist press never bothers to answer the very serious charges made against them in publications like TAE -- they merely dismiss them as part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that claimed that Bill Clinton was a lying adulterer.
They never seem to notice that the "vast right-wing conspiracy" was quite right about Bill. And it's quite right about Peter Jennings and Dan Rather and Peter Arnett, too.
Copyright © 2003 by Orson Scott Card.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.