I am subscribed to Heather Cox Richardson’s “Letters to America” emails. Each email is a great summary of how well-informed, nice, liberal people feel about a particular idea. They also illustrate how liberalism deceives itself and others through:
- Omitting important facts. I won’t call this “lying through omission” because I believe that, in most cases, liberals just don’t see some important facts as relevant.
- Plain old obtuseness. When the facts of the situation clearly counter the logic and narrative of liberalism, liberals will typically become blind to the problem. It’s like they glitch out for a second before they move on.
I see this problem with almost every email from Heather Cox Richardson (HCR), and today’s email is no exception. One of the core beliefs of today’s liberal is that “our democratic institutions” (their term, not mine) are inherently leading us toward a better society, and though they might take a while, they are always making progress. They have faith in these supposedly democratic institutions — even when they are clearly failing to deal with extreme threats to democracy and individual freedom.
In contrast, the left’s position is that liberalism leads to fascism.
Today’s HCR email was about the horrible decision that the Arizona Supreme Court made in regard to the validity of the state’s 1864 law making abortion illegal. I say “horrible” not because I think the court made the wrong decision, but rather because of the consequences the decision will have on everyone in that state — especially women. In the court’s words:
A policy matter of this gravity must ultimately be resolved by our citizens through the legislature or the initiative process…. We defer, as we are constitutionally obligated to do, to the legislature’s judgment, which is accountable to, and thus reflects, the mutable will of our citizens.
HCR’s opines that, “…it’s an interesting spin to say that the new policy is protecting the will of the citizens.”
Like most weirdly obtuse omissions from liberals, there’s a lot to unpack despite how little was said. Her position, essentially, is that:
- The will of the people is for abortion to be legal.
- Our democratic institutions would, therefore, naturally allow for abortion to be legal, so that must be what they are doing.
- Republicans, who are defying the will of the people (and in this case are represented by the all-Republican Arizona Supreme Court), have sabotaged and defied our democratic institutions by making abortion illegal.
HCR explains at length various details of why the 1864 law does not really represent people today, and I think everything she says about that is true and interesting.
Tell me, though: How, exactly, is the court supposed to know what the will of the people is? The answer in the Arizona case (as well as in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade) is that the court should look to the law and interpret it. In both cases, when you look to the law, the law supports: A) the position that the federal government has no position (allowing state legislation to take priority), and B) the position that abortion is illegal in Arizona.
The court is certainly not allowed to base their decision on the results of a poll conducted by Associated Press, nor should they, yet this is exactly what HCR implies that the court should do. Does HCR believe that a poll conducted by a private corporation is more indicative of the will of the people than “our democratic institutions”?
I do believe that most people want the law to allow abortion — especially when you frame it in terms of how the law should apply to themselves and the women they have close relationships to, but that is just my opinion.
If our democratic institutions (again, their term) were working democratically, and if, indeed, the people really want abortion to be legal, then both federal law and Arizona state law would say that. The fact that the federal and Arizona legislative processes both failed to make abortion explicitly legal either means that the people don’t want it to be legal or “our democratic institutions” are not very democratic.
In order for “our democratic institutions” to be democratic, the people running them must believe in democracy. In order to end up with people who believe in democracy running your institutions, the people must believe in democracy. However, neither the average Democrat nor the average Republican truly believes in democracy. They both believe in a limited republican version of democracy that protects certain powerful groups against “the mob” (i.e., actual democracy). In the case of the Democrats, with whom HCR sides, they have explicitly said in court that they have no obligation to satisfy the will of Democratic party voters during primaries or even follow their own published rules regarding how Democratic party candidates will be chosen.
The US Constitution was designed specifically to protect “the opulent minority” — wealthy people — and there are multiple firewalls protecting elite power from the opinions of the common citizen. When you are operating in a system that is designed to prevent democracy, it occasionally prevents democracy in a way you don’t like. This system is meant to be a defensive weapon for protection of the wealthy, but like any weapon, it can be pointed at anyone. The Arizona decision proves that not even our bodily autonomy is protected from the whims of the elites who are allowed to control political institutions and disregard the will of the people.
Related: We’re a Republic, Not a Democracy
Related: Why Liberalism Leads to Fascism