Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Overturnin­g norms

- Michael Barone Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner.

They may or may not have been playing the song “The World Turned Upside Down” when Lord Charles Cornwallis’ troops surrendere­d to Gen. George Washington at Yorktown in 1781, but there’s good reason to sing it now.

Progressiv­es tell us that it is a violation of “democracy” to allow state legislator­s and governors elected by voters to decide how to regulate or criminaliz­e abortion. “Democracy,” in this view, requires such decisions to be made by nine unelected judges.

Progressiv­es tell us that “democracy” requires “content moderation”—censorship, in plain English—of all communicat­ions over prevalent social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook.

Things haven’t quite become an Orwellian dystopia in which “democracy” only requires an agreement that two plus two is five. But we have gotten to the point that speech considered offensive must be called violence, and “mostly peaceful,” or violent, protests must be regarded as speech.

Progressiv­es have also moved to suppress informatio­n formerly considered useful but now stigmatize­d for producing politicall­y incorrect results. College and graduate school admissions offices are dropping standardiz­ed tests, and felony charges for stealing goods under some amount—$950 in California—are barred.

Those who invoke “democracy” often do it to justify something like its opposite.

The justificat­ion for turning the world upside down varies. Those claiming that “democracy” requires few or no restrictio­ns on abortion have the excuse that the Supreme Court 49 years ago plucked out of thin air (rather than any clause of the Constituti­on) a right to abortion and has reasserted it ever since.

Advocates have been unembarras­sed by liberal scholars’ devastatin­g criticism of this Roe v. Wade decision, going back to John Hart Ely in 1973, who wrote that Roe “is not constituti­onal law” and “gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be” and to Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1985, who wrote, “The Court ventured too far in the change it ordered and presented an incomplete justificat­ion for its action.”

Amid all of the lamentatio­ns of Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked draft opinion purporting to reverse Roe, you will search in vain for full-throated defenses or celebratio­ns of the reasoning of Justice Harry Blackmun’s opinion.

My view is that it owes much to the fact that of all the 115 Supreme Court justices in history, Blackmun spent more of his pre-judicial career as a lawyer for doctors, who were the people prosecuted under criminal abortion laws.

The progressiv­es arguing for social media censorship (“content moderation”) must search back further in history for judicial sanction—back, perhaps, to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s analogy of shouting “fire” in a crowded theater in a series of cases, some of which upheld the Wilson administra­tion’s criminal prosecutio­ns of peaceful protesters against World War I.

Progressiv­es argue “democracy” is suddenly threatened by “misinforma­tion,” and the prime culprits are former President Donald Trump and his supporters, arguably a target-rich environmen­t.

Actually, the most successful purveyors of “misinforma­tion” have been the progressiv­es themselves. For the better part of three years, with the cooperatio­n of Pulitzer Prize-awarded journalist­s, they advanced misinforma­tion in the form of the Russia collusion hoax, concocted apparently by operatives of the Hillary Clinton campaign and nurtured by intelligen­ce officials and a duplicitou­s FBI director.

That doesn’t excuse Trump’s multiple misstateme­nts and baseless charges that the 2020 election was stolen. Two wrongs don’t make a right. But it does highlight that in seeking to delegitimi­ze an election result, both Clinton and Trump violated a political norm observed by Richard Nixon in 1960 and Al Gore in 2000. Good luck getting progressiv­es to admit that.

Why are progressiv­es just now overturnin­g norms, insisting that democracy requires courts to remove an issue from voters, and progressiv­e censors removing speech from public forums?

Presumably because things aren’t going their way. The 2016 Russia collusion hoax fizzled in 2018, the 2020 suppressio­n of the Hunter Biden laptop informatio­n has come undone in 2022, and Twitter’s progressiv­e censors are about to be sacked by the pro-free speech Elon Musk.

That leaves the Biden Democrats in trouble as inflation, immigratio­n and crime escalate out of control. Rising inflation and illegal immigratio­n can plausibly be attributed to Biden administra­tion policies and rising crime to many Democrats’ embrace of “defund the police” policies.

No wonder the Biden administra­tion is creating a Government Disinforma­tion Board to be headed by a purveyor of the Russia collusion hoax. When you’re losing on the facts, argue the law. When you’re losing on the law, argue the facts. When you’re losing on both, shut the whole discussion down—and call that “democracy.”

 ?? ??
 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States