Logic and Liberalism

I cherish consistency. Laws applicable to some people should extend to similar people. Policies governing certain activities should cover "like" activities. When debating politics, consistency--though purely voluntary--enhances persuasiveness. In my professional life, inconsistency simply is forbidden. See 47 U.S.C. Section 202(a) (outlawing "unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service."); Greater Boston Tel. Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 852 (D.C. Cir.) (government must explain departure from precedent), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 923 (1971); Melody Music v. F.C.C., 345 F.2d 730, 732 (D.C. Cir. 1965) (similarly situated entities must be treated similarly).

Which explains my frustration with liberals. Yes, some conservatives are inconsistent. But I'm not. And conservative inconsistencies seem small-fry compared with the whoppers leftists generate every day.

Consider the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Liberals lawyers focus on the language of the provision (well, one reading of that language) to reject any individual's "right" to own guns. Conservative scholars read the amendment's initial phrase as explanatory, not mandatory. Moreover, conservatives note that the word "militia" is archaic and has no present-day analog. So the meaning of militia, and its historical role, can clarify the Amendment. Except to the left, who insist the Amendment is clear without context--and limits guns to today's National Guard.

Outside the Second Amendment, liberals flip sides. Everywhere else, the left disdains text-centered analysis and reads every constitutional right as broadly as possible. For example, the Fifth Amendment prohibition on "self incrimination" gives defendants the right not to speak. But liberals wanted more. Hence, the Miranda warnings--a constitutional requirement unsupported by constitutional language. More notoriously, frustrated by the Constitution's silence about "privacy," the left wing convened a judicial seance to summon mysterious legal spirits. These specters promptly prophesied a new right arising out of eerie emanations from textual "shadows." And even mild-mannered lefties become hysterics about conservative judges--despite their "strict construction" of the Second Amendment.

Recent months reflect a bull market in inconsistency. Consider the current orgy of marriages among gays sanctioned by local mayors and magistrates in defiance of state law. Liberals and the media support gay marriage--and so treat lawbreakers as civil rights heroes. Yet, as Rob Dreher observed, these same liberals were outraged when Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore added a monument of the Ten Commandments to the courthouse. Further, as David Codrea notes, liberals would rebuke any official authorizing concealed weapons in the face of a strict state gun control law. Apparently, the more "progressive" the cause, the less demand for consistency.

So liberals are careless concerning coherence. This infected leftist reaction to President Bush's recess appointment of William H. Pryor Jr. to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The WaPo page 1 headline "reported" the Administration "again bypasses Senate;" the Post's editorial was titled "More Provocation"; the NY Times called the appointment "Judicial Activism." So, the left hates recess appointments, right? Not so fast: liberals loved it when Clinton put Roger Gregory on the 4th Circuit via a recess appointment. And remember the left-wing huzzahs when Clinton appointed Bill Lann Lee to head DoJ's Civil Rights Division and James Hormel as ambassador to Luxembourg? But when President Bush does the same, the reaction is utterly inconsistent.

The Times didn't even acknowledge the contradiction. The WaPo bravely tried to square the circle by distinguishing between "controversial" and "uncontroversial" nominees. Such reasoning is itself inconsistent, because it begs the question "controversial to whom?" The (unvoiced) liberal view of recess appointments: an abomination for Republicans, appropriate for Democrats. Some consistency.

The fury about Pryor suggests the left-wing approach to consistency is shifting from indifference to heresy. Let me explain. Liberal Democrats claimed Pryor, a devout Catholic, held extreme and un-Judicial views. Liberals were particularly concerned that Pryor was hostile to the "separation of church and state," citing Pryor's brief supporting Judge Moore's Ten Commandment monument. Pryor did indeed support Judge Moore--because Pryor was Alabama's Deputy Attorney General and Moore was, in effect, his client. Once the courts found the monument unlawful, Pryor personally directed its removal--drawing fire from some Christians.

Put differently, leftists are punishing Pryor for being consistent. Pryor zealously defended his client. The court ruled against Moore and Pryor. Justice Moore kept the Ten Commandments in defiance of law, undermining the legitimacy of his cause. In contrast, Pryor enforced the court's decision--even though he disagreed:

I continue to believe that the Ten Commandments are the cornerstone of our legal heritage and can be displayed constitutionally as they are in the building of the Supreme Court of the United States... (But) the rule of law means that when courts resolve disputes, after all appeals and arguments, we all must obey the orders of those courts even when we disagree with those orders. The rule of law means that we can work to change the law but not to defy court orders.

Justice Moore, properly, was stripped of his robes. By challenging, then enforcing, the law, Pryor was both legally consistent and exhibited the unbiased Judicial temperament liberals claim to seek. Yet Democrats treated Pryor as if he were a scofflaw like Moore--and stalled his nomination. The message: unless it advances the liberal agenda, consistency has been converted from virtue to vice.

I'm glad consistency remains obligatory in telecommunications. Especially because it's vanishing from politics. Liberals and the press routinely ignore syllogism in favor of conflicting arguments and incoherent outcomes. Regardless of logic or law, liberal ends justify any means. This isn't just inconsistent--it's hypocritical.

Remember that this November.