Posted by
Rogue Historian on Sunday, March 04, 2007 10:57:26 PM
What is the advantage of democracy if its mistakes are irreversible? And what if the organs of public policy are structurally predisposed to insularity? To achieve a more just society, is it necessary to undermine the bedrock of justice? In the public interest, legislatures across the nation have enacted hate crimes legislation. The ostensible purpose of these laws is noble: protect historically disadvantaged groups from an ignorant and hateful majority. The dirty little secret of these enactments is that they undermine rules that protect all citizens. By legitimizing a view in which the majority is guilty prima facie, hate crime laws threaten the deepest foundations of western civilization. After all, how can a majority instinctively prone toward the worst forms of depravity possibly meet even the minimum standards for democracy? And what will happen when the majority is the minority? Our law already has codified their inherent inhumanity. How will laws of the future treat these beasts? We can be excused for assuming the worst. And what is the worst? Defenders of the current trend will doubtless point toward Reconstruction and Segregation Era abuses. That would indeed be poetic justice, would it not? Pasty white people being segregated, even lynched. And yet, what hope would they have for a better future? Likely, none. For by that time, the greatest hope of all humanity will have been erased as if from a whiteboard. The rule of law will have been irretrievably lost, and all in the name of justice, but not the old form of justice, the one that our Founders defined and defended. This will be symbolic justice.
Of all the things that make America special, none is more vital than the rule of law. But the rule of law can mean different things to different people. The most common sense of the phrase in use today equates it with majority rule, with democracy and legislation. Both ends of the political spectrum seem to embrace this meaning, the main distinction being that liberals make exception for the whims of socially minded justices. But there is a slightly more pedestrian meaning to the phrase that is steadily losing its cache. It is the meaning embodied in the 14th Amendment: every man, no matter how low or high, is to have his day in court and will be treated fairly. Prior to the 14th Am. this ideal was only partially realized. The 14th Am. sought to extend the rights and privileges of citizenship to the newly emancipated. It was only partially successful in doing so, as individual states continued to treat crimes against blacks casually, at best, in tandem, at worst. Republican Administrations compounded these crimes by failing to intervene. The problem reached a zenith in South Carolina, where the KKK operated under the tacit approval of state officials. Finally, the Federal government intervened, but most of the accused were never convicted. The most evil were let escape.
(tbc)