Means and Ends
When Gavin Newsom was mayor of San Francisco, he directed that marriage licenses be issued to same sex couples. When asked about the legality of that policy, his response was that the law was unjust and his decision was “ the right thing to do”.
When Barack Obama ran for the presidency, he stated on several occasions that he supported the traditional view of marriage, and that the Defense of Marriage Act was the law of the land, which he would uphold. Some cynics like me thought he was really telling his gay supporters that, in order to get elected, he was telling a white lie to placate the rubes who were clinging to their guns and God. Once in office, his true position would emerge. Sure enough, after a purported gaff by the VP, the President pledged his support for gay marriage and had his Justice Department represent that position in front of the Supreme court.
When running for governor, Gavin told Central Valley audiences that he would follow the law with regard to the death penalty. California voters have repeatedly signaled their wish to have the penalty enforced. In one recent election, they voted to expedite the appeals process. Within weeks of his victory, Gavin commuted the sentences of all death row inmates, because it was “the right thing to do”.
California activists placed a proposition on the 2018 ballot, which, if approved, would have voided a State law restricting the scope of local rent control ordinances. It was soundly defeated. Proponents said the result was invalid because apartment owners had spent a lot of money to defeat it with deceptive advertising. The so-called deceptive ads had a very straightforward message: California has a housing problem; rent control is not the solution. Democrats in the legislature have introduced a bill that basically replicates the proposition. The Governor pledged to sign it.
I contend that these efforts to implement progressive policies in the face of existing law and the will of voters are a direct and very destructive attack on the democratic process. Contending that it is “the right thing to do” or “who we are” or the “will of the people” is simply a cover for autocratic behavior. Democracy is rooted in two core principles: consent of the governed and rule of law. In that system, the ends, however virtuous, do not justify the means. The Constitution sets the ends with the Bill of Rights. That is not a list of stuff government is going to do for you; that is a list of things government is not allowed to do to you (establish a religious test, censor speech, take property without compensation). The rest of the document IS ALL ABOUT PROCESS. It says that the rule of law applies to the rulers, as well as the ruled. Ignoring or countermanding laws we don’t like strikes at the heart of the process. In a democracy, the way to change laws is to win an election (telling the truth in campaigning about the policies you intend to pursue) and passing legislation implementing those policies.
I would also contend that progressives hurt their own cause with this behavior. If an election is won and a new law is passed, most of the people who oppose the change will go along with the result, albeit reluctantly. If the change is jammed down their throats in an extra-legal fashion, the very fabric of the polity is threatened. The veneer of civility and democracy is thin; we breach it at our peril.
