Pursuing justice

Despite the loose talk of "constitutional crisis" in the days since
the election, it is perfectly clear that the wise crafting of our
founders has left us with a Constitution capable of lighting a path to
the resolution of even an election as murky and close to a tie as this
one. What the Constitution cannot do for us, however, is sustain our
will to walk the path of self-government with the prudence and calm
reflection that it requires. It cannot force us to reason together, to
seek justice, and to moderate our desires for the sake of the national
community. The real "constitutional crisis" that threatens to emerge
from the electoral impasse of 2000 is not a procedural -- or even
"political" one -- in the usual sense of those words. Rather, we are on
the brink of discovering that we are no longer a nation of people who
respect each other enough to seek truthful and reasonable resolutions to
our inevitable disagreements.

Surely it is difficult for advocates of political leaders who are
competing for the highest elected office in the United States simply to
come together and reason impartially -- and it is entirely appropriate
that much of what is done and said by the two "camps" has been directed
toward victory. True leadership in such moments is called
statesmanship, because it transcends the temptation to seek only
partisan advantage and really points the country toward justice. But
our political system is largely based on the premise that interested
parties in competition will tend to produce a just result, because their
competition is channeled through a system which is itself designed to
seek justice. This is, of course, also the premise of our legal system,
which is overtly adversarial in design. Conflict is not necessarily a
sign of disrespect for justice -- it is often the path to justice. That
is why pious demands for the two candidates simply to settle the matter
are no more intelligent than the old demands that the United States and
the Soviet Union simply negotiate a peace. Serious disagreements cannot
be settled simply by deciding to agree.

TRENDING: A lament for Portland

But it is alarming to see in the current case how little attempt has
been made by any of the participants, or observers, to think through the
comprehensive requirements of justice and to make their case in such
terms. When our founders undertook the revolutionary step of declaring
American independence, they acknowledged that "a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind" required them to "declare the causes which impel
them to the separation."

It is not clear to me that those involved in the current dispute have
demonstrated such a decent respect, nor that the American people have
sufficiently insisted on it. Media coverage of the disagreement, even
when we adjust for the dominant liberal spin, has tended to follow the
"horse-race" mentality so typical of the coverage of election
campaigns. When Al Gore made his proposal on Wednesday night, for
instance, vastly more attention was paid to its likely effect on public
opinion than to the question of its fairness. This, of course, was what
Gore intended -- and the combined effect was that Gore and the media
treated it as a given that the goal of statesmanship at such a moment is
merely to attain an artful movement of public opinion, not to illuminate
the nation's understanding of what should be done in justice.
Similarly, the Bush mantra that we should seek "finality" is at best a
partial truth, a talking point -- but not a reasoned argument.

It is easy to criticize men caught up in such struggles, and harder
to say what they should do, apart from seeking justice. But what should
the rest of us do? This is an easier question to answer. For whoever
ends up as president, it is clear that we are becoming a nation filled
with doubt about whether our fellow citizens will treat us with good
faith or merely for their own advantage. This doubt is sometimes
deserved, sometimes not. But the fabric of civil life, the possibility
of decent interaction with those different or "other" than ourselves --
those outside our home, or clan, or church -- depends on a stubborn
confidence that the country is mostly filled with people who mean well,
are fair, and will moderate their desires and demands when they come to
see that pursuing them further is unfair or unjust. This confidence
will not be increased by the example our national political
establishment is setting -- and may yet be undermined. We had better
shore it up where we are or the law of the jungle will arrive in all our
neighborhoods quite soon.

Consider, for example, the situation of America's black citizens.
For decades, the liberal Democrat political machine has systematically
tended its captive garden of black voters by encouraging them to believe
that only Democratic political patronage protects them from the
malicious and exploitive assault of white America. As the black family
and religious traditions were eroded by these tender liberal
ministrations, real suffering increased dramatically in black
communities. As the liberal doctrines of moral irresponsibility have
born their bitter fruit, the numbers of blacks without work, without
education, without hope and even in prison, have increased far out of
proportion to the rest of the country.

An ever-more aloof white America has watched with morbid fascination
as the liberal "helpers" of black America have intensified its
suffering. Completing the vicious circle, the plight of the inner city
has only led to a deepening conviction on all sides that the "racism" of
white America was the cause of black suffering -- and to a blinder and
more fervent attachment to the liberal political machine that has
actually been the cause of the problem.

Convinced that the path to success in American life is not merit or
justice, but political patronage, millions of blacks have been
systematically discouraged from cultivating the virtues of cooperation,
mutual trust, deliberation and faith that serious and honest effort is
likely to meet with success. A corrosive distrust of the law and of
rational management of dispute is the predictable attitude among a
people increasingly convinced that the disproportionate black prison
population is the result of racist animosity. A host of such
discouraging "facts of life" all encourage the conclusion that the
natural human desire to work together with those around us to order our
lives in justice and peace is impossible. The presumption of a hostile
and irrational world destroys the possibility of community and
encourages what has always been the bitter last resort of the
downtrodden and the oppressed: to seek survival at least -- at the cost
of freedom -- by accepting servility before a master who promises
protection.

These problems are most visible -- perhaps most extreme -- in certain
inner city communities, but they are by no means restricted to them. In
an age of materialist desire and moral cynicism, we have for many years
been moving uneasily toward a crisis of confidence on the question of
whether justice, mutual respect and fair play are first principles of
our common life. The appearance, and much of the substance, of the rule
of law and of a general civility have been preserved, for the most part
with the help of a healthy dose of prosperity to soothe our fears. But
how long will it be before we face the challenge of serious
disagreements that we cannot solve simply by pretending we still respect
each other, while we seek for the most effective way to win?

Barring a sudden breakthrough, it seems likely that the presidential
contest will be decided in a way that leaves most supporters of the
losing candidate convinced that the highest office in America was gained
by the side most skilled in the law of the jungle. Witness the almost
universal disinterest in the question of how the dispute should be
resolved -- in favor of fevered discussion of how it can be won. In the
aftermath of victory by one side, the number of Americans convinced that
rule of law and fair play no longer determine the character of American
life will have increased dramatically. We should be soberly afraid of
the implications of this result.

Americans have preserved the form and reality of self-government for
two centuries because we have sustained a common confidence in each
other -- in our good will, dedication to justice, and common willingness
to resolve dispute and difficulty in a reasonable and fair manner. The
fundamental basis for this confidence is found, in one form, in the
Declaration of Independence and the self-evident principles it offers --
most notably, the principle of human equality -- as the touchstones of
human relations in a self-governing polity.

But how does the Declaration preserve the integrity of our local
communities? How are its principles crucial in saving us from
despairing of the task of self-government and accepting, instead, the
best offer from the strong men who are always waiting in the wings?
Declaration principles are not the foundation of our community life
because men in powdered wigs stand on street corners shouting
self-evident principles to bewildered passers-by. It is not by the
decisive utterance of abstract political principles that Declaration
principles leaven our life and allow us to escape the demons of fear,
malice and conflict that haunt so much of the world, and of human
history. Rather, Declaration principles operate, for the most part,
silently and implicitly.

To understand the essential role of the Declaration, it is necessary
to ask some "man in the street" questions. We must imagine what the
businessman, or the neighbor, or the fellow citizen, would say when we
ask him why he expects fair treatment from those around him. The
question may still surprise him, although not as much as it would have
surprised his forefathers a century ago. He will pause, and realize
that he still takes it for granted that, usually, he will be treated
with respect and fairness. If we press the question, and insist that he
give a reason for his confidence, he may hesitate and stumble. If we
are in a neighborhood where the decay is advanced, and where fear and
alienation truly have taken root, we may find that our question is
answered, finally, with a sad confession that there is no reason for the
confidence in civility -- that it is now but a memory and a wan hope.
In such neighborhoods, America is dead.

Where America still lives -- thankfully, in many, many places -- our
question will eventually meet with a firm reply that justice and fair
play are the common rules of life because this is America and that's how
Americans live. The answer is firm, but not quite satisfactory, and we
can sense that it has not quite articulated the fullness of this firm
opinion. The Declaration was written for such moments -- because the
proper role of the Declaration is to be the public and visible
articulation of the reasoned confidence in all American hearts.
Striving to put into words the reason for their confidence in justice
and decency, the American people eventually remember that their reason
for confidence was stated for them at the beginning, by the founders.

The Declaration teaches us that we seek justice -- not because we are
America -- but that we are America because we seek to fulfill the
justice of God. It reminds us that the equality of all men under the
authority of God must be the constant and universal premise of our
dealings with each other, even if that premise usually takes the form
only of a vague and inarticulate intention to be respectful and fair.
And when any citizen, or the whole nation, is faced with a situation
that requires it to renew a commitment to justice that has become
routine, or has begun to fade, the Declaration provides the prominent,
public, venerable and clear statement of the reason for our confidence
-- and a rallying point for renewed dedication.

We cannot sustain a common life of civility if we do not have a
shared reason to trust that we will remain civil. We cannot sustain the
rule of law if we believe that our courts will usually be manipulated by
citizens intent only on their own gain. We cannot sustain the blessings
of economic liberty if we believe that most of our fellow citizens seek
only their own advantage. We cannot trust our fellow citizens to
refrain from taking even our lives, so long as we live under a regime of
abortion that epitomizes a national refusal to acknowledge the most
fundamental requirement of human dignity.

We must encourage our fellow citizens to renew their devotion to
Declaration principles. If we fail, all our attempts to live in peace
and good order will eventually fail as well. There will come a time,
much like the present difficulty, perhaps, when we will suddenly realize
that men with power have decided that the time is right to use it, but
we have forgotten why they should refrain. Then there will come a rush
to exit all the connections of trust and cooperation upon which our free
institutions depend. "The devil take the hindmost" will be our new
creed in that day but, in fact, he will take us all.

Against these dangers, we must establish again our explicit, national
adherence to the principles of human equality and common pursuit of
justice under God that the Declaration proclaimed. We must do so in
ways that empower and encourage the humble confidence in decent citizens
of every description that they can trust those around them to join the
work of building communities of civility and justice. For there is only
one thing truly necessary to build a community, and that is the sharing
of the spark of understanding that we are God's children, and bound to
do his will together.