In case you haven’t noticed, our nation is in the throes of a cultural paradigm shift. Our notions of who we are, what our institutions stand for and even the meaning of our Constitution are in a state of disequilibrium due to a cultural war being fought on many fronts, and our reverence for truth has been one of its first casualties.
Consider this – we say democracy is a good thing to export around the world, though few even in this country would probably be able to agree on a common definition of exactly what that is. Does it include the concept that all men and women are imbued with unalienable rights and so should be treated equally? Probably not. For if that were true, would we not find it difficult to explain why we extend to others fewer unalienable rights than are held by us? Yet, we seem unbothered by our indefinite incarceration of foreigners without bringing charges against them, allowing them legal representation or bringing them to court to confront the evidence and witnesses against them? Moreover, though we claim an unalienable right to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment, at the same time we approve our government urging Congress to exclude our very own C.I.A. from a ban on torturing foreigners? Go figure.
Does democracy include the concept of having separate branches of government that are to hold each other in check? Probably not. For if that were so, could we be expected to rationally justify our complacency with the notion that judges are now somehow entitled to ride roughshod over our elected officials by legislating from the bench? Yet isn’t it undeniable that we now permit our courts free rein to be the sole arbiter of what laws shall be created and which others shall be vitiated under the guise that only judges are able to interpret our constitution because it is a “living” document that can only mean whatever they want it to mean? The result? Neither we nor our duly elected officials feel qualified anymore, much less entitled, to challenge even contradictory rulings that confound logic -- like the instance of Texas’ statute prohibiting sodomy being declared an “unconstitutional” invasion of privacy, while parents have now been found to have no “constitutional” right to privacy when it comes to what their children shall be taught in elementary school regarding various sexual practices. Figure that.
Of course, this brings us to question next whether democracy any longer includes the concept of majority rule? Again, probably not. For if it does, why then do we permit judges to order our legislators to create laws those judges just happen to think should be the law? But we do. Isn’t that what the Massachusetts Supreme Court did when they misused their own state’s constitution to order their legislature to enact laws permitting same-sex marriage by mysteriously declaring that the absence of such laws violated their constitution -- notwithstanding the absence of any language in that constitution that could even remotely be used to justify their “finding” – and, rather than telling that Court to pound sand, the legislature allowed them to get away with it? Again, go figure.
Finally, we may also wonder today whether a definition of democracy would include even the idea that government should exist to protect the health, safety and welfare of individuals. Yet again, however, probably not. For if that were so, how could we accept being told by courts that a woman’s right to a late term abortion is so constitutionally protected, that even the excruciating pain suffered by partially born infants in the process is “irrelevant” by comparison? Yet, at the same time we vigorously prosecute people like Laci Peterson’s husband for the death of his unborn infant. Is this even possible to go figure?
As confusing as all this may seem, at least it affords us a glimpse into the overall magnitude of the paradigm now shifting in this country where even truth has retained little value. And that, in turn, may help us to understand why a Supreme Court nominee who has been approved by the U.S. Senate as a fit and well-qualified judge, not only once, but twice, can now be disparaged by those same Senators who characterize him as a catalyst for a political Armageddon. It is because the truth is that whether or not he is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice is no longer relevant, notwithstanding the fact that that is the constitutional standard against which he should be measured. The only question that concerns these Senators today is whether he will advance their agendas, and so, we are soon to witness the character assassination of Judge Alito. Sadly, the biggest loser, second only to Alito, is likely to be our nation.
This tragedy may well be a by-product of the inordinate amount of energy we as a people now expend to make “truth” illusory. To promote our self-interests we devalue it and call it “spin”. When caught lying, we have come to embrace as acceptable a “So, I lied” mentality. And where even that doesn’t get the job done, for convenience sake we fall back upon the disingenuous argument that what is or is not truth is simply a matter of one’s “perception”. The ultimate end of all this behavior, however, can only be the eventual degradation and destruction of the structural integrity of our social institutions and mores, and if we are not careful, we may find that as Rome fell, so shall we. A society that chooses to no longer protect and cherish the notion of truth is one that is approaching the zenith of social narcissism – where we, both as individuals and as a nation, believe that truth will be nothing more or less than what we want it to be, and thereby consign the beliefs, concerns and opinions of others to irrelevance. That is a belief system that will most certainly accelerate our fall from the state of preeminence we now take for granted. And if that is true, is it not the height of effrontery for us to be compelling other cultures around the globe by force of arms to adopt a form of democracy that even we appear unable to prevent from sliding towards Gomorrah? Probably.
© 2005 Clifford C. Nichols, Esq.
Cliff Nichols is an attorney practicing criminal defense/entertainment law in Santa Monica, California. He may be contacted regarding this editorial at either (310) 917-1083 or www.cliffnicholslaw.com or you may join his blog at www.thedailystand.com