There is a crucial difference between political preferences, even deep, sincere, and well-intentioned ones, and on the other hand matters of rule of law, separation of powers, and fundamental rights, especially as of this writing. Our righteousness – or wrongness, from the “other side’s” perspective – is threatening our nation, no matter what side you’re on.
The right is quick to cite violence among the Los Angeles protests, with Stephen Miller referring to the demonstrations as an “insurrection,” invoking constitutional language to support Donald Trump’s constitutionally debatable intervention. The left “rejects” Trump is a “bigoted, racist, vile piece of shit” in an internet meme, which does not refer to rule of law or constitutional powers, now supplemented by calls to prevent Trump’s “assault on democracy.” Neither side values separation of powers, rule of law, or the Constitution for their own sake. Both cite the language if and when they feel the terms make their politics look right or the other’s wrong. Both let the point slide if it doesn’t serve politicized rhetoric.
The bulk of the American people are not given a chance to avoid partisanship, even in polling questions that are inevitably asked as thumbs-ups or downs for one side or the other. Right now, a question about the constitutional separation of powers paints any support as pro-left and any elision as pro-right. Other versions will follow every issue that arises.
What the country needs is deliberate constitutional restraint in applying government force on the right, and focus on due process and rule of law rather than on Trump’s objectionable qualities or Democrats’ institutional interests on the left. This site has pointed out the partisans’ misplaced priorities before.
But a bit of repetition is not out of place. The nation was conceived in principle, of personal rights equally and inherently endowed in all, and of government that exists to secure those rights, with consent of the governed. The Constitution establishes the terms of that consent, and mechanisms to discern the truest and fairest interpretations of justice. If we cannot see that we all share the ethos of these principles, if we ignore them, use them selectively, twist them rather than accept them, we degrade the foundation of the nation. If our allegiances to left or right, blue or red, require that my side prevail over the other at any cost, we ignore the common tenets that define our national identity. If “red” accepts wanton challenges to constitutional rule in the name of fighting illegal immigration, if “blue” cites rule of law only when illegal immigrants are deported, we prove divided allegiances more important than founding principle. If we do not believe that we share its Truths, as overarching and underpinning conditions to our politics, we renounce our nationhood.
It starts with each of us as “me.” We may feel that the politicians control the agendas, but “I” vote, I click or swipe, I repeat what I hear or find my own voice, I give an ear to others or assume their bad intent. It does ask a lot to take the next steps, but what we’ve been doing is now threatening the nation.
Common Conviction 