GARY GALLES
Guest Columnist
Before John Roberts’ nomination to the Supreme Court, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D – Nev.) said, “With this nomination the President should choose to unite the country, not divide it.”Afterward, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean claimed that the opportunity to “bring this country together” had been missed.
The problem is that bringing the country together is an impossible standard. And now this is even truer with Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s death creating a second vacancy on the court, putting its future direction more in doubt. The lack of American unity on issues means a lack of unity on nominees.
America cannot be unified about rights or powers that some consider essential but others consider unforgivable. It cannot be unified as “One nation under God,” when some vehemently object to any use of the word “God.” It cannot be unified about abortion when some view it as murder and others consider it almost a sacrament. And you cannot unify America with policies that take from some against their will to give to others, as the policies inherently create disagreement from those whose pockets are to be picked. As long as the government is involved in such choices, political unity is impossible.
If I believe wholeheartedly in “A” and you believe wholeheartedly in “not A,” there is no unifying position possible on the subject — only the question of whose preferences will dominate.
As the Constitution spells out, it consists of little more than defending people and their property. After all, national defense is essentially protecting us from foreigners, and the justice system’s primary task is to protect us from our neighbors.
Unfortunately, however, even a government restricted to the very limited areas that advance the “general welfare” would not create unity today, because a great many want to impose their will on others or benefit themselves at others’ expenses, and such a restriction would deny them that. They would be unified only in opposition and in eroding the barriers that restrict the government from coercing others on their behalf.
Today, Washington has a large and expanding involvement in virtually every area of life. The courts have fueled that expansion of federal power. But those powers can be, and have been, used to rob Peter of rights, freedoms and property to benefit Paul in many different ways. That source of disunity is why it is crucial who is on the Supreme Court. Only reducing government power over Americans’ lives could potentially bring Americans together. But those decrying that Roberts is not unifying enough would also be dividing the country. Their call for unity is really a call for continued government coercion in areas they wish, and on which their power depends, but it also necessarily comes at others’ expense. That may be unity in one sense, but it is not the unity our Constitution was designed to create and defend.
09-08-2005