It’s Always Someone Else’s Fault

Group Rights, be they Alt Right Christian or left wing Woker, never accepts responsibility.  No matter how bad things become, The Other is always to blame.  The Dems are totally blind how they brought about the demise of Roe v Wade. 

Presently, the Dems are indulging in an orgy of blaming the GOP for the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization, No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), (Dobbs) decision which overturns both Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973) (Roe) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (Casey).  In reality, the Dems share responsibility. Of course, the GOP are claiming full credit and promising more of the same. 

One Word and Three Women Killed Roe v Wade 

This fact was discussed in May 2022.    May 5, 2022, Hillary, Nancy, and RBG: Three Most Responsible for Roe vs. Wade’s Death Briefly, Pelosi’s Identity Politics supersedes and trashes individual inalienable rights in favor of rights and liabilities based on skin color, gender. sexual orientation, etc.  Just before the Nov 2016 election, Hillary invoked Identity Politics by calling Rust Belt Whites “Deplorables,” resulting in a surge of pro Trump votes.  Pelosi is actively trying to implement the Grand Replacement Theory (GRT) which is naked, anti-white racism.  GRT is whack but joined with Critical Race Theory (CRT), it is further polarizing America.  May 23, 2022, Why Would Whites Fear That They Will be Replaced?  The GOP makes it own hysterical use of GRT and CRT in order to maximize its fundraising dollars. 

Western Civilization has been plagued with group rights since forever.  June 21, 2018, CityWatch, The Dangers of Dichotomy: The Saved vs. The Damned  In a dramatic break with history, both The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution recognized that each person has certain individual inalienable rights.  The Ninth Amendment made clear that the Constitution and its amendments did not enumerate all inalienable rights.  James Madison’s original objection to the Bill of Rights was his fear that by expressly stating some individual liberties, later generations would falsely claim that the list was exhaustive.  The current folly, for which neither the Dem nor GOP may be forgiven, is the idea that groups have rights.  The founding fathers hated factions (their words for groups). Thus, they created a Republic rather than a democracy due to their hatred of groups including a fear of the passions of a majority of voters, which always presses for tyranny. 

Later, Abraham Lincoln stated the lethal danger of group rights in saying that a nation divided against itself cannot long endure.  Lincoln addressed the quintessential inalienable individual right, Liberty, in his mediation on Proverbs 25:11. Wherein he identified America’s core value as “Liberty to all.”  Jaffa, Crisis of the House Divided, pp331-332  Sen. Stephen Douglas supported group rights with his doctrine of popular sovereignty, e.g., a state by state tyranny of the majority. If a majority of whites in any particular state voted to enslave Blacks, that was appropriate. 

After the Civil War, the concept of group rights was legally dead until 1954, when Brown v Bd of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), denied liberty to Blacks and found no denial of the inalienable right of liberty in segregation.  Rather, it held that as long as Blacks, as a group, did as well educationally as Whites, segregation was constitutional.  The court ruled, however, that Blacks did not have the same educational attainment as Whites, and thus, segregation was unconstitutional.  The Brown Decision was so racist that it never considered the deprivation of Liberty of individual Whites who wanted to associate with Blacks.  Apparently, it did not occur to the Court that Whites would want to go to school with or live near Blacks.  How different the nation would be today if a White person had brought an anti-segregation case on the basis that as a White person de jure segregation deprived him of his inalienable and constitutional right of liberty. 

Justice Samuel Alito, however, would have maintained segregation as he would have found no liberty right for a white person to associate with a Black person.  The first amendment only guarantees the right of “people to peacefully assembly.”  It does not give one the right to race mix. Nothing in ending slavery expressly said that Blacks could associate Whites.  Alito would probably rule that a segregated theater or school would more likely be peaceful.  Justice Alito could argue that in 1868 when the 14^th Amendment was ratified, Blacks were “kept in their place.”  The majority of the population felt so strongly about this in 1868 and for a hundred years afterwards, it was enforced by lynching uppity Blacks. 

Reduced to its essence, Justice Alito’s Dobbs Decision reflects the Dems group rights philosophy.  Rights flow from the passions of masses. If society in 1868 was paternalistic and anti-female, then the tyranny of the majority in 1868 controls our decisions today.  A bizarre form of originalism shuns the values of the Founding Fathers in favor of the passions of the masses.  Justice Alito’s Dobbs Decision is far worse than that, because he simply lies about history.  The Supreme Court case which faithfully mirrors the varied feelings of the population going back hundreds of years is Roe v Wade.  Thus, even if one were to adopt Alito’s historical tyranny of the majority approach, Alito is still dead wrong. (Interestingly, the High Court opposes protestors’ carrying concealed weapons outside their homes.)  

The huge danger of group rights is that emotionalism rules so that the group members follow the passions of leaders without regard for facts or law. One’s security is assured only while one’s group is in power which means one group is always trying to steal power from the other.  “All is fair in love and war.” In fact, it is a hallmark of faithfulness to twist, distort and deny facts so that the group’s position triumphs. In reality, polarization, internecine warfare and the destruction of the Union follow from group rights.  

In the mid 1800's, one-half the nation supported individual inalienable rights. Today, neither political party has any use for individual rights – both are dedicated to whatever passion is sweeping through its favored group/s. Thus, cooperation becomes evil and the only acceptable outcome is to vanquish the other group.  After all, the other side is evil and once they are trounced, everything will be wunderbar. 

(Richard Lee Abrams has been an attorney, a Realtor and community relations consultant as well as a CityWatch contributor.  You may email him at [email protected])