Is Democracy WORTH Saving? September 14, 2018September 14, 2018 Ummm . . . yes? Which is why you might consider: America Is Living James Madison’s Nightmare. “The Founders,” Jeffrey Rosen writes, “designed a government that would resist mob rule. They didn’t anticipate how strong the mob could become.” Is our democracy dying? 2. How Democracies Die, by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. (See the Amazon review I’ve appended below.) 3. Joining Team Blue. (And if you can, clicking here.) I have high hopes for November 6. I think much of the country is horrified. I think we can win Senate seats in Tennessee and Mississippi and Texas — seats you don’t normally expect Democrats to win. I think the excitement Andrew Gillum is generating in Florida, as he runs for governor, will help produce the turn-out needed to hold Bill Nelson’s Senate seat. I think we can flip the Senate seat Jeff Flake is vacating in Arizona. I think we will flip a great many seats in the House. And in a state legislative chambers. Or not. We’ll see. But this is our moment. If you know folks who share your angst but have not stretched as you have, try to remind them: We’re running out of second chances. “The whole world is watching.” Our hearts go out to those deluged by Florence. Not just preaching to the choir By A. J. Sutteron January 20, 2018 This book is better than I expected. I teach in Japan about comparative constitutional law and politics, and bought this out of a sense of professional duty: I figured it would just be some Ivy League liberal professors using a few historical examples to explain (again) why Trump is dangerous. There already are a number of books with that message, such as Jan Werner Müller’s excellent “What is Populism?” (2016). Yes, this book does have that message too, and it uses some of the same examples as Müller, including Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey. But it also goes beyond partisan diatribe in a couple of valuable ways. The first is to illuminate the role of “norms” in a constitutional system. In this context, a “norm” is an unwritten standard of behavior that is followed for an extended period of time — you might think of it as describing some type of behavior that’s “normal.” US law school profs are prone to point out several such norms, none of which are in the US Constitution as written: such as that US Supreme Court justices are lawyers, that members of the military retire from active duty before joining the Cabinet, and, prior to FDR in 1940, that Presidents not run for a third term. (These sorts of norm are often called “constitutional conventions” by political scientists — not to be confused with the event in Philadelphia mentioned in the musical “Hamilton.”) Individually, though, the loss of any of these highly specific norms wouldn’t necessarily have a huge impact on the functioning of the government. Levitsky & Ziblatt (L&Z) instead focus on some norms that are more abstract, but also more vital to the fabric of democracy. The norms of interest to them are “shared codes of conduct that become common knowledge within a particular community or society — accepted, respected and enforced by its members” (@101). Two of the most important are (i) mutual toleration, i.e. the belief that political opponents are not enemies, and (ii) institutional forbearance, i.e. “avoiding actions that, while respecting the letter of the law, obviously violate its spirit” (@106). In more specific contexts several other such norms also come up, e.g. that presidents shouldn’t undermine another coequal branch (such as the court system). Calling such norms the “guardrails of democracy,” L&Z provide one of the clearest and most convincing expositions of them that I’ve read. Many presidents challenge norms — such as when Teddy Roosevelt had dinner in the White House with a black man (Booker T. Washington), or Jimmy Carter and his wife walked part of the route to his inauguration — but Pres. Trump stands out, they say, stands out “in his willingness to challenge unwritten rules of greater consequence” (@195). So far, some of his assaults on mutual toleration and institutional forbearance have been more rhetorical than actual: as I write this, he continues to revile Hilary Clinton but hasn’t actually “locked her up.” Unfortunately, the fact that in his first year Pres. Trump has only bumped into, but not yet broken through, such “guardrails” doesn’t necessarily signify much about the future: see Table 3 @108, which shows that the now-authoritarian Erdoğan was at about the same place as Trump at the end of his first year. But it’s not only the president who is capable of breaking the norms — Congress can as well. L&Z point out how the era of “constitutional hardball,” emphasizing the letter over the spirit of the document, has roots as early as in the 1970s, when Newt Gingrich was a Congressional aspirant. It really came into its own after the 1994 mid-term elections, when Gingrich was elected Speaker. Although the Republicans seem to have begun this cycle of escalation, Democrats also participated, such as in removing the ability to filibuster most judicial nominations. L&Z use historical narratives to show how the disappearance (or nonexistence) of such norms in other countries allowed society to slide down the slope into authoritarianism. The second and more surprising point of L&Z’s historical study is that in the US the erosion of these two central norms is linked to matters of race. During most of the 20th Century conservative Republicans could cooperate with conservative Democrats, and liberal Democrats could cooperate with liberal Republicans. The stability of this bipartisanship rested to a great degree on the fact that political participation of racial minorities could be limited in a variety of ways, such as via a poll tax. As the civil rights movement picked up steam, and as the Hispanic population started to increase, it became clear that the Democratic party was minorities’ preference. Around the first Reagan election in 1980 the previously traditional party alignments started to break down, and polarization set in. White voters in Southern states shifted to the Republican party. Concurrently, the divisiveness of the abortion issue following the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was driving many religious voters toward the Republicans as well. This is actually the most depressing aspect of the book. Unless he perpetrates a coup, Trump will pass; but the racial and religious source of hardball attitudes augurs ill for American politics into the indefinite future. The US is a multi-ethnic society in which no ethnicity is in the majority. L&Z point out that to date they haven’t been able to identify any society like that which is both (i) a democracy and (ii) a society where all ethnicities are empowered politically, socially and economically. In short, this isn’t a “Chicken Little” book screaming hysterically to the already-persuaded about how terrible Donald Trump is. Rather, while pointing out some of the dangers posed acutely by Trump’s handling of the presidency, it also identifies some much more long-term problems. The solutions proposed by L&Z, such as that Democrats shouldn’t behave like the hardball Republican politicians, may strike some readers as weak and overly optimistic. But no solutions will eventuate if people aren’t aware of how deep the problem really is, and for that reason this book deserves to be read widely.
Loony Tunes September 13, 2018September 12, 2018 I find myself at TeaParty.org from time to time — I get a lot of mail from Steve Scalise worried that the Democrats will take back the House (and cost him his possible speakership), and from right-wing groups (unless they’re KGB sites — who knows?) like Prepared Patriots and The Daily Conspiracy with headlines like . . . “How To Use Bedsheets To Make Your Escape. Seriously.” . . . “The Deep State Revealed In The Bible: Nothing New Under The Sun” . . . “Ten-Year-Old German Muslim Violates Classmate” . . . “Bombshell Revelation from Egyptian Media: John McCain Was ‘Godfather’ of Muslim Brotherhood.” Some of these have ads imbedded. My favorite, which appeared in a pro-gun Teaparty.org story: “Can This Free Brain Pill Instantly Double Your IQ?” To which I found myself silently responding: “Yours, maybe.” Sorry. But one reads Bob Woodward’s Fear, on one’s smartphone (Kindle edition), and one just has to cry and marvel and vent at the insane turn the world has taken — and dip deeper into one’s home equity line. Like Michael Cohen. Except he did it to hush a porn star; I did it to fund organizers. (If you’re plumb out of dough, click here to help, instead.) (Thanks, Mel!) And if you have 3 minutes for the Rattlesnakes Bluegrass Band, you may enjoy this (not to offend anyone who thinks it’s okay Putin is someone Trump likes and admires).
Further Urging September 12, 2018September 12, 2018 Yesterday, I promoted some great protest signs. Here are some great chalkboard quotes, from a gas station in South Africa. (And only a couple concern alcohol: “Stop trying to make everybody happy — you’re not tequila.” “If you have to choose between drinking wine every day or being skinny, which would you choose? Red or white?”) Monday, I urged you to watch Active Measures on iTunes. I’m urging again. Sure, I knew some of this. But to see much that I did not know — and to see how all the pieces fit together? Mind-blowing. You may find yourself telling everyone you know to watch it, too. And have you watched or read Obama’s speech, also posted Monday? Or David Brock on who Brett Kavanaugh really is? His remembrance of their years together? It’s worse than you thought. Join Team Blue. CrushTheMidterms. It even designs an action plan for you. MobilizeAmerica. No need to choose: sign up with all three. And if you can — click here.
Of Signs And Scientists September 11, 2018September 12, 2018 HOW ABOUT AN AWARDS SHOW FOR THE BEST PROTEST SIGNS? You’ve got your Oscars and your Emmys — how about the Snarkys? Or the Firsties? (Hat tip to everyone’s favorite Amendment.) Here are some. Here, too. Among my favorites: TRUMPCARE. IT’S LIKE TRUMP UNIVERSITY BUT YOU DIE. IF THE PRESIDENT DOESN’T PAY TAXES WHY SHOULD I? Most signs just emphasize or poke fun at something we already know — WE SHALL OVERCOMB — but some, like this one, make you run to the Google machine: TRUMP HATES PUPPIES. . . . and then there’s this one: “SCIENCE IS NOT A LIBERAL CONSPIRACY!” Which got me thinking. HOW ABOUT A NATIONAL SCIENTISTS DAY? There’s a National Science Day (science, not scientists) — but it’s in India. Maybe there’s one here, too, but when you refine your search to “national science day USA,” you still get India — February 28. A national holiday, no less. We have National Secretaries Day (next year: April 24). But a National Scientists Day? Again, Google tells you it’s in India. This came to mind because my friend Wipperman (he has a first name, some believe, but to us, he’s just Wipperman), texted from the lab recently on a gorgeous beach day. He texted me a photo of beakers and computer screens (I texted back a photo of the Atlantic Ocean framed by my toes) and told me to “check out [his] latest paper!” I did. You can, too. It appears in Molecular Cell ($322 a year), titled: Mycobacterial Mutagenesis and Drug Resistance Are Controlled by Phosphorylation- and Cardiolipin-Mediated Inhibition of the RecA Coprotease. To which I say: Thank heavens for amazing people like Wipperman, working so hard to create the magic that helps the rest of us live longer, healthier, less scary lives. National Scientists Day! Fifty-six days to go: Join Team Blue. CrushTheMidterms. It even designs an action plan for you. MobilizeAmerica. Watch Active Measures on iTunes. And if you can — click here.
Watch This At Home, Right Now, Today September 9, 2018September 12, 2018 Run, don’t walk to rent Active Measures on iTunes — just released ($3.95). Trump really is Putin’s puppet. He has laundered billions of dollars of Russian oligarch/mafia money, beginning in 1984. Putin’s attack on our democracy put him in the White House — and is ongoing. You have to watch this today. You may find yourself telling everyone you know to watch it, too. That’s the alarming, desperately important, dark thing. Now for the reassuring, equally important, hopeful thing. You’ve doubtless seen clips of President Obama’s recent speech. But it’s SO good, SO uplifting — SUCH a clear explanation of where we are as a nation and what we need to do as citizens — that I urge you to watch it all (it begins at 5:35 and runs 53 minutes) . . . . . . or at least to read the transcript. It concludes: One election will not fix everything that needs to be fixed, but it will be a start. And you have to start it. What’s going to fix our democracy is you. People ask me, what are you going to do for the election? No, the question is: What are YOU going to do? You’re the antidote. Your participation and your spirit and your determination, not just in this election but in every subsequent election, and in the days between elections. Because in the end, the threat to our democracy doesn’t just come from Donald Trump or the current batch of Republicans in Congress or the Koch Brothers and their lobbyists, or too much compromise from Democrats, or Russian hacking. The biggest threat to our democracy is indifference. The biggest threat to our democracy is cynicism – a cynicism that’s led too many people to turn away from politics and stay home on Election Day. To all the young people who are here today, there are now more eligible voters in your generation than in any other, which means your generation now has more power than anybody to change things. If you want it, you can make sure America gets out of its current funk. If you actually care about it, you have the power to make sure we seize a brighter future. But to exercise that clout, to exercise that power, you have to show up. In the last midterms election, in, fewer than one in five young people voted. One in five. Not two in five, or three in five. One in five. Is it any wonder this Congress doesn’t reflect your values and your priorities? Are you surprised by that? . . . So if you don’t like what’s going on right now — and you shouldn’t — do not complain. Don’t hashtag. Don’t get anxious. Don’t retreat. Don’t binge on whatever it is you’re bingeing on. Don’t lose yourself in ironic detachment. Don’t put your head in the sand. Don’t boo. Vote. Vote. If you are really concerned about how the criminal justice system treats African-Americans, the best way to protest is to vote – not just for Senators and Representatives, but for mayors and sheriffs and state legislators. Do what they just did in Philadelphia and Boston, and elect state’s attorneys and district attorneys who are looking at issues in a new light, who realize that the vast majority of law enforcement do the right thing in a really hard job, and we just need to make sure that all of them do. If you’re tired of politicians who offer nothing but “thoughts and prayers” after amass shooting, you’ve got to do what the Parkland kids are doing. Some of them aren’t even eligible to vote, yet they’re out there working to change minds and registering people, and they’re not giving up until we have a Congress that sees your lives as more important than a campaign check from the NRA. You’ve got to vote. If you support the MeToo movement, you’re outraged by stories of sexual harassment and assault inspired by the women who shared them, you’ve got to do more than retweet a hashtag. You’ve got to vote. Part of the reason women are more vulnerable in the workplace is because not enough women are bosses in the workplace which is why we need to strengthen and enforce laws that protect women in the workplace not just from harassment but from discrimination in hiring and promotion, and not getting paid the same amount for doing the same work. That requires laws. Laws get passed by legislators. You’ve got to vote. When you vote, you’ve got the power to make it easier to afford college, and harder to shoot up a school. When you vote, you’ve got the power to make sure a family keeps its health insurance; you could save somebody’s life. When you vote, you’ve got the power to make sure white nationalists don’t feel emboldened to march with their hoods off or their hoods on in Charlottesville in the middle of the day. Thirty minutes. Thirty minutes of your time. Is democracy worth that? We have been through much darker times than these, and somehow each generation of Americans carried us through to the other side. Not by sitting around and waiting for something to happen, not by leaving it to others to do something, but by leading that movement for change themselves. And if you do that, if you get involved, and you get engaged, and you knock on some doors, and you talk with your friends, and you argue with your family members, and you change some minds, and you vote, something powerful happens. Change happens. Hope happens. Not perfection. Not every bit of cruelty and sadness and poverty and disease suddenly stricken from the earth. There will still be problems. But with each new candidate that surprises you with a victory that you supported, a spark of hope happens. With each new law that helps a kid read or helps a homeless family find shelter or helps a veteran get the support he or she has earned, each time that happens, hope happens. With each new step we take in the direction of fairness and justice and equality and opportunity, hope spreads. And that can be the legacy of your generation. You can be the generation that at a critical moment stood up and reminded us just how precious this experiment in democracy really is, just how powerful it can be when we fight for it, when we believe in it. I believe in you. I believe you will help lead us in the right direction. And I will be right there with you every step of the way. Thank you, Illinois. God bless. God bless this country we love. Thank you. Imagine if we could get turnout among young people up from fewer than one in five to more than two in five. We win everything. Try to find time to read the whole speech. I think you’ll be glad you did. Better still, watch it all. And then . . . Join Team Blue. CrushTheMidterms. It even designs an action plan for you. MobilizeAmerica. No need to choose: sign up with all three. And if you can — click here.
Updates From Florida And The Vatican September 7, 2018September 6, 2018 But first . . . Here’s an idea: why don’t Bob Corker, Ben Sasse, and Jeff Flake switch parties for the final three months of their Senate service, and save their country? “We’re so proud of the Republican ideals we’ve long espoused, but one of those ideals is fairness. It’s not fair to have denied the last president, twice elected by a majority of the vote, his Constitutional right to fill a Supreme Court vacancy; and it’s not fair to allow this president, under numerous legal clouds, to select his own judge for reasons pertaining to his potential personal liability rather than the best interests of hundreds of millions Americans, present and future. So for three months, we will caucus with the Democrats. That tiny red states like Idaho and Wyoming have as many senators as California and New York has already tilted the playing field dramatically in our party’s favor — and we’re very glad of it. But in the cases of Merrick Garland and Brett Kavanaugh, we believe the unfairness has gone too far.” I’d work harder at getting the words right if there were any point to it. On the truly remote chance these decent, serious senators actually do the right thing — or some version of it — they’ll know what to say. FLORIDA Eighteen months ago I posted this: We’re almost twins, Andrew Gillum and I — except for his being young, black and straight; his mom having driven a school bus; his becoming Tallahassee’s youngest city commissioner at 23 and mayor at 35 (now running for governor), my last election having been for high school class treasurer. If you have 5 minutes, watch Andrew’s story. I don’t take sides in Democratic primaries; but if Andrew wins, I’ll be with him all the way. Well . . . Andrew did! My focus is on flipping the House and Senate. But governors matter, too — most obviously in Florida. Florida Governor Jeb Bush flipped the Electoral College from Gore to his brother in 2000, which gave us the Iraq war, wrecked our national balance sheet, and skewed the Court to the right in ways (like Citizens United and gutting the Voting Rights Act) that gave us Trump. So I really hope Andrew wins. He was well polling well behind the top two Democrats in the primary — no one expected him to win — but Democratic turnout reached 31% compared to 18% and 10% percent in the previous two mid-term primaries. Andrew’s candidacy wasn’t the only reason for that, of course, but it doubtless helped — and will help Bill Nelson retain his Senate seat if it carries over to November 6. What’s more, Andrew’s win drives home a point I try to make over and over: this election is not about persuasion (getting their folks to switch tribes), it’s about turn-out (getting ours to show up). Thus: organizing, not advertising. And guess what? Of a reported $71.5 million (!!!) spent on TV ads in the Florida Democratic primary, Andrew — who won — and his allies spent just $3.7 million. He won because of organizing. Join Team Blue. CrushTheMidterms. It even designs an action plan for you. MobilizeAmerica. No need to choose: sign up with all three. And if you can — click here. THE VATICAN A few days ago, I posted about the upcoming Vatican Synod On Young People and a group called Equal Future 2018, whose attempts to leverage that Synod into a global teaching moment on behalf of LGBTQ kids was written up here. Some of you took a minute to sign this pledge. (Thanks!) Well, guess what? The Synod is still nearly a month away, yet already we may have achieved something — the first ever positive papal teaching to parents of LGBT children. The Pope told parents of gay kids they shouldn’t shun or condemn them; they should, in effect, “deal with it.” The Pope’s comments came only four days after the launch of the Campaign at the World Meeting of Families he was attending in Dublin. Ours was the only group there talking about damage to kids who may be LGBT – we made it a forefront issue by, among other things, getting the former President of Ireland to give us heavy backing. Say the Equal Future 2018 organizers: “The impact our Campaign has already had on the teaching of the Catholic Church is to the material benefit of children and young people forever.” On a vaguely related note, try to find six minutes to hear this man’s testimony, and tell me what you think Jesus would have thought of Catholic hospitals in California. (YouTube warns “the content may be inappropriate for some viewers” — yes: those bereft of humanity.) Have a great weekend!
Oh, MY September 6, 2018September 5, 2018 I have so many posts backed up, but it’s all just kind of overwhelming. Obviously, you’ve by now read the Anonymous Op-Ed; read excerpts from Fear; and perhaps ordered your first pair of Nikes (I bought these). Join Team Blue. CrushTheMidterms. It even designs an action plan for you. MobilizeAmerica. No need to choose: sign up with all three. And if you can — click here.
Historical Context I Sure Didn’t Know September 5, 2018September 4, 2018 Ted Cruz made me crazy yesterday. He said Trump made it very clear what sort of Justices he would appoint — he even submitted the list from which he’d choose! — and Hillary told the nation what sort of Justices she would appoint, and then the American people spoke: they chose Trump’s slate. Well, yeah, Ted, except . . . (a) Kavanaugh wasn’t on Trump’s list; he had to look beyond the list to find someone who felt most strongly that a president can’t be investigated/indicted while in office; and (b) nearly 3 million more Americans chose Hillary. ☞ Beto could beat Cruz! Help him here! I’m happy to stipulate Kavanaugh is a brilliant, decent, charming guy. So was Scalia. But this isn’t whom you’d like to have a beer with or whose intellect you admire. Sheldon Whitehouse was one of several who laid out what’s at stake. Listen to his compelling opening statement, which might have been titled “five to four.” It’s amazing what damage well-intentioned Nader voters did in 2000. Gore won more votes, but because Nader narrowed his margin, the loser of the popular vote skewed the Court to the right with Roberts and Alito, who then skewed the election process to the right with Citizens United and McCutcheon and by gutting the Voting Rights Act . . . which gave us Trump and Gorsuch and now, possibly, Kavanaugh. Why wouldn’t Susan Collins and Jeff Flake and Ben Sasse switch parties on this one? Is it fair to have denied Obama HIS nominee (a moderate) — after Obama was twice elected by a majority of the people — but to rush to confirm the Justice most likely to protect Trump if he is indicted when Trump was elected with a MINORITY of the vote . . . with the extensive assistance of Russia, our principal adversary since 1946? Fair for the likely defendant to choose his own judge? Two other pieces for your consideration: Conservative Max Boot provides interesting context for the “judicial philosophy” discussions we’re likely to hear over the next few days. . . . I now realize there is no Platonic ideal of interpretation that allows judges to unerringly discern the original meaning of the Constitution or the correct interpretation of often vaguely worded statues. All sorts of difficulties arise: What if, as was often the case, one Founding Father disagreed with another? What if, as is also frequently the case, the court has to rule on matters that, because of technological or social developments, were unforeseen by the founders? And what if a justice’s interpretation of “original intent” is at odds with decades of precedents — is it “conservative” to overturn the prevailing line of cases? . . . Adam Serwer provides horrifying context, beginning with the story of 100 Negroes whose undisputed murder the Supreme Court allowed to go unpunished. . . . The Roberts Court is poised to shape American society in Trump’s image for decades to come. All three branches of the federal government are now committed to the Trump agenda: the restoration of America’s traditional racial, religious, and gender hierarchies; the enrichment of party patrons; the unencumbered pursuit of corporate profit; the impoverishment and disenfranchisement of the rival party’s constituencies; and the protection of the president and his allies from prosecution by any means available. Not since the end of Reconstruction has the U.S. government been so firmly committed to a single, coherent program uniting a politics of ethnonationalism with unfettered corporate power. As with Redemption, as the end of Reconstruction is known, the consequences could last for generations. . . . . . . Even if Democrats win the next election cycle, and the one after that, an enduring conservative majority on the Supreme Court will have the power to shatter any hard-won liberal legislative victory on the anvil of judicial review. It will be able to reverse decades-old precedents that secure fundamental rights. It will further entrench the rules of a society in which justice skews toward the wealthy, and the lives of those without means can be destroyed by a chance encounter with law enforcement. It will do all these things and more in the name of a purely theoretical freedom, which most Americans will never be able to afford to experience. America deserves a centrist Justice to replace the centrist Anthony Kennedy, much like the centrist — Merrick Garland — that Obama nominated.
Burke v. Rousseau: Cake For Thought September 3, 2018August 31, 2018 This piece by Ronald Dworkin in The American Interest struck me as exceptionally thoughtful and worth sharing. (Thanks Glenn!) It begins with a story: When I was growing up, my extended Jewish family held an annual party. On one occasion, a visiting college student majoring in philosophy lectured us on his theory of justice. He explained why all trace of Christmas should be banned in public spaces, and not just nativity scenes, since the very notion of Christmas was an affront to both Jews and secularists. My family stood dumbfounded and aghast. My mother dismissed the young man as a fool, shouting at him, “Are you crazy? Let the goyim have their holiday!” This young man is the only Jew I ever met who wanted to ban Christmas. Most other Jews I know share my mother’s attitude, more or less, not out of any particular philosophy, but because they see no reason to pick a fight with their far more numerous Christian neighbors. To their minds, Jews have rights and freedoms, life is good, and so why unnecessarily antagonize all those nice Christians by sanitizing the public square of Christmas trees, reindeer figures, and peppermint sticks? This squabble between a young idealist and my more prudent mother is a small version of the larger, age-old question over how far to push social change. That question is especially relevant now in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which involved a devout Christian baker who refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding. The Supreme Court narrowly ruled for the baker because the commission showed signs of “religious hostility,” but it left open the question of whether a religious person can be compelled to make a custom wedding cake with a personalized pro-gay marriage message. In theory, according to the Platonic ideal of leftist social justice, a religious person should be compelled, and some in the LGBT “community” demand this. Yet this represents an unwise change in tactics for a movement that until now has practiced an almost pitch-perfect strategy for furthering gay rights. The debate between idealism and prudence can be traced back to Edmund Burke’s criticism of the French Revolution and the philosopher Rousseau, who died shortly before the Revolution but whose writings inspired it. . . . By all means read the whole piece — which ranges from the American Revolution to abortion — but you’ve already got the gist, and won’t be surprised that it concludes: . . . After marriage equality passed nationally, some gay rights organizations shrewdly disbanded, having achieved their goal. There would be no “permanent revolution,” as some theoreticians call for. For many gays and lesbians it was time to go from being a new and exciting bud on society’s tree to blending in with all the other boring branches that give the tree its vital structure. In other words, it was time to assimilate, as Jews and other minorities had prudently done in their day after achieving their goals. But the gay wedding cake issue in Masterpiece has thrown a monkey wrench into the plan. It signifies the ascent of theory over prudence. . . . When writing this essay, I asked several legal scholars about analogous precedents in American law. I asked what happened in the past when a Jew went to a devout Christian baker and asked that baker to make a special holiday cake topped with a religious message slighting Christianity—for example, “We await the first coming of the Messiah.” The scholars told me they were not familiar with such a case. Some of them mused over how the case would be judged in light of Masterpiece. One of them said, “Obviously, such a case would never happen.” I think the last scholar had it right, yet it is the non-event that makes this imaginary case so relevant. The case has never happened because in the history of America no Jew has ever been stupid enough to ask a devout Christian baker to make such a cake, just as no Jew (except the one young man I met at my family’s holiday party) has been stupid enough to call for a ban on Christmas. There is no theory accounting for such a non-event. It is simply prudence on the part of Jews—and Jews have done well by such prudence. Masterpiece did not decide the conflict between two conflicting theories. The justices seem to be as flummoxed as everyone else over how to resolve a contest between absolutes when prudence has been thrown by the wayside. The problem is that Masterpiece should never have occurred in the first place. The logical trajectory for gays and lesbians after the marriage equality triumph was to go forward in life happily but prudently, as all people in the United States do, given the diversity of cultures and the need for all of us to get along. Every baker in America must sell a generic wedding cake to a gay couple; most bakers are happy to sell them a special wedding cake. Why purposely poke the eye of the one baker in town who isn’t? Such behavior may be theoretically correct, but it is also crazy, as my mother would say. To some degree, the LGBT activists who pushed Masterpiece are not to blame. The juggernaut of cultural change that has catapulted the theory of individual self-expression to the status of inviolate principle has caught them up, too. Already in the 1970s, writers such as Christopher Lasch in his Culture of Narcissism were commenting on the phenomenon. The theory of individual self-expression demands absolute autonomy, perfect self-esteem, unassailable safe space, and unbridled freedom of behavior in private life. It declares that we need not suffer even the slightest emotional inconvenience at the hands of others. But the theorists leading the movement forgot one important thing: We have to live with others. That leaves us with a stark choice. Either we destroy those who stand in our way, in the spirit of Rousseau, or we defuse the tension through prudence and try to get along with them, in the spirit of Burke. Where do you lean? Toward Rousseau or toward Burke?