Principled Perspectives: Search results for letter right to vote

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query letter right to vote. Sort by date Show all posts

Sunday, February 14, 2016

Right to Abortion vs. the "Right" to Abortion Services

A major gimmick statists use to push their policies is to equate rights with material entitlements.

On the occasion of the 43rd anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, a lot of commentary came out reminding us to support that decision. But most of the Left gets it wrong. For example, in a 1/15/16 letter published in the New Jersey Star-Ledger titled N.J. delegation should vote to protect women’s choices, Paula Green, Vice president for Advocacy, National Council of Jewish Women/Essex, writes:

Jan. 22 marks the 43rd anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision and yet politicians continue to interfere with women’s ability to access reproductive health care. In 2015 alone, nearly 400 anti-abortion bills were introduced in legislative efforts to infringe on the reproductive rights of women.

For those who respect a woman’s right to govern her body and her destiny, we must work to ensure that the lawful right to abortion related care exists for all women.

Accordingly, we call on New Jersey’s elected federal representatives to support HR2972 — Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH Woman) Act of 2015. This legislation would ensure coverage for pregnancy-related care, including abortion, for every woman regardless of income level, state of residence, or insurance coverage. A right that exists only for some is not a right at all.

Note the switch. The “reproductive rights of women” becomes a “right to abortion related care.” The freedom “to access reproductive health care” becomes a government mandate for women to access other people’s wallets to pay for her abortion services. What about those who would be forced to pay for those abortion related care services these women allegedly hav a "right" too? Don't they have right to govern their bodi and her destiny

I shot off a rebuttal letter to the Star-Ledger, which was not published. But here it is:

To the editor,

Many supporters of Roe v. Wade equate a woman’s right to abortion with the right to force others to provide and pay for her “abortion related services” through government mandates, as a Jan. 15 [2016] letter recently did. In the name of respecting “a woman’s right to govern her body and her destiny,” the letter advocates denying to others the right to choose how to spend their own money.

But Roe v. Wade merely recognized a woman’s right to reproductive freedom, not a handout. Rights are guarantees to freedom of action to pursue one’s values, not an automatic claim on goods and services that others must be forced to provide. Just as there is a right to freedom of religion, not a right to be provided with a church, synagogue, or mosque; a right to gay marriage, not a right to be provided with a gay wedding cake; a right to freedom of speech, not a right to force the Star-Ledger to print your letter; there is a right to abortion, not a right to be provided with the means to pay for it.

Michael A. LaFerrara

Saturday, March 22, 2014

New Jersey's Law Against Concealed Carry Violates Right to Self-Defense

New Jersey law provides for concealed carry of a gun in public, but the conditions make it virtually impossible in practice for law abiding, upstanding citizens to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. This, contends NJ resident Max McGuire in a NJ Star-Ledger letter (Gun Rights are Lacking in New Jersey), not only violates the Second Amendment but indirectly threatens all rights:

[I]n . . . New Jersey, "may issue" might as well be "no issue" [of a concealed carry permit]. You must demonstrate a"justifiable need" and an urgent need for self-defense based on past instances or threats of violence.
Imagine if you were forced to show a justifiable need before you were allowed to vote or before you were given a trial before a jury of your peers.
And as long as it's acceptable to require a "justifiable need" to exercise one right, then the entire Bill of Rights is in jeopardy.

Leaving aside the constitutional issue, which is complex, McGuire is correct to identify the role of principles and precedent and how they affect the broader context regarding rights.

The next day, a letter by David Twersky challenged McGuire's assessment, arguing that Constitutional rights come with restrictions:

Even the writer’s two examples have restrictions. No one argues that you have a right to vote, yet this right is limited to citizens, at least 18 years old and, in many states, not convicted of felony.
The right to a jury trial is restricted, too. In most states, you are not allowed a jury trial in family law cases, such as divorce and child custody, or when the maximum imprisonment is six months or less.
Just as freedom of speech doesn’t allow us to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, or freedom of religion does not permit animal sacrifice, the Bill of Rights is regulated. Yet the writer would have us believe that limiting the right to carry concealed weapons . . . puts the entire Bill of Rights in jeopardy.

As I rebutted in some comments to Twersky's letter, there is a major difference between Twersky's examples and NJ's concealed carry law. He confuses the means of rationally implementing rights in law, a philosophical and contextual question, with violating rights. Let's take the rights to vote, a jury trial, speech, and religion in turn.

The "regulations" on voting do not restrict—i.e., violate—the right to vote, unless one believes that every non-American in the world, of any age, should vote in U.S. elections. Voting is a derivative right. Age and citizenship requirements related to choosing political leaders do not violate the fundamental rights to life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness because the state in a free society does not possess the means to violate those rights.

Likewise, the right to a jury trial does not mean the court system should be clogged to the point of disfunctionality with juries for every minor dispute. Again, the issue is contextual. A trial by jury is a derivative right. Restricting that right to serious charges is not at all an infringement on the basic right to a presumption of innocence principle and the right to be judged in an objective venue, or that when a jury is appropriate, it is constituted with one's peers.

The free speech example is not about freedom of speech at all. No right gives anyone the right to violate the rights of others. Yelling fire in a crowded theater fraudulently disrupts the operation of the theater and endangers the physical safety of the patrons, violating the rights of the theater owner and his customers. Rights are sanctions to freedom of action, so long as one's actions don't violate the rights of others. Forbidding a person to yell fire in a crowded theater does not violate anyone's freedom of speech. Such laws protect individual rights by identifying and proscribing a rights-violating action.

The same goes for freedom of religion. (Laws against wanton animal cruelty is a separate issue. Animals do not and logically can not possess rights, so I'm not sure here such laws fit into the structure of a proper government. But again, the issue is not about one's freedom of religion, but about one's actions.)

In none of these cases are the underlying rights expunged.

Not so with NJ's concealed carry law. The right to self-defense, which is inherent in the right to life, IS being expunged—albeit through the back door of making the rules so stringent as to effectively annul the right to carry a gun for self-protection.

McGuire is absolutely correct when he says that "as long as it's acceptable to require a 'justifiable need' to exercise one right, then the entire Bill of Rights is in jeopardy." Principles have consequences for a broad range of related specific concretes, and bad principles have bad consequences. If we accept the premise that individuals must get permission from government officials for the privilege of exercising any one fundamental right, all rights are in danger under that same premise, and the concepts of rights and rights-protecting government are turned on their heads. It is akin to an automatic presumption of guilt without evidence. Such a premise is a regression to the darkest days of humanity—the days of omnipotent government and rule by arbitrary, non-objective law—i.e., brute force—against constitutionally defenseless citizens.

A "regulated right" is a contradiction in terms. One must distinguish between rules and procedures for implementing and anchoring rights in law, and regulations that restrict and violate rights. Twersky fails to do that.

Rules shouldn't effectively prohibit the exercise of rights, as is the case with NJ's concealed carry laws. Protecting rights is not the same as regulating rights.

So how should the specific issue of concealed carry be handled, and why? Guns in the hands of incompetent or irresponsible individuals threatens others. Therefor, a concealed carry permit (or even gun ownership) should not be granted to people who are objectively determined to be mentally incompetent, have a violent criminal history, or are not properly trained in gun use. Otherwise, every individual has a right to own or carry a gun without demonstrating "justifiable need" or some such criteria to government officials. Twersky's free speech example actually makes the point, as noted above. With guns, as with speech and other rights, there should be no restrictions or "regulations" on the exercise of gun rights by rights-respecting citizens.

For more indepth discussion of this issue, read my blog post "Is There a Right to Carry a Gun in Public"?

Related Reading:

Gun Control Should Focus On Principles, Not Guns

Is There a Right to Carry a Gun in Public?

Rand Paul, Title 2, and the Importance of Principles

Thursday, August 15, 2019

America = the Principles of Individual Rights, not Democracy

In a letter-to-the-editor published in the New Jersey Star-Ledger on July 29, 2019, Gabriela Kaplan wrote, in part:

Be you Democrat, Independent or Republican (in alphabetical order), please come out to vote for the American dream and fulfillment of the American promise. Please remember that this country was founded on the principles of Democracy.

My italics. Since the Star-Ledger no longer publishes letters online, I posted Kaplan’s entire below. Meanwhile, I submitted the following letter on 7/29/19, which was subsequently published on August 5, 2019 under the title U.S founded on individual rights. Again the letter appears only in the print edition:

Dear editor;

A recent letter stated “this country was founded on the principles of Democracy” [‘Vote for American principles’, 7/29/19].” That's a dangerous myth. America was founded on the principles of inalienable individual rights, the purpose of which was, in large part, to shield our freedom from democracy.

The democratic process in our constitutionally limited republic should not be confused with democracy. The founding generation did not fight a risky, bloody Revolutionary War for Independence to secure the mere right to vote. Voting had been around for millennia, including in the colonies. They revolted to protect our individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness from all tyranny, not to switch subordination of our liberties from the mercy of a King to the whims of the vote.

The “principles of Democracy” and the principles of a free society are not the same thing. As the Founders well understood, freedom is not the right to vote. Freedom is the right to live one’s life and pursue one’s chosen values regardless of the outcome of any election.

Sincerely,

Michael A. LaFerrara

54 Lazy Brook Road

Flemington, NJ 08822

908 782 1088

mal.atlas@comcast.net

The only thing I wish I included is to add “, or the voters’ elected representatives” at the end of the second paragraph. That’s implicit, but should be explicit.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Notes, and Myths, on American History - 2

[This is the second of a series briefly examining myths about American history. Part 1 was published on 7/6/10.]

Part 2

America was founded on the rights of the individual – all individuals. That principle led directly to the abolition of slavery, universal suffrage, and the eventual recognition of equal rights for all, including American Indians(mischaracterized as “native” Americans).

Fisher states that “the native people certainly had no rights”. Of course they didn’t, by the accepted customs of their own culture. After centuries of a brutal, collectivist, primitive Stone Age existence, the American Indians’ rights were finally recognized – by Enlightenment ideals imported to the New World and enshrined in America’s Founding. Before that time, they engaged in genocide, slavery, cannibalism, perpetual tribal warfare, literal human sacrifices, and lived lives of unending destitution and stagnation, “in harmony with nature”, under the rule of witch doctors and tribal dictators. No individual rights, including property rights, were even conceived of. Ignorance and superstition, not reason and science, reigned.

The issue of suffrage needs to be examined here. The right to vote, it must be understood, is not a primary right. It derives from the individual’s right to direct his own life, which includes choosing his political leaders. But, the right to vote is not primary because democracy is not primary under the original American system. Regardless of whether one can vote or not, in a limited republic one’s fundamental rights are protected by being constitutionally lodged outside of the powerscope of elected politicians to effect. So, in a rights based society, any non-voter does not have to worry about voters attacking his rights.

This does not mean that all non-incarcerated, legally sane American citizen adults should not have the right to vote. They should, in my view. What it does mean is that the method used to establish voting rights must be objective and uniformly applied. For example, in early America, only landed property owners could vote. That restriction was not in principle any different from today’s rules limiting voting rights to those 18 years or older. It was a procedural rule. Since voting is not a fundamental, unalienable right, this method cannot be considered a violation of American principles as long as everyone has equal freedom to pursue property ownership, and thus the corresponding right to vote. What this method meant in practice was quite different from the common perception that only the rich could vote. In reality, wealthy people who didn’t own property could not vote, while the dirt-poor small farmer who lived in a one room dilapidated shack, could. Of course, that system had many holes, including the fact that women's voting rights were severely restricted even if they held property, and the slaves were denied the freedom to acquire property in the first place. Another hole is that only land property counted. But property takes many forms, and includes such things as personal effects, patents, and a bank account. But, as long as the rules are fair and objective, and the social conditions are open to every adult to meet them, then any voting method is technically valid.

To go back to Fisher’s and Paulson’s original assertions, the fact that women could not vote does not change the fact of America’s rights-based Founding. As I said, voting rights are not and can not be a primary right, and the fact that most adults were legally barred from voting in colonial America does not contradict that fact. Women’s fight for suffrage was successful because of America’s rights-based Founding.

The mid-twentieth century civil rights crusade against segregation in America was built on the very ideas that Fisher and Paulson deride, and succeeded because of them. Despite devastating contradictions in his political premises, the philosophical underpinnings of Martin Luther King’s civil rights crusade rested firmly on the Founding Fathers. This is quite instructive, in light of Paulson’s dismissal of the Declaration as mere “poetic flourish”. King’s most famous speech contained these words uttered on August 28, 1963 before a massive march on Washington, DC that he helped to organize:

“In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

“It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked ‘insufficient funds.’ But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

“We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

“I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.’

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

“I have a dream today.”

Martin Luther King recognized that the injustices levied against Black people (and others) were not a failure of America’s Founding ideals. Rather, he saw American ideals as the solution to the ills he was fighting against. Unlike Paulson, King emphatically believed that the Founding Fathers did, indeed, give all Americans “the gift of liberty”.

The modern … or more accurately the postmodern … Left wants you to forget those words, and that one of their alleged icons spoke them, because America’s individual rights ideals conflict with their statist agenda. Racism, a form of collectivism, is thoroughly compatible with socialism, but not the individual rights based capitalist system. The very same is true of the institution of slavery.

Yes, the journey toward the full realization of American ideals was tortuous and halting and much too slow for the victims of injustice. And yes, the First Amendment was, and is, crucial to that progress. It is the most important Amendment, because it gives you the tools of liberty with which to fight. But it is not, as Paulson believes, “the most powerful passage in America’s history”. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are inextricably linked, of course. But as King understood, the most powerful passage is the one that “guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. That is the core philosophical principle upon which the entire Bill of Rights is based, which the First Amendment leaves us free to fight for, and without which the First is meaningless. Notice that today, the First Amendment is under attack and eroding, even as the concept of the unalienability of rights is disappearing from cultural dialogue. Those two parallel developments are no coincidence. Neither Paulson nor anyone else will save the First without the “poetic flourish” of the document that the July 4th holiday celebrates. Without the Declaration of Independence, there can be no “1 for all”.

Those unalienable rights are also, I must note, at odds with the entire regulatory welfare state. Since Paulson views the First Amendment as having a “pivotal role in making America what it is today”, one has to wonder if he has a vested interest in downgrading the Declaration. What America is today is certainly not what the Founding Fathers envisioned!

In any event, as I stated above, progress toward the full realization of American ideals was much too slow. But, viewed in proper historical context, the advances made possible by Enlightenment ideals was rapid indeed. Sadly, however, there is a concerted effort to wipe out true American history by those who wish to creat a government that directly conflicts with the Founders’ vision. They seek, not a government “to Secure these Rights”, but one with “unbridled power over other human beings”. Sowell minces no words:

“It is not just the history of slavery that gets distorted beyond recognition by the selective filtering of facts. Those who go back to mine history, in order to find everything they can to undermine American society or Western civilization, have very little interest in the Bataan death march, the atrocities of the Ottoman Empire or similar atrocities in other times and places.

“Those who mine history for sins are not searching for truth but for opportunities to denigrate their own society, or for grievances that can be cashed in today, at the expense of people who were not even born when the sins of the past were committed.

“An ancient adage says: "Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." But apparently that is not sufficient for many among our educators, the intelligentsia or the media. They are busy poisoning the present by the way they present the past.”

Fighting for an American resurrection is a daunting task. It requires the recapture of the lessons of the past from the historical distortionists in order to cleanse the present. As can be seen, the fight is broad and deep. It is a fight that confronts not just innocent ignorance but willful deceit.

[Supplemental Note: Charlotte Cushman's letter referenced in Part 1 and which I hadn't located at the time, is republished below. The date is when it was posted online. The actual letter, the subject of Jaki Fisher's comments, was published earlier]:

May 7, 2010

Our rights are eroding away

To the Editor:

“I want you to look at the birth of a miracle: the United States of America. If it is ever proper for men to kneel, we should kneel when we read the Declaration of Independence.

The concept of individual rights is so prodigious a feat of political thinking that few men grasp it fully – and 200 years have not been enough for other countries to understand it.” - Ayn Rand

Our country, was the first and only country in history that was founded on a brand new idea, the idea that people have rights. These rights are:

• the right to one’s own life (which includes what one has worked for)

• the right to one’s own liberty

• the right to pursue one’s own happiness.

For the first time men were free from other men. They were no longer subservient to the lord, master or king. They could live their lives and pursue their goals independently.

When America was created, there was another new idea - the idea that the only legitimate purpose of government was to protect these rights, to make sure no person violated the rights of another.

Government was not there to tell men what to do, or how to live their lives, or to take by force what each man has earned by his own efforts to give to another.

The only proper use of force was in retaliation against those who had initiated force against another. Force was only used as a means of defending rights.

And look what happened. America became the happiest, wealthiest, most prosperous, most advanced nation on earth. And you know what else? It was also the most moral country because it recognized individual rights.

But we have lost sight of individual rights. It’s all about wants and needs now, someone else’s want or someone else’s need.

We are all obligated to provide whatever the government deems because the government deems it. We have been told we are our brother’s keeper.

So our rights have been eroding away, our private property confiscated and our income stolen. And now the government wants to take away the last of our individual rights, the right to our own lives, by controlling our health care.

Goodbye America. It was great while it lasted.

Charlotte Cushman
Maple Grove, works in Anoka

Monday, June 3, 2013

Rights and Democracy

As a followup to the Mulshine column I discussed yesterday, this letter appeared in the NJ Star-Ledger on April 3, 2013:

Voting on my rights I don’t disagree with all of Paul Mulshine’s Sunday column ("Hypocrisy on same-sex marriage here in Jersey"). I do object to his argument that this is an issue that deserves a public vote. Hogwash. In a democracy, we don’t vote on every issue. We abdicate most of that right to elected officials, who are theoretically kept in check by voters and the courts. So why a vote on this issue? Should Virginia voters have been the ones to decide on the state’s interracial marriage ban in 1967? Should Kansas voters have decided the fate of segregated public schools in 1954? It’s one thing to vote on school budgets or open space. It’s quite another to vote on discriminating against a class of citizens. If voters approve same-sex marriage in New Jersey, that’s great. But I don’t need Paul Mulshine or anyone else to gift me with approval of my 21-year relationship with my partner.Dan Garrow, Ocean Grove

My comments:

Dan Garrow is on the right track. But, there are several fallacies in his letter that must be corrected.

First, in a democracy, the people do vote on every issue. America is a constitutionally limited republic (at least in its original conception), in which elected officials are kept in check by a constitution (not "voters and the courts). The constitution limits the government to protecting individual rights. In our republic, rights are inalienable, and thus outside the scope of the democratic process.

Second, rights are individual, not class (i.e., group) based, and are held equally and at all times by all people. Rights include earned property, speech, religion, and contract, etc. Rights are guarantees to freedom of action, not an automatic claim to other peoples wallets or service.

Therefore:

Third, it's false that "It’s one thing to vote on school budgets or open space. It’s quite another to vote on discriminating against a class of citizens." The two are linked, because it's just as wrong to subject someone's marriage (i.e., contract) rights to the vote as it is to subject someone's money (i.e., property) rights to the vote. Just as each of us has the inalienable right to choose our marriage partners, so each of us has the right to decide how to spend our own money. Government schools, open space programs, and bans on gay marriage are linked because they all violate rights.

There are no group rights, such as "gay rights." There are only individual rights, which are inalienable and held equally by all people at all times, and protected by government equally and at all times. The gay marriage issue is essentially a contract rights issue, and contract rights belong to everyone. If you are to effectively defend rights in any area, you must defend all rights of all people at all times. Otherwise, your fight is hollow.

Thursday, October 22, 2020

Senator Mike Lee is Right: America ‘is not a Democracy’

Senator Mike Lee tweeted a fundamental fact about America that should be uncontroversial to all Americans.

But in an Oct 9, 2020 opinion piece for Business Insider (of all places), John Haltiwanger attacked Lee in classic statist fashion--obfuscation, strawman tactics, and irrelevancies:

Republican Sen. Mike Lee courted controversy this week when he tweeted that "rank democracy" is a threat to American prosperity.

"We're not a democracy," Lee said. "Democracy isn't the objective; liberty, peace, and prosperity are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that."

"The word 'democracy' appears nowhere in the Constitution, perhaps because our form of government is not a democracy. It's a constitutional republic," Lee added. "To me it matters. It should matter to anyone who worries about the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of the few."

Now how does Haltiwanger respond?

The Utah Republican's tweets on the matter are linked to a long history of Republicans rejecting the notion that the US political system is a democracy. The GOP's objection to calling the US a democracy is tied to the fact Republicans have reason to fear a system in which a majority of Americans have more say. The Republican party's platform is increasingly at odds with the perspectives of most voters on an array of issues.

The first sentence is true. But it is misleading. It implies that America was Founded as a Democracy,* and that Republicans are the reactionaries. But this is reversed. In its original ideals, America was Founded to protect “Certain Unalienable Rights . . . to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” “Unalienable” means inherent to each individual, not to be taken away by anyone under any circumstances--including by majority vote. The primacy of liberty, not democracy, defines Americanism.

This does not sit well with aspiring authoritarians, including criminal socialists. The Democratic Party has a long history of radically reinterpreting America as a nation that puts democracy over individual rights. First to defend slavery, then to defend Jim Crow segregation laws, then to defend welfare state programs and now to pave the road to democratic socialism. All of this agenda involves precisely what the Founders, and what constitutional republicanism, is designed to thwart--the violation of individual rights by elected government officials.

Here is a sampling of what Democracy unconstrained by constitutional protections for individual rights looks like:

Slavery was protected by laws enacted by elected representatives--Democracy.

Jim Crow laws were enacted by elected representatives--Democracy

The 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson that institutionalized the legally forced segregation of blacks was decided bySupreme Court judges who were nominated and confirmed by elected representatives--Democracy.

Welfare state forced “redistribution” of wealth by law, something that if done privately would land an individual in jail for armed robbery, is carried out by elected representatives--Democracy.

The end of the Democratic Party’s long-sought reinterpretation of America’s Founding is now in sight; the forced subjugation of an entire society under democratic socialism by elected, self-described socialist politicians--Democracy. The Democrats’ increasing turn toward democratic socialism brings them full circle to their original designs, slavery, which was defended by Confederate intellectuals like George Fitzhugh on socialist grounds.

The Nazis in Germany, fascists in Italy, and socialists in Venezuela all came to power democratically. The Union of Socialist Soviet Republics was designed for rule by democratically elected “workers councils''. All devolved into totalitarian states.

This is what the primacy of democracy over liberty looks like.

These are some of the most egregious rights-violating laws that must be accepted if one truly believes that America is a Democracy. The Founders recognized that an elected legislature can trample an individual’s freedom as surely as can a King or any other tyrant can. A constitutional republic has a healthy dose of democracy, but a democratic process limited by constitutional protection of unalienable individual rights. Democracy unconstrained by individual rights is a totalitarian state. This is what Haltiwanger evades. This is what Haltiwanger (unwittingly?) aims for.

Haltiwanger claims that “The GOP's objection to calling the US a democracy is tied to the fact Republicans have reason to fear a system in which a majority of Americans have more say.” “More say” over what? Is the majority’s “say” unlimited? In a Democracy, it is. I don’t know about the GOP. But we all “have reason to fear” a system in which a majority has say without limits. Only a constitutional republic can define the limits of power in the hands of the elected few . . . or a voting many.

Haltiwanger then states a total irrelevancy: “The Republican party's platform is increasingly at odds with the perspectives of most voters on an array of issues.” Again, we see a switch. The GOP platform is not the issue, much as Haltiwanger would like it to be. The issue is the proper structure of government. Once again, Haltiwanger evades—and then falls back on the grand weapon of all evaders—public opinion, as if a majority can’t be wrong or in need of education and facts.

Haltiwanger’s final evasion was this:

But Lee's portrayal of democracy as something that can hinder progress in the US could also be viewed in a more chilling light given the Republican senator is an ally of a president who has rapidly eroded democratic norms during his tenure and is actively working to undermine the legitimacy of the 2020 election.

President Donald Trump has refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, for example, and has essentially called for his political rivals to be jailed. The president has baselessly claimed that the election is "rigged" against him as he trails former Vice President Joe Biden in the polls. Trump's behavior has mirrored that of authoritarians, and alarmed historians and scholars of democracy.

Here, Haltiwanger makes the issue of Democracy vs. constitutional republicanismism about Donald Trump. Yes, Trump has authoritarian tendencies. But he is the product of the increasing authoritarianism and related erosion of individual rights over the past Century that is the consequence of the increasingly dangerous acceptance by Americans that their nation is a Democracy.

The question that Haltiwanger evades is this: Is America about the primacy of democracy, or the primacy of liberty? (He’ll answer that later.)

One problem with Lee’s tweets is his use of the term "rank" to describe Democracy, and Haltiwanger relies on that formulation to accuse Mike Lee of opposing voting rights. I had never heard the adjective “rank” applied to Democracy, and I couldn’t find any definition of it that fits with political philososphy (which is what this discussion is about). Apparently, I’m not the only one that is confused. Another writer, Lee Davidson for The Salt Lake Tribune, reported:

One tweet that especially created a firestorm on social media was: “Democracy isn’t the objective; liberty, peace, and prosperity are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that.”

So, “rank democracy” can thwart liberty, peace and prosperity?

When Lee’s spokesperson, Conn Carroll, was asked if Lee could explain his thinking, Carroll simply pointed to a quote from James Madison in Federalist Papers No. 10, one in a collection of essays written to promote ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

“Democracies,” it says, "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

But no mention of “rank.” Lee’s confusing terminology is unfortunate. At least Davidson gave Senator Lee a chance to clarify his position. No so Haltiwanger, who preferred to assume the worst for purposes of framing Lee’s remarks for his own agenda.

Rather than interview Lee for elaboration, Haltiwanger goes on the attack against Lee, by proxy:

People on social media quickly took aim at Lee’s comments, especially the tweet saying that “rank democracy” threatens liberty, peace and prosperity. They turned #rankdemocracy into a popular hashtag.

Among them was Steve Schmidt, a Republican political strategist public who worked with President George W. Bush and Arizona Sen. John McCain.

He tweeted, “The attainment of liberty, peace and prosperity can only be achieved through democracy. This isn’t an abstract, academic argument that @SenMikeLee is making. It is the authoritarian argument in a nutshell. Astonishing statement from a United States Senator. It would be fun to run against this guy. Someone should think about it.” [sic]

Authoritarian? You want authoritarian? If your liberty, peace, or prosperity is in the crosshairs of the next election, your single lonely vote will not save you. Democracy will not save your private health insurance if the democratic socialists, with their Medicare-for all scheme, gain power. Democracy will have done you in. Only a proper democracy-limiting, individual rights-protecting constitution, and a court system willing to hold the legislature’s feet to the constitutional fire, will save you. Haltiwanger himself quoted Lee’s unequivocal refutation of authoritarianism a couple of paragraphs prior:

Lee . . . also tweeted, “Government is the official use of coercive force — nothing more and nothing less. The Constitution protects us by limiting the use of government force.”

Limiting the use of government force is the very tool that constitutional republics use to prevent authoritarianism. But Haltiwanger ignores that elephant in the room, plowing ahead with his proxy misrepresentations:

Suzanne Attix tweeted, “Senator, who do you define as ‘rank’? People who don’t support corruption? People who want a POTUS who’s every utterance is not a lie engineered to preserve his own power? People who care about human decency & the welfare of all people?”

So Lee is for corruption, for a lying POTUS, and against human decency and the welfare of all. I guess Lord Action was wrong: Absolute power doesn’t corrupt after all. I suppose unlimited government will guarantee the welfare of all--by removing our constitutional protections of our liberty rights!

“Mmmkay” added, “This is what we’re up against now, Utah. Lee actively attacking Democracy. Mike Lee would rather have ‘prospefity’ than democracy. I’d love to see @SpencerJCox get some courage on this and call it out.” [sic]

This is what passes for intelligent rebuttal in Haltiwanger’s mind. Lee attacked Democracy, not the democratic process, which is integral to a constitutional republic. This is what happens when context is ignored, as Haltiwanger and his social media mob are doing.

The quotes from social media, Haltiwanger’s go-to source for expertise, go on, concluding with “Wheelman” saying “Rank democracy can thwart elitism, cronyism, and selective freedoms that exalt the few over the people.” Does he not know that democracy unconstrained by constitutional protections for individual rights, Lee's "rank democracy," leads straight to the exalting of the many over the few -- and the one -- and that that is exactly what is wrong with Democracy?

A constitutional republic does not allow any exalted—that is, authoritarianism. Let's examine the phrase "selective freedoms that exalt the few over the people.” Constitutional republicanism is not about "selected freedoms," or about the "few." It is about the individual—the equal rights ; "selected", or unalienable, rights -- of all individuals. Constitutional republicanism is about, not the few, but, yes, the one over "the people” -- the one over the collective might of the mob or majority, even if the majority is everyone other than you. Your lone vote doesn't amount for anything in a Democracy. But your lone rights are paramount in a constitutional republic.

If Lee were asked by Haltiwanger, he would likely explain that voting rights count, but that individual rights are hierarchical. The rights to life, liberty and property are crucial to individual human life, flourishing, and happiness--prosperity. That’s why the Declaration of Independence cites these rights as unalienable, and prior to government. Constitutional republicanism limits, but does not preclude, democracy. Yes, voting is vital to the democratic process. But to protect liberty, the right to vote is and necessarily must be subordinate to and derivative from the certain unalienable rights of all individuals. . The difference between a Democracy and a constitutional republic is that in a Democracy, the vote is primary. In a constitutional republic, American style, liberty is primary. That’s why in a Democracy, the government’s power is unlimited, and anything the elected elites choose to do goes. In a Democracy, the majority, through its representatives, can vote away the rights of any minority, right up to and including looting, enslaving, silencing dissenters, or even killing.

Haltiwanger and his democratic ilk know this, and seek to protect the authoritarian power of the state. In conclusion, Haltiwanger let’s the cat out of the bag:

Jonathan Chait wrote in the Intelligencer magazine online, “Lee is articulating a view that has long been in vogue on the American right but which Republican politicians were generally hesitant to express openly. The premise is that liberty is a higher value than democracy, and they define liberty to mean a right to property that precludes redistribution.”

He added, “That is to say, the far right does not merely view progressive taxation, regulation and the welfare state as impediments to growth, but as fundamentally oppressive. A political system that truly secured freedom would not allow the majority to gang up on the minority and redistribute their income for themselves.”

Precisely. And this view was in vogue at the founding. And unlike today’s Republican politicians, the Founders were not hesitant to express it openly. The Founding Fathers did not constitutionally authorize the government to redistribute wealth because they understood it as criminal, and sought to subordinate the majority and the government to the same moral law that individuals must live by. A constitutional republic is designed to protect minorities—starting with the smallest minority, the individual—from an exalted few and from a majority mob.

Contra Steve Schmidt, The attainment of liberty, peace and prosperity can not be achieved through Democracy. Democracy is a grave threat to liberty, peace, and prosperity. You can have none of those if your rights to life, liberty, and property are subject to removal or infringment at every election. Before you can have fair and just democracy, individual rights must be secured.

It is the democracy crusaders who are the reactionaries. They are socialists. They value democracy over liberty because the opposing view stops socialism--criminal socialism--dead in its tracks. Of course they don’t want to protect property and prosperity from democracy: They want to control it, and/or steal it. Of course they don’t want to protect liberty: They want to control your economic affairs. And like all authoritarian socialists, they want the “legitimacy” of elections to justify their power. To anyone who respects the rights of others, Senator Mike Lee is right and should be heeded. To literally save America, we need to recapture the meanings and differences between a Democracy and a constitutional republic, and choose the latter. As I said in my published letter to the New Jersey Star-Ledger on July 19, 2019:

America was founded on the principles of inalienable individual rights, the purpose of which was, in large part, to shield our freedom from democracy.

*[To distinguish between unlimited Democracy from constitutional republicanism, I use an upper case "D" when referring to the former.]