Hillary Clinton continues her push for the Democratic nomination, despite having no chance whatsoever to overcome Barack Obama’s lead in pledged delegates of both the super and merely mortal varieties. And why shouldn’t she? After all, Hillary is one of modern liberalism’s standard bearers, and as such she argues that at the end of the primary season, she will have more popular votes than Obama (if you count Florida and Michigan, that is). If her prediction turns out to be correct, then what right will Democratic delegates have to overturn the will of the people?
Obama, of course, can fall back on the argument that he won the nomination fair and square according to the rules of the Democratic Party that were established long before the campaign even began, and that Florida and Michigan knew full well what the consequences would be if they broke those rules. But in Democratic circles, the idea that the process matters as much as the outcome is a pretty weak argument. They sure didn’t buy it back in 2000, when the official DNC position basically amounted to, “Screw the Constitution! Gore got more popular votes!” Hillary’s refusal to concede the nomination to Obama is based largely on the same theory.
But why should any of this come as a surprise? Is this not the very essence of modern liberalism being played out right before our eyes? The philosophy of the modern liberal holds that government is the source of all things great and wonderful, but in order to be really effective it must reflect the will of the majority. And so we see a relentless push to sidestep any procedural obstacles that get in the way of ever more direct democracy, up to and including the Constitution. The founders of this country may have viewed democracy as little more than mob rule with a ballot box, but to the modern liberal, vox populi, vox dei.
Although Hillary Clinton will never acknowledge it, there is an ethical problem inherent in the notion that majority rule should be the guiding principle for social organization. According to this view, the morality of an action is determined merely by the number of people supporting it.
Take Hillary’s universal health care plan as an example. If I were to reach into Fred’s wallet and take out $100 to pay for my upcoming doctor’s appointment, he’d probably knock my teeth out (at which point I’d have to reach in to his wallet again to pay for my dentist appointment). Even the likes of Hillary Clinton would agree that I am in the wrong, since it was Fred’s money and not mine.
But now let’s imagine that I put it to a vote. I say, “How many people think Fred should pay for my health care?” As long as I can get 50% of the voters plus one person to raise his hand, suddenly the very same act that was clearly immoral when initiated by an individual becomes completely righteous when initiated by popular vote. A truly skilled politician may even convince people that reaching into Fred’s wallet is a moral imperative; that our failure to take his money is somehow a “stain on the national consciousness.”
How this bit of ethical alchemy takes place is never fully explained, but it is without a doubt the very foundation of modern liberal thought and policy. When you strip away all the touchy-feely, group-hug, Cumbaya speeches, however, it becomes clear that what the modern liberal truly believes in his heart of hearts is simply that might makes right. And with this philosophy in mind, Hillary Clinton continues to fight for what she believes in (namely, herself). Vox Democrati, vox dei. I would expect no less.
