What would Bachmann do? (A way to think about Civil Liberties)
Universally popular things tend to not require protection. For that reason, the American Civil Liberties Union has never taken a position that was not seen by millions as outrageous and obviously wrong. Never.
Some Christians think the ACLU is anti-Christian because it supports separation of church and state. If any government here ever sought to outlaw Christianity, however, the ACLU would be on it with a passion.
The ACLU may appear, to some, to be pro-Muslim because they defend Islam more often than they defend Christianity. Or pro-pornography because they defend pornography more than they defend cook-books.
This is an error. The ACLU is "pro" whatever is improperly under attack by government. The ACLU will drop everything to defend Christianity and cook-books if the government goes authoritarian porno-muslim. It supports our civil liberties—not as convenient tools to bring about a particular utopia, but as rights.
If rights are not upheld uniformly then they are not rights. Wiccans and Christian Dominionsts have to have the same rights as Catholics. LIbertarians and Communists have to have the same rights as Democrats and Republicans.
When the ACLU takes a position with which one disagrees, it is useful to reverse the partisan elements of the situation and see how it looks.
Turn it around.
Whenever we ask, "Should government have this particular power," it is useful to ask, "Should Michele Bachmann have this power?"
The ACLU does not try to manage American society based on who is on top at the moment. It always says, in essence, "Should Michele Bachmann have this power?"
Because if the government can do it then someone like Michele Bachmann will have that power at some point. We have seen Nixon, Reagan, two Bushes... we have seen Newt Gingrich and Mitch McConnell. We do not need to imagine very hard.
= new reply since forum marked as read
