Political Assholery Par Excellence
A new GOP strategy–which includes a bill proposed in Virginia–apparently seeks to flip several swing states that went to Obama, by in effect giving greater weight to rural votes, presumably in order to counter-act the “demographic wave” that now threatens the GOP with perpetual minority status. See here. (Rural areas have far fewer voters but more electoral districts. The new approach would award state electoral college votes according to districts won, regardless of how many or how few people live in them, in effect diluting the more populous, more liberal urban vote.)
Now, this is brazen political assholery in a democratic society that works with a majority rule presumption IF the change has no basis other than partisan advantage. “We want to win next time” plainly won’t do. Even “we won in statehouses last time” clearly won’t do, since wining a previous election doesn’t entitle one to win the next election; you have to win again, without using any temporary powers of legislation to guarantee that outcome.
Rather, all are obligated to comply with institutions that express majority preferences, and so not entitled to change political institutions so that they contravene majority preferences without a sufficient justification other than partisan advantage. So the question, Is there any such “sufficient justification”? If there is, I don’t see it. What would it be?
Is the move even legal? Maybe not if it violates rights of equal protection (e.g., as defined in Bush v. Gore). I’m not sure about that, though, so let’s say the move is legal. The question then is whether it is morally permissible–whether it has sufficient moral justification. But what could the moral justification be?
It can’t be “But we’re right, morally speaking.” Even if they are/were right, being right, per se, doesn’t legitimate right in a democratic society. We have to decide what is right together.
How about “Right or not, we have the right to rule. Our ruling is right, whatever we decide.” Well, if correct, that *would* justify the strategy. But the very idea of a democratic society assumes this is incorrect–it is no more right than the Divine Right of Kings. In a democratic society, we ALL have the right to rule. The rule of a few only counts as right because it expresses the will of a people, because their rule in effect expresses the more basic way we all rightly rule, together or not at all.
And if there’s no better case for a “sufficient justification,” the GOP strategy qualifies as political assholery par excellence. (Likewise if Democrats do it.)
