The Corner

Newspeak and the Supreme Court

If I seem to have had Orwell on the brain lately, it is because his eternal relevance is particularly intense at the moment.

Consider Dahlia Lithwick’s argument in Slate, and, by extension and more important, Justice Breyer’s argument, on the matter of the McCutcheon decision. Regarding the question of corruption, Lithwick writes:

If dollars are speech, and billions are more speech, then billionaires who spend money don’t do so for the mere joy of making themselves heard, but because it offers them a return on their investment. We. All. Know. This. 

. . . Breyer is quick to call out the chief justice’s narrow reading of quid pro quo corruption, noting that Roberts specifically excludes any efforts to “garner ‘influence over or access to’ elected officials or political parties” . . . . Breyer tersely writes: “Speech does not exist in a vacuum. Rather, political communication seeks to secure government action. A politically oriented ‘marketplace of ideas’ seeks to form a public opinion that can and will influence elected representatives.” The First Amendment doesn’t protect speech for its own sake, he continues: “The First Amendment advances not only the individual’s right to engage in political speech, but also the public’s interest in preserving a democratic order in which collective speech matters.”

In short: Political activism must be suppressed, because it might be effective. 

Lithwick and Breyer are putting forth an argument that is sensible only if one defines “corruption” as “successfully garnering influence over or access to elected officials or political parties.” Garnering influence over elected officials and political parties is the point of political communication. Justice Breyer’s thoroughly Orwellian position is that the public’s “collective speech” — a thing that, it bears noting, does not exist — supersedes the individual rights that are enumerated in the Constitution because the exercise of the latter would, he believes, damage the former. Breyer holds that this so-called collective right is necessary to allow the emergence of a marketplace of ideas “to form a pubic opinion that can and will influence elected representatives,” which, perversely, requires us to stop actual citizens from trying to “garner influence over or access to elected officials or political parties.” Which is to say, his argument is that in order for free speech to be meaningful as an abstraction, it must be suppressed in fact. 

By Lithwick’s standard, communication is corruption if it accomplishes its purpose, which is to influence politicians and policy. To put it in Newspeak terms: “Suppression is freedom.”

One of the truths that the Left consistently ignores is that the question of using money to further political views is deeply tied to the issue of minority rights. There are many ways to influence policy, the most common one being prevalent numbers: The NRA is an effective organization not because it spends much money on politics (it is a relatively small spender) but because it has numbers on its side, a great many well-organized members. Gay-rights groups until quite recently operated in much the same way: Gays are a small minority, and for a long time they did not have very many energetic allies outside of their own community; their numbers were small, but they were committed, and they were willing to spend money to advance their argument. Were they self-interested parties seeking a “return on their investment”? Of course they were — that is the point of political action: to secure one’s interests. 

A quick glance at the financial affairs of the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association suggest very strongly that the Left does not care much about the flow of money into political affairs. There is almost nothing to the Left’s argument in the McCutcheon case, only the naked desire to disadvantage minorities that must rely primarily on financial rather than numerical influence to advance their interests. That kind of vulgar and reactionary majoritarianism is why we have a First Amendment in the first place, and a Second Amendment, too.

The right to dispose of one’s own property and the right to seek redress of grievances against the government under which one lives do not come from the state or the law, and they are not negotiable. The Supreme Court here has not created a right;  it has only made a concession to the law described in the Declaration of Independence, which is beyond any court’s power to revise. The government of these United States exists at the sufferance of the people, not the other way around. The only scandal here is that Americans have been reduced to begging before the Supreme Court in order to have their fundamental rights recognized by the government under which they live. 

Most Popular

Film & TV

Why We Can’t Have Wakanda

SPOILERS AHEAD Black Panther is a really good movie that lives up to the hype in just about every way. Surely someone at Marvel Studios had an early doubt, reading the script and thinking: “Wait, we’re going to have hundreds of African warriors in brightly colored tribal garb, using ancient weapons, ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More

Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More