No, Asa Hutchinson Is Not Right

I find myself in the rare position of dissenting from Noah Rothman in his latest at Commentary, in which he defends Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson. Hutchinson has been harshly critiqued by many on the right  — including National Review institutionally and myself — for vetoing a bill that would have banned minors in his state from being prescribed hormone-blocking drugs or going under the knife to address gender dysphoria. Essentially, Rothman buys into Hutchinson’s argument that it is not the role of government to intervene in such decisions:

More troubling, though, the right has simply dismissed Hutchinson’s compelling political argument. “To me,” the governor said on Sunday, “it’s about compassion, but it’s also about having the laws make sense and the limited role of government.” The idea that compassion is consistent with limited government isn’t just what every conservative genuinely believes. It’s also a valid and persuasive argument in favor of conservative politics. The alternative—an argument to which the post-Trump right seems inclined—is to sanction the left’s tactics. They, too, would utilize the power of the state to impose their values on the public. If the right chooses not to contrast both its values and the methods by which it would pursue them with progressives, we will be left with two parties that reject persuasion in favor of coercion. The only question before voters will be whose coercion you prefer.

Unfortunately, Hutchinson has lost the argument. The Arkansas legislature swiftly overrode his veto, and his brand of laissez-faire conservatism has been the subject of withering scorn in the right-leaning press. Republicans have convinced themselves that America doesn’t need two parties with distinct views on the morality and prudence of big government. The province of government is ever-expanding and unchecked, and Republicans are providing their opponents with tools they would otherwise have to fight to secure. Republicans are betting that Americans only care about values, not the means used to achieve them, and that their values are more representative than the values espoused by Democrats. They don’t seem to have considered the horrors they will be complicit in unleashing if they lose that bet.

Both Hutchinson and Rothman are conflating an important debate over the use of state power on the right with the issue at hand. Barring the performance of permanent, mutilating surgeries and the use of potentially permanent hormone treatments on children without fully developed brains or decision-making capacities is not in the same ballpark as a debate over something like drag-queen story hour. “Impos[ing] values on the public” is in this case a euphemism for stopping very real, physical alterations to children’s external appearance, bodily chemistry, and biological capabilities. All this to address a condition — gender dysphoria — that most children grow out of as they grow older.

Moreover, I don’t think it’s fair to say that the Right is adopting the same methods as the Left in fighting this culture-war battle — a label I again deem a euphemism. A state legislature with a supermajority has reasonably determined that it is not in the interest of children to have experimental and permanent physical remedies foisted upon them for a psychological condition. If government is going to have a say in this issue — and it will and does — a legislature composed of elected officials is precisely the vehicle for that say to be had. The Biden administration, meanwhile, is using the executive branch to promote trans ideology and to empower its activist class.

I share none of Rothman’s concerns that the Right is empowering the Left by accepting the premise that government should play a role here. First, because, as I’ve already articulated, I think government action is warranted in this instance. Second, because the Left is already fully mobilized and willing to use state power to push its radical perspective. By marching out an army to meet theirs, we’re protecting, not provoking.

What I am looking for from Rothman and Hutchinson is an explanation of how exactly the legislation diverges from conservative principles about the role of government. If the Arkansas legislature were banning fully functioning adults from transitioning to their preferred gender, I, too would support Hutchinson’s veto on similar grounds. But barring permanent alterations to vulnerable, still-developing children is not to abandon the art of persuasion, but to follow through on a well-reasoned, evidence-based premise.