David Brooks traces the political hostility we're seeing in Washington today back to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. He may well be right. Almost all of the most bitter battles have been between those who wish to defend and those who wish to overturn that decision. Brooks writes:
When [Justice Harry] Blackmun wrote the Roe decision, it took the abortion issue out of the legislatures and put it into the courts. If it had remained in the legislatures, we would have seen a series of state-by-state compromises reflecting the views of the centrist majority that's always existed on this issue. These legislative compromises wouldn't have pleased everyone, but would have been regarded as legitimate. Instead, Blackmun and his concurring colleagues invented a right to abortion, and imposed a solution more extreme than the policies of just about any other comparable nation.
Religious conservatives became alienated from their own government, feeling that their democratic rights had been usurped by robed elitists. Liberals lost touch with working-class Americans because they never had to have a conversation about values with those voters; they could just rely on the courts to impose their views. The parties polarized as they each became dominated by absolutist activists.
Unable to lobby for their pro-life or pro-choice views in normal ways, abortion activists focused their attention on judicial nominations. Dozens of groups on the right and left have been created to destroy nominees who might oppose their side of the fight.
Over the past four years Democrats have resorted to the filibuster again and again to prevent votes on judicial nominees they oppose. Up until now, minorities have generally not used the filibuster to defeat nominees that have majority support. They have allowed nominees to have an up or down vote. But this tradition has been washed away.
In response, Republicans now threaten to change the Senate rules and end the filibuster on judicial nominees. That they have a right to do this is certain. That doing this would destroy the culture of the Senate and damage the cause of limited government is also certain.
Harry Blackmun and his colleagues suppressed that democratic abortion debate the nation needs to have. The poisons have been building ever since. You can complain about the incivility of politics, but you can't stop the escalation of conflict in the middle. You have to kill it at the root. Unless Roe v. Wade is overturned, politics will never get better.
Brooks is certainly correct about this. Our politics will not improve until Roe is reversed and decisions about abortion are placed back in state legislatures where they belong, but Roe will not be overturned until more conservative judges are seated on the Supreme Court, and that won't happen until the filibuster of judicial nominees is ended.
In other words, Brooks' argument entails the conclusion that our politics will not grow more civil until the Republicans vote to change the Senate rule that allows a minority of senators to block a vote on the president's nominees. This seems paradoxical since such a vote, though necessary, will surely make our politics much more vituperative than they already are.
