Jonathan Birge

For a group that is so focused fairness and justice, Democratic leaders seem to have a really shaky understanding of at least one of them. From watching their tortured machinations in trying to handle the Florida and Michigan primaries, the nation is learning a lot about the way Democratic politicians think, and might help explain what they mean when they speak of “social justice.”

In my book, fairness and justice are distinct. In general, justice is hard to define; Plato wrote a very long book trying to do so. In this context, however, I believe justice simply means keeping your word. Even if it results in unfairness (as all decisions in life ultimately do). When Florida’s democratic leadership foolishly and arrogantly decided to go against their word and move up their primary, it was unfair to their citizens, because it meant–as they should’ve known–the disenfranchisement of their voters. The damage was done then. The just thing to do is keep the rules intact and not seat the delegates. The unfairness of this, and I agree it is, is something the voters of Michigan and Florida should take up with the perpetrators of it. If an organization sets up a rule, and all parties agree to it, you have a contract. A just society honors its contracts, plain and simple. Considerations of fairness may inform which contracts we choose to enter, but not on whether or not we keep to them.

The fact that the Democrats consider keeping promises, following rules and dealing with the consequences of one’s actions completely secondary to weakminded attempts at making everybody feel happy and entitled is very telling of their leadership. It’s also emblematic of the kind of thinking that is often behind their efforts towards social “justice.” To wit, there are a lot of parallels between Democrats’ baby-splitting solution to the Florida and Michegan delegates, and their proposed bailouts of mortgage-holders. Sure, everybody will be happy in the short term, but what kind of precedent does it create? Why follow rules when there are no consequences for them?

Of course, the Republicans may be worse; these days, it seems, they are utterly unjust merely as matter of convenience to themselves. What a great choice we have.