“Give the people what they want” has traditionally been the creed of the carnival-barking entertainer. While it occasionally becomes the ethos of the cloying and disreputable politician, it is a condemnable one. More often than not, such disgraceful behavior is condemned. We should expect more from our politicians. They are ostensibly aware of when the baser impulses of the electorate run contrary to the rule of law. In this, the summer of our discontent, it seems as though irresponsibility has become a forgivable – even laudable – trait in some of our presidential aspirants.
Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis has become a figure of notoriety this week for epitomizing every negative trait associated with the convert’s zeal. In defiance of the United States Supreme Court, the Christian convert simply discontinued the issuance of marriage licenses so that she would not violate her religious principles by distributing licenses to gay couples. There was nothing noble or justified about this behavior – it was a clear-cut defiance of the law that she, as an elected official, swore to uphold. While Davis has every right to disagree with the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, she is not at liberty to violate the sacred duties Rowan voters trusted her to uphold.
But Davis refused to budge; she wanted to be held in contempt of court. Refusing to resign in protest, she claimed that her “voice” would be quieted if she were to abandon her post. Davis wanted to generate as much media attention as possible. In flagrant contempt, she wanted the courts to martyr her. On Thursday, Kim Davis got her wish.
“The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order,” said Federal District Court Judge David Bunning, a George W. Bush appointee, when issuing his verdict. “If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that’s what potentially causes problems.” He then ordered court officers to take Davis into custody. She is to be released only after she agrees to comply with the court’s order and with the law.
Only a truly irresponsible politician would condone this brazen and willful contempt for the American system of laws. Enter Mike Huckabee.
“Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubts about the criminalization of Christianity in this country,” the former Fox News host, Arkansas governor, and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee wrote on his Twitter account. “We must defend #ReligiousLiberty.”
Huckabee’s claim that the practice of Christianity is being criminalized is a major theme of his candidacy, but he has always been careful to couch this contention in figurative terms. “I think it’s fair to say that Christian convictions are under attack as never before,” Huckabee declared in April. We are moving rapidly toward the criminalization of Christianity.” With the arrest of Davis, Huckabee’s contention that Christianity is being criminalized has taken on a more literal dimension.
This is base, ignoble exploitation. It is beneath a candidate running for the highest office in the land. It fosters the delusions of those not acquainted with the precepts that serve as the foundation for the rule of law in this country. It exacerbates a sense of victimhood, some of it real but much of it imagined, by a substantial minority of voters in this country who are justifiably anxious and frustrated by the heavy-handed fashion in which Barack Obama’s administration has governed.
The correct response to the grotesque disrespect for the legal process that this administration has displayed over the last six years is not to emulate its behavior. There is nothing honorable about providing those who believe, with reason, that outward displays of Christianity are increasingly frowned upon and discouraged a false hope that this condition might be remedied by a strongman in the White House. To foster that misapprehension is reckless, an abuse of the voters’ trust, and a display of contempt for the voting public’s collective intellect.
Of course – of course – Mike Huckabee is not alone in his display of indifference for the intelligence of the voters. “Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny,” read a statement released by Texas Senator Ted Cruz on Thursday. “Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America.” For the former solicitor general of the state of Texas to contend that citing a public official for outright contempt of court is somehow a betrayal of American values is nothing short of ham-fisted pandering. He knows he is being dishonest. Worse, he is being willfully untruthful in the sordid hope that it sends a few votes his way.
“The United States Supreme Court, in my opinion, acted unconstitutionally,” former Senator Rick Santorum said. “What Kim Davis did was, in my opinion, heroic.” He went on to “commend” Davis for engaging in “civil disobedience” and suffering the associated consequences.
“I read that the Constitution is very clear, that people have the freedom of religion,” Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker replied when asked if Davis should be forced to issue marriage licenses. “That means you have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs out there.” By conflating the issue of religious freedom and outright contempt of court, Walker would cheapen the issue of religious observance – a practice the Supreme Court only last year affirmed in its majority opinion in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell.
“I don’t think anyone should have to choose between following their conscience and religious beliefs and giving up their job and facing financial sanctions,” Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal declared.
Surprisingly, perhaps, the most irresponsible of the summer’s sensations, Donald Trump, declined to opine on the Davis affair. When asked about it at a press conference on Thursday, he said that he was not aware of the details of the case to discuss it at any length. On Friday, after he had presumably had the opportunity to review the facts of the controversy, Trump told MSNBC correctly that it was the responsibility of an elected clerk to execute the laws as interpreted by the nation’s highest court.
But don’t go thinking a corner has been turned. Trump is busy pandering to a whole different class of voters, and stoking a dangerous brand of nationalism without a shred of respect for precedent, law, or tradition. Trump’s latest chest-thumping display of chauvinism has to do with opposition to the burning of the American flag as a form of political expression. The celebrity candidate said that he thought the practice should be outlawed.
“Personally, I don’t think it should be legal,” the GOP presidential frontrunner offered unsolicited in an interview with The Daily Caller. “It didn’t used to be legal, did it? I see more and more burning of the flag.”
In fact, in 48 states, the practice was illegal before the landmark 1989 Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson that ruled it protected free speech. The majority opinion in that case found that the defendant intended through that practice to convey a particular political message. “Under the circumstances, Johnson’s burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment,” the decision read. Therefore, should Trump hope to make flag burning illegal, he would have to propose and advance a constitutional amendment that would substantially amend the protections in the First Amendment (he would join a variety of far-left Democrats who are equally eager to curtail free speech protections in the Bill of Rights). There will be no amendment language submitted to Congress, no broader debate about the legal merits of such a proposal, and no discussion of the logistics associated with its ratification by the states. Trump isn’t interested in any of those mechanics. He is simply hoping to rile up the crowd with a bit of soapbox agitation.
We should expect more of our politicians, particularly those who are seeking our approval to serve as the nation’s chief executive and the leader of the free world. Part of leadership is setting an example, and these candidates have set an ugly example in recent days. These are shameful displays, but one wonders whether those who engage in them feel any shame.
