For RBG it was all Principle, for Mitch McConnell it’s all Power
By Robert Reich
People in public life tend to fall
into one of two broad categories – those who are motivated by principle, and
those motivated by power.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who
died Friday night at the age of 87, exemplified the first.
When he nominated her in 1993, Bill Clinton called her “the Thurgood Marshall of gender-equality law,” comparing her advocacy and lower-court rulings in pursuit of equal rights for women with the work of the great jurist who advanced the cause of equal rights for Black people.
Ginsburg persuaded the Supreme Court
that the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection applied not only to
racial discrimination but to sex discrimination as well.
For Ginsburg, principle was
everything – not only equal rights, but also the integrity of democracy. Always
concerned about the consequences of her actions for the system as a whole, she
advised young people “to fight for the things you care about but do it in a way
that will lead others to join you.”
Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority
leader, exemplifies the second category. He couldn’t care less about principle.
He is motivated entirely by the pursuit of power.
McConnell refused to allow the Senate to vote on President
Barack Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, in March, 2016 –
almost a year before the end of Obama’s term of office – on the dubious grounds
that the “vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
McConnell’s move was a pure power
grab. No Senate leader had ever before asserted the right to block a vote
on a president’s nominee to the Supreme Court.
McConnell’s “principle” of waiting
for a new president disappeared Friday evening, after Ginsburg’s death was
announced.
Just weeks before one of the most consequential
presidential elections in American history, when absentee voting has already
begun in many states (and will start in McConnell’s own state of Kentucky in 25
days), McConnell announced: “President Trump’s nominee will receive a
vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”
This is, after all, the same Mitch
McConnell who, soon after Trump was elected, ended the age-old requirement that
Supreme Court nominees receive 60 votes to end debate and allow for a
confirmation vote, and then, days later, pushed through Trump’s first nominee,
Neil Gorsuch.
Ginsburg and McConnell represent the
opposite poles of public service today. The distinction doesn’t depend on
whether someone is a jurist or legislator – I’ve known many lawmakers who cared
more about principle than power, such as the late congressman John Lewis. It
depends on values.
Ginsburg refused to play power
politics. As she passed her 80th birthday, near the start of Obama’s second
term, she dismissed calls for her to retire in order to give Obama plenty of
time to name her replacement, saying she planned to stay “as long as I can do
the job full steam,” adding “There will be a president after this one, and I’m
hopeful that that president will be a fine president.”
She hoped others would also live by
principle, including McConnell and Trump. Just days before her death she said, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be
replaced until a new president is installed.”
Her wish will not be honored.
Not even with Joe Biden president
and control over both the House and Senate can Democrats do anything about this
– except by playing power politics themselves: expanding the size of the court
or restructuring it so justices on any given case are drawn from a pool of
appellate judges.
The deeper question is which will
prevail in public life: McConnell’s power politics or Ginsburg’s dedication to
principle?
The problem for America, as for many other democracies at this point in history, is this is not an even match.
Those
who fight for power will bend or break rules to give themselves every
advantage. Those who fight for principle are at an inherent disadvantage
because bending or breaking rules undermines the very ideals they seek to
uphold.
Over time, the unbridled pursuit of
power wears down democratic institutions, erodes public trust, and breeds the
sort of cynicism that invites despotism.
The only bulwark is a public that
holds power accountable – demanding stronger guardrails against its abuses and
voting power-mongers out of office.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg often referred
to Justice Louis Brandeis’s famous quote, that “the greatest menace to freedom
is an inert people.” Indeed.
Robert Reich's latest book is "THE SYSTEM: Who Rigged
It, How To Fix It," out March 24.
He is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the
University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center. He
served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time
Magazine named him one of the 10 most effective cabinet secretaries of the
twentieth century. He has written 17 other books, including the best sellers
"Aftershock," "The Work of Nations," "Beyond
Outrage," and "The Common Good." He is a founding editor of the
American Prospect magazine, founder of Inequality Media, a member of the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and co-creator of the award-winning
documentaries "Inequality For All," and "Saving
Capitalism," both now streaming on Netflix.