Understanding Liberal Rage Over Citizens United

by Brian Garst

On paper the Citizens United case has all the makings of a solid liberal issue.  First Amendment protections, considered sacrosanct by the left when a reporter is leaking classified information, are strengthened for those speaking truth to power.  Both the ACLU and AFL-CIO support the decision.  So why are prominent liberals speaking out so vehemently against it?

keith_olbermann_a_howard_beale_movie_network_2005_03_24

It would be easy to chalk up liberal outrage to a general hatred for all things corporate.  But is that enough to overcome what otherwise seems like a tailor-made liberal issue? After all, the ACLU said “[the prohibition on corporate speech] is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it permits the suppression of core political speech.” Moreover, the corporate gains, which liberals might feel benefit the right, are offset by those of the unions and other liberal issue groups that benefit from the ruling just the same.  The net political impact is thus neutral, suggesting that their opposition isn’t political in nature.  Neither is it based on the merits. Rather, it is philosophical.

Consider the following reactions to the decision from the left. The New York Times editorialized the decision as a “blow to democracy,” and a “disastrous 5-to-4 ruling” that “has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century.”  Talk about overwrought.

President Obama decried the “stampede of special interest money” that will somehow “[undermine] the influence of average Americans.”  Senator Patrick Leahy warned that the decision would “change the course of our democracy.”  And the ever-contemptible Rep. Alan Grayson must have been hyperventilating when he declared that “this is the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case. It leads us all down the road to serfdom.”

As if these politicians aren’t bad enough, the liberal blogosphere is even worse, as frantic left-wing bloggers and their readers have been busy declaring an end to democracy as we know it ever since the ruling came down.

The apocalyptic – and not to mention apoplectic – nature of their criticism suggests an answer as to why the decision irks them so.  Liberals think you are all idiots.  American voters are simply too stupid to filter so much information and then reach the right decision.  And as they well know, the right decision is unquestionably to adopt the liberal position.  They, as the learned among us, know best and so ought to be the only ones allowed to tell you what you should think and why you should think it.  That way you don’t get confused by all those other pesky views and opinions.  One wonders how we ever survived as a nation before the great heroes John McCain and Russ Feingold came along to save us from ourselves.

At the heart of the liberal philosophy of government is a belief that people are too stupid to fend for themselves, manage their own affairs or vote for the right candidates.  Democracy itself will be destroyed because of a few extra ads targeting voters before elections? Voters, it seems, just aren’t sophisticated enough to handle that much information.

Unfortunately for the left, the Constitution recognizes rights that all citizens have, regardless of how intelligent the editorial board of the New York Times thinks a person from Kansas really is.  It turns out that “make no law” really means that “Congress shall make no law,” even if that law would advance the liberal agenda.


Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | | Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted Jan 23rd 2010 at 1:07 pm in Culture, Justice/Legal, Politics | 225 Comments