Kelo, Bush, and the Boston Tea Party

It doesn’t take much time spent in the blogosphere to realize that Kelo has caused an overwhelmingly negative reaction. Public opinion is not unanimous–when is it?–but rarely has there been a Supreme Court decision that unites public opinion against the idea of governmental meddling like Kelo has. Whether they be self-described liberals, conservatives, Democrats, or Republicans, folks of all stripes have been fundamentally disturbed by the idea that government can, with the permission of the US Constitution, take their property and give it to another private person.
The fundamental distrust of government embodied by the 5th Amendment has been expressed in many words in the last few days. However, the harshest–and greatest amount–of criticism has come from traditionally conservative sources. Those who typically rally behind the plans of the Democratic Party, which declares itself to be the champion of individual rights have, for the most part, been uncharacteristically supportive, or silent, in reaction to a decision that clearly usurps individual rights.

My hunch is that the reason we’ve not have not heard much (criticism) from left of center, or Democratic, commentators is precisely because the concepts of individual property rights and limited government butt heads with the elements of egalitarianism and social democracy that chracterize our modern Democratic Party. Individual property rights are an organic element of classical liberalism, which are often necessarily subverted for the equality of outcome demanded by these egalitarian/socially democratic ideals. The Kelo decision was, at its core, a serious blow to classical liberalism, and a serious boon to the philosophical underpinnings of social democracy.
It is right here, at the intersection of individual property rights and national sponsorship of “better outcomes,” that modern Democrats have the most trouble with liberalism. The fact that “liberal” lay-persons–more precisely, individuals who claim to be Democrats–are outraged by Kelo simply demonstrates that there is a public perception that taking and redistributing property is very unpopular. It also demonstrates that there is some public perception that taking and redistributing real property (i.e. land) is somehow different from taking and redistributing personal property (i.e. taxes). Liberalism enshrines the value of the individual, but on the other severely cramps the egalitarian principles that lead to outcome equality. There is no more perfect illustration of this concept than a case involving regular people being forced to give up their land–arguably the most tangible manifestation of liberty–so that the government can sponsor a better outcome for the community. Imagine the political gift that such an ideological ruling could have given the Republican Party.
Beginning in the 1930s, and again in the 1960s, the Democratic Party has been implementing the tools of social democracy without regard to the danger of slowly taking the road to serfdom. Were it not for three giant obstacles the Republican Party could have used Kelo as an extremely effective campaign tool to rhetorically undermine the modern Democratic Party, and gained a-lot of ground. The three obstacles are: (1) The recent Raich case–wherein the Bush administration supported the federal government’s ability to trump state laws regarding medicinal marijuana; (2) The Federal Marriage Amendment–wherein the Bush administration supports the federal government’s ability to regulate marriage; and (3) The No Child Left Behind Act–which serves as a primary embodiment of the Bush administration’s massive expenditures. (This is not to say that I necessarily oppose any of these, just that they undermine the GOP’s ability to use “limited government” as a rhetorical tool.)
Karl Rove–during the same speech that animated Democrats to plead for his resignation–boldly asserted that Conservatives “believe in curbing the size of government.” It’s good that he said Conservatives rather than Republicans. Had he said Republicans, my reaction would have been, “Sure, I believe that, much in the same way that I believe the Democratic Party wants to make abortion non-existent.” Or, “I believe that in the same way that I believe Saturday Night Live is funny–it used to be hilarious, so it must have some remaining humor.” Right? A-lot of Americans who genuinely want less government in their lives are unlikely to believe it either.
It would be naive to argue that the Republican Party has always been a libertarian oasis. It is true that the Republican Party has, for a very long time, tempered its support of classical liberalism with a dose of virtue–which is why it could advocate tough law enforcement, regulation of abortion, and support for prayer in schools. However, the three obstacles I’ve identified have proven to the American public that the line that characterizes “virtue” is blurring. “Virtue” is becoming almost synonymous with “preferred outcome,” thereby making the distinction between the Elephant and the Donkey even less clear.
Kelo should have been an early Christmas gift, in the form of a rhetorical arsenal, which Republicans could have used to appeal to the exact same distrust of government that led Americans to dump a bunch of tea in the Boston Harbor. Instead of arguing over whether government intervention itself is preferable, the argument has shifted to what kind of governmental intervention is preferable. Now, voters who are otherwise persuadable can simply point to the Bush administration and say “See, Republicans don’t believe it either.” So nobody gets to dump any tea this time.