Auster rightly condemns the ill effects of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but then he demands that "whites" reassert control of the culture. How in the world does he expect the country to do that? We don't have anything in the constitution delineating the power of whites or blacks to control things. We have a constitution that is supposed to be supplied equally to everyone. The solution is not to give unconstitutional power to some particular ethnic group (Blacks, etc.) or arbitrarily appointed group representing the so-called majority (white europeans). It is to apply the law equally because we cannot and should not have particular ethnic groups controlling anything. Sane and reasonable people of whatever skin color or ethnic designation should take control of guiding society...not some ridiculous "white" majority.
In both those instances the left invoked the moral high ground of remediating first slavery and then racism.
The Left has learned a potent lesson from these experiences: Our sacred constitutional rights can be reduced to mere hortatory language if the cause invoked to justify the transgression is transcendent. In this new world order the ends justify the means.
Having gone to school on slavery and racism, the left has sought to apply this paradigm at least two more times. First, the feminists' triumph against all reason and logic to the point beyond equal treatment for females to distortion of academic and intellectual honesty at higher institutions like Harvard. And to the converting of our military into a sociological laboratory for the advancement of feminist agenda. And to the death of tens of millions of unborn children, all justified in the name of a woman's constitutional right to privacy. Simply put, the values of feminism "transcended" the right to live of an unborn baby.
Now the Left is busy playing this game for sodomites. Homosexual rights are exulted over the right of the people of a state to prohibit sodomy.
This begs the question of the author of such mischief, when it occurs because the means employed are excessive or because the ends (equality of outcome instead of opportunity)are misconceived. sometimes the author is the legislative branch; Sometimes the executive; Sometimes it is a semi-private institution like Harvard or PBS or a private institution like the New York Times. Often however, the author of these extra-constitutional shake ups of our constitutional way of life is the very institution, contrary the the author of this article, whose constitutional duty it is to prevent these excesses.
The left now knows it can play this game in the "legal" arena but, of course, if the courts play, the arena ceases to be "legal" but it becomes a forum for public relations. The rule is lost because the litigants recognize that the game is to establish the flavor of the season and the court will distort the constitution to vindicate that flavor. So the rule of law is lost. So the dispute in the Senate over judicial filibusters becomes the proxy for constitutional adjudication. The Left have not just elevated one race over another, they have stolen our constitutional soul.
God help us.