<x-charset utf-8> Early on in this thread, I had occasion to express my regard for the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence. I am glad to do the same now for the preamble to the Constitution and, for that matter, for the Constitution as a whole. I do not believe that a deep commitment to those principles in any sense commits me to the proposition that "all important features of the political process must fit into a theoretically coherent structure that rests on one or a small number of abstract principles." That is the proposition I disavowed in my previous message.
To give a different example, Richard Winger has devoted remarkable effort in furtherance of his very strong belief that in varous ways access to the ballot and to other benefits for third parties and independent candidates should be eased. In doing so, he has benefited the whole field by his various researches. I have occasionally expressed considerable skepticism of the general thrust of his views, although we have sometimes agreed on specifics.
Now, as I have already mentioned, I believe strongly in the basic principles on which our nation is founded. (One might throw in, in addition to the Declaration and Constitution, other expositions such as the Federalist, the writings and speeches of Lincoln, etc.) I have no doubt whatsoever that Richard's belief in these principles is equally strong. Each of us, no doubt, can articulate reasons why we believe our positions on specific issues such as ballot access for third parties are consistent with the basic principles. That is a far cry from having a logical system based on broad abstractions, from which a position on ballot access can be deduced. It is because those things are so different that we can disagree on ballot access while not doubting the other's belief in the basic principles.
I should also say that I am not at all denigrating the very interesting exchanges that have occurred between Eugene Volokh and his various adversaries. They have been marked by extraordinary intelligence and insight (and, with one exception, with civility and mutual respect). I have learned a great deal from their exchanges and have the sense that my understanding of the controversy has been deepened. I therefore readily acknowledge that the kind of logic-chopping they are displaying can be illuminating when, as here, it is at its best. What I deny is that the enterprise of finely parsing moral principles is likely to go beyond development of insights to the point of dictating a morally compulsory conclusion. The danger in the enterprise, as I see it, is that some participants or observers may think there is something wrong if the conclusions they ultimately reach are not dictated by the logical arguments.
Best,
Daniel Lowenstein
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu on behalf of ban@richardwinger.com
Sent: Fri 2/11/2005 6:24 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Cc:
Subject: the wonderfulness of grand principles
Dan Lowenstein's thoughtful posting against grand
principles prompts my response. The U.S. Declaration
of Independence and the Preamble to our Constitution
have inspired admiration all over the world for
centuries, just because they do express grand,
majestic principles.
I believe the relatively favorable reaction of the
Iraqi people to their recent election would have been
lessened, if the Iraq election authority had tried to
screen out certain Iraqi adults from voting on the
grounds that they were "ex-felons" or had been loyal
to Saddam Hussein. The majesty of the recent Iraqi
election was that they were open to absolutely all
Iraqi adult citizens, with no exceptions. That was
inspiring to me and it was probably inspiring to the
Iraqi people. We should be pleased when adults want
to vote, whether in Iraq or in the U.S.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
</x-charset>