I recently read a column in The Salt Lake Tribune by David Brooks: (“What is the root of this dark century”) It sets out his view of the current state of our democracy. Toward the end he writes:
“Democracy is not natural; it is an artificial accomplishment that takes enormous work.” He states that the work required is “to fortify the institutions that are supposed to teach the democratic skills: how to weigh evidence and commit to truth; how to correct for your own partisan blinders and learn to doubt your own opinions; how to respect people you disagree with; how to avoid catastrophism, conspiracy and apocalyptic thinking; how to avoid supporting demagogues; how to craft complex compromises.” These are skills that one should learn in law school.
As I read this, I thought back on the numerous news stories I have read and watched over the last four years which often focused upon issues as to what are the facts and what the is truth? It seems to Brooks that America has lost its common vision as to what these fundamentals of our experiment in democracy are. I have searched my mind for an antidote to this deterioration of common truth, (which I think of as a rough agreement as to what is wrong and right). This pondering led me to the law.
Certain behavior has clearly been determined by society to be wrong and has been codified as criminal. Other behavior has been determined to be wrong, not as a crime, but by arguments as to whose fault it is (ie. auto accidents, breach of contract) and has been roughly set out in case law, which reports decisions as to what is fact and truth in similar situations.
I suggest that in order to determine the answers to these questions, there exists a clear set of rules universally accepted by the courts of America from the Supreme Court down to justice and small claims courts that apply to both criminal and civil law. These are the Rules of Evidence. And these rules are a critical foundation to the institution that is the Rule of Law. These are the rules America, by way of the legal profession, has adopted to determine what is fact and what is truth. And I conclude that the legal profession is the primary institution educated in the democratic skills that must be fortified to build up democracy; to resist lies, partisan double-speak, catastrophism, conspiracy and apocalyptic thinking. Not that all members of the legal profession adhere to these rules (or the ethical rules of the profession for that matter). But, at least these rules provide a common basis for deciding what is fact, what is truth and what is right or wrong.
Rudy Giuliani, Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Sidney Powell and the other lawyers that represented Trump at impeachment hearings and thereafter have allowed themselves to become pawns in the effort to destroy democracy in spite of their solemn pledge to adhere to these rules. They all know better and this makes their behavior even more despicable. This ilk needs to be booted out of the conversation and sanctioned for their behavior. This would be a good start to the fortification of democracy.
Daniel Darger, Salt Lake City
