lobb>- is seldom confronted by an antimilitarynpension lobby. In these andnother areas the national interest is leftnto shift for itself, and the public isnexpected to pick up the tab.nE”en more dangerous than thenWashington scandals are the inentionsnof the “rights industry.” Thesenactiities tamper \ith the ery fabric ofnthe Constitution. The Constitutionnand the English language sere to holdntogether a potentially diided societ}’.nBut \h- should the indiidual benbound b- an 18th-century documentndesigned by 18th-century aristocrats tonpromote their concerns? At what pointnwas consent gien? Few contemporarynAmericans een had forebears in 18thcenturynAmerica.nThe national myth works so long asnthere is popular eneration of the Constitution.nBut those who would againnand again subert the document bnsqueezing out of it “rights” that haenno historical basis succeed in compromisingnthe myth. There is the dangernthat at some point the a”erage cihzennwill lose his re;erence for the foundingncontract. The emperor will standnnaked and unlo”ed. As Burke warned,ncompromising the tradidonal systemicnmths can lea’e a acuum filled ultimate!}nby the policeman. Recent examplesnof middle-class citizens appealingnto nonpositixe higher law tonsmuggle in aliens, to bomb abortionnfactories, and to inconvenience subwa>’nthugs ma}’ be a harbinger of thenfuture.nTo understand Morgan’s “rights industr}-,”nwe might repeat the old Leninistnquestion: Who stands to gain bynthis? Is it the politicians, the ideologues,nthe bureaucrats, the judiciary,nor the rights clientele? Politicians havena ested interest in depoliticizing importantnemotixe questions. They ineitabl}naoid taking stands by shiftingnresponsibilit} to the judiciar}’ for anquestion labeled Constitutional. Thenassets of incumbency can mean a lifetimensinecure for a congressman if henproides the usual constituency ser-nices and remains noncontro’ersial.nB}’, remoing emotie (e.g., busing,naffirmahe action, abortion) questionsnfrom the political realm and toleratingnjudicial legislation, he protects hisnflank. The judicial outcome is of onlynsecondary concern to the careerist.nCongressional efforts to thwart judicialnusurpation are cosmetic ceremoniesnfor the benefit of the uninitiated.nThe ideologues—especially visiblenduring the late 1960’s and early 1970’sn— like to compare the United Statesnwith some norm of perfection. As anconsequence, they are perpetually disgruntled.nIntoxicated with the need ton”question authority” and to promotenquick change, they ha’e little loyaltynto history, tradition, public opinion,nor the requisites of order. They turn tonthe judiciar}- to legislate their latestnfad. The post-World War II judiciarynhas been ital to the rights strategy.nThe nation waits breathless!} for thenSupreme Court to make decisions thatnshould hae been made by the electednofficials. The judiciary is far from objectienin its !egislatie -entures. Itnoverrepresents a certain milieu, certainnlaw- schools, certain pressurengroups, and certain lines of argument.nAmbitious bureaucrats also playntheir parts in the rights drama. Anbureaucrat on the make can invent annew “right” to attract attention andnfacilitate a promotion. Or he can applynthe latest social science scheme to thenpolitical arena. New rights also encouragengovernmental expansion. Thenrights must be explained, clarified,nand implemented. Violators must benapprehended and punished. A newnempire has evoKed.nThe irony of the rights explosion isnthat the purported beneficiaries ultimatelyngain so little. A new right isnproposed, and its supporters unambiguous!}npromise some outcome. As thenright comes to fruition, a structurendevelops around it involving jobs andnroutine. Seldom, if ever, are the policiesnexamined to see if thev fulfill thennnoriginal objective. Busing and affirmativenaction were to be temporary remedies!nWho predicted that the novelnprivacy rights would lead to 15 millionnabortions? Thomas Sowell andnCharles Murray hae persuasive!}’ documentednhow littie America’s Blacksnhave benefited from the numerousnrights created in their behalf Thenrights industry seems to develop a lifenand momentum of its own.nWhat might be done to counter thenproblems documented in these twonbooks? Certainly more than a cosmeticnresponse is required. Institutional!}’,nthe judiciary must be reintegrated asnthe lesser branch of government. Perhapsna scrutiny of the roles of thenjudiciaries in the mature Western democraciesnw^ould demonstrate the aberrationnof American jurisprudence.nHistorically and comparatively, democracynhas thrived without judicialnactivism.nMore fundamentally, our need is anrediscovery of the concept of the commonngood/public interest as a norm fornevaluating demands upon the system.nIdeally, the norm should encompass antransgenerational component—lifenviewed as a “chain of being” or as “ancontract that links the living, the dead,nand the yet-unborn.” Consequently,nsignificant demands would be evaluatednin terms of the general interestnviewed with a concern for the claimsnof history and the claims of futurengenerations. Accordingly, Americanneeds a definition of corruption thatnextends beyond the illegal. The legalnabuses documented by Lambro andnthe manufactured rights examined bynMorgan are corruptions and should benlabeled as such. ccnJULY 1985/13n