The Freeman 1972 - The Ludwig von Mises Institute

1972 WILLMOORE KENDALL CONTRA MUNDUM 255government. It is the triumph ofthe American system that it hasprovided for what Kendall calls"the two majorities." The sameelectorate that selects the Presidentas the leader of "all the people"also determines the composi~tion of Congress, which, throughits committee system and its controlof the purse, often acts as abrake on what a Utopian occupantof the White House might want todo.· This is the Madisonian systemas bequeathed to us by the Found~ers, to whom Kendall made the un~orthodox obeisance of accepting alltheir goals, the necessity of pro~viding for the common defenseand maintaining a more perfectunion as well as the desirability ofprotecting such individual rightsas free speech and freedom of assembly.One thing that made Kendall·"difficult" was his refusal to slidearound the great enigmas of ourtime. How does one reconcile a beliefin justice with a belief in majorityrule? (After all, an absolutemajoritarian must concedethe right of 50.1 per cent of thevoting population to send 49.9­including nonvoters - to the gaschambers.) How does one squarethe use of the Fourteenth Amend~ment to compel many things thatwere left to the jurisdiction.of theStates, or to the individuals themselves,by the Ninth and TenthAmendments? (After all, nobodyhas ever argued that the Ninthand Tenth Amendments have beenrepealed.) Kendall could not settlethe great contradictions, but he in~sisted that they be confronted andargued about. And this made himan uncomfortable fellow among hisfaculty colleagues in the' universitycommon room, most of whomaccepted an unconscious bias forthe Declaration of Independence,which stresses equality, andagainst the Preamble to the Con~stitution, which says nothingabout it. But if Kendall wasn'tliked by his fellow professors, hisfaculty for directing students tothe actual words of our basic documentsmade him a great teacher.In his essay on "The Two Majorities"Kendall speaks of the"bias toward Quixotism inherentin our presidential elections" andthe "corrective" of "Sancho Pan~zism" as applied by the off-yearand staggered elections for Congress.He himself was Don Quixotein his hopes that universitiescould actually provide for real confrontationof issues and SanchoPanza in his willingness to undercutthe modern liberal orthodoxy.His bloodiest fights came over hisinsistence that "equality of oppor~tunity" is the ignis fatuus, thelight of fools, of modern politicaldiscourse. To get "equality of opportunity,"one would first have to