Hills to die on

Sometimes, I feel like I do not write enough about contemporary affairs on Rawls & Me. The reason is not that I do not think about them but rather the opposite, that every time I try to put something into words, I fear coming across as one-sided. However, in today’s The Bulwark, William Kristol correctly points out how silence and acquiescence play into the hands of autocrats like Trump and Erdogan, that if we do not stand for the democratic rights of those we disagree with, we do not stand for anyone’s rights. As such, even if the polling perhaps suggests that the deportation of (alleged) members of Tren de Aragua to El Salvador without due process may not be the hill that those with any sense of democratic decency should die on, what does it make of us if we do not?

Meanwhile in Turkey, fierce protests have broken out after the arrest of Ekrem Imamoglu, perhaps the last credible electoral challenger to Erdogan. Passing through Istanbul in October, I remember thinking that Erdogan’s rein has at least kept doors open to the world in a way that a more progressive regime would probably have not, but that should not be interpreted as excusing Turkey’s depressing slide into autocracy.

Still, justice is not about picking the easy cases. Sometimes it is precisely the unpopular causes, the marginal figures, and the inconvenient moments that test our principles. That is where we find out which hills matter. And which ones we are willing to die on.