It is not uncommon, these days, to see those interested in a liberal cause use the suffering of poster boys to soften the public heart. Oftentimes, these poster boys are kind faced, [1] hard working, law abiding flag wavers, who claim they bear similarity to the majority of Americans, though coming from circumstances far less fortunate or socially acceptable. But regardless of whether a refusal to grant relief would harm such people, such claims are not a legitimate moral platform from which to launch a movement.

To understand why, it is first imperative to understand the value of poster boys and their suffering. Supposedly, their use conveys that many people in a particular category are overwhelmingly normal, and that such suffering could happen to anyone. As such, it is fair to say that such a public relations war exists only to counteract what the left perceives as unfair stereotyping, the misplacement of offensive individual characteristics upon a diverse population.

But if leftists desire to consider each individual and not the group trend, then poster politicking is also a failure by its own standards, because it also represents a large population with individual people bearing individual traits. And even acknowledging such moral persons exist within their respective categories, their exploitation for political purposes poses a threat greater than the [2] most dangerous of their kind. For by dispensing additional series of liberties and privileges particularly because of the high personal quality and likability of poster boys, it oftentimes becomes greatly difficult to deal accordingly with those also possessing their appearance, but [3] lacking the touted admirable qualities. And if such a poster boy is of exceptionally high quality, not actually being representative of the quality of his group, the emotionally manipulated public is far less likely to be rewarded for the new policy.

Of course, it could be argued that leftists are not so broad in their dispensations of liberties and privileges, and that they determine who will benefit from policy revisions according to each person’s individual circumstances. Particularly in the case of amnesty, Americans have seen [4] leftists propose programs which permit legalization according to lawfulness and other considerations.

But consider how leftists said that sealing the border would alienate American friends, when a refusal to do so has [5] welcomed American [6] enemies. They also claimed the billions of dollars of research are for the [7] innocent children born with AIDS, when the [8] overwhelming majority of people with AIDS knowingly engaged in immoral and dangerous sex, or illicit drug use. They said abortion would be for the woman who [9] was raped, when it was actually for the woman who would rather [10] have a child later. They said that liberal welfare would feed those who needed it most, when it [11] pays the rent for those who want to work the least. They said that affirmative action would protect the man of character from wrongful discrimination, but the lawsuits resulting from it fill the coffers of society’s [12] most envious and [13] despicable layabouts.

There are examples, of course, in which conservatives are equally guilty of using such poster boy politics. In the case of abortion, those supporting a child’s right to life oftentimes reference those who live meaningful and generous lives, who were once at risk of being killed before birth. One such case in Seattle involves [14] one of the pastors at Mars Hill Church, a man who was at risk of being killed before birth, but lived to raise four children and greatly bless his community.

But though this man’s story, like the story of a kind faced and law abiding illegal immigrant, is likely to soften the hearts of those hearing it, such stories display that poster boy politicking only serves a utility peripheral to the principles at hand. For poster politicking fails to recognize that for every kind faced person suffering from a controversial policy, there is another who [15] would suffer from its non enforcement. And this presents a serious problem.

Supposing that suffering were the only basis for law, the multilateral nature of suffering alone would provide enough controversy to gridlock all moral discussion. For it would be dangerous to even consider who should determine policy according to which side suffers more, or which peoples are more worthy of protection under government than others. Even the most hardened proponent of American liberalism — an ideology [16] which purposely requires the identification of certain groups for repression or advancement — is well aware that every portion of the political spectrum, although claiming neutrality, is emotionally and culturally biased toward the plights of some more than others. Thus, the moral value of abortion, border enforcement, or any other situations listed above can not and does not depend upon the quality of the child or the good manners of the trespasser. It depends upon the principle.

But supposing that leftists had their way, and a kind of benevolent utilitarian will were to direct the arm of the state, only benefiting whichever side had the most suffering and kind faced people, it would only be fair to ask two questions. First, whether laws both moral and legal would serve any purpose at all, and second, what purpose a Bill of Rights would serve, if only to encumber the state from acting in whichever way it calculated as best for that moment. It is most obvious, to all reasonable people, that such an executive power would lead toward a [17] Nietzschean totalitarianism, a kind of “morality” and mafia-esque corruption well documented in the most heinous of dictatorial states, predicated not upon unalienable rights, but upon whim.

Therefore, since both sides of any controversial argument suffer, and since the number of suffering peoples in such circumstances does not necessarily determine the morality of the decision, and since law and constitutional boundaries of government must predicate liberty, there can only be one solution to the problem of human interaction. It is justice.

Justice is not ensuring that all suffering is eliminated. Justice is not taking account of both sides of an argument, seeing which side comprises the majority of suffering, and ruling on that side. Justice is soberly assessing circumstances by [18] God-given standards and [19] natural law, determining whether someone violated those standards, and righting that wrong either by [20] reparation or [21] punishment.

It is inconsequential that a million hard working and kind faced Mexicans cannot cross a border, if they have to trample one person’s birthright to do so. It is inconsequential whether a child grows up to be homeless, if the mother has to kill the child to prevent him from becoming so. It is inconsequential whether a million people are fed with food stamps, if those food stamps were afforded because someone [22] stole from the Chinese. It is inconsequential whether one fights racism, if by doing so they target certain races for disestablishment, and dismantle property rights in the process. The principle, not the person or the feeling, must always reign supreme. And if it does not, then America will belong to a people not most principled, but best represented by the poster boy, whether the replacements be reconquistadors or jihadists.