The ugly, brutal battle to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh — now Justice Kavanaugh — to the U.S. Supreme Court will leave exposed wounds in our political system that won't soon heal. But those are tied to ideology.

We must be more concerned about the now-emerging gripes from anti-Kavanaugh forces that attack the structure of our political system. If those gain a toehold in the popular consciousness, we might lose something far more precious.

On Saturday, The Washington Post ran an article that noted Kavanaugh will be the "first justice nominated by someone who lost the popular vote (President Donald Trump) to earn his seat on the bench with support from senators representing less than half of the country while having his nomination opposed by a majority of the country." The Post followed up that analysis with a piece on Monday that noted "a palpable, growing sense among the Democratic base that the system is rigged against them." "(I)t’s 100 percent true that Democrats are increasingly on the short end of how the U.S. government is set up," columnist Aaron Blake noted, while revisiting the aforementioned article by Post reporter Philip Bump.

Along these lines, tweets appeared on Saturday from folks like MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell and influential Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe. O'Donnell, who was a Democratic strategist before he became a host on the liberal cable network, noted, "Founders’ design flaws in democracy — electoral college & 2 senators per state no matter the size of population — have created the current Supreme Court." That came in response to Tribe's tweet, which referenced a New York Times editorial arguing in the same vein: "Of the 5 justices picked by Republicans, including Kavanaugh, 4 were nominated by presidents who first took office after losing the popular vote. And the senators who will vote to confirm Kavanaugh represent vastly fewer Americans than those voting no."

These comments suggest that because of the circumstances, Kavanaugh and our system of government are both illegitimate.

Don't buy into it.


Such comments are nothing short of an attack on the American political system that has proven extremely durable to threats, foreign and domestic, for 230 years — a system that, by restraining the raw power of government and respecting the rights of those in the political minority, has created more freedom and respect for the individual's rights than any that came before it or that currently exists.

What these fevered takes on Kavanaugh conveniently avoid is that the system they disparage sent two of their heroes to the high court.

Bill Clinton won the White House in 1992 with just 43 percent of the vote. To put that in perspective, Clinton's 1992 popular-vote percentage was not only lower than Trump's (46 percent), it was also the lowest secured by the winner of a multi-candidate race since 1912. In other words, he was wildly unpopular with voters in 1992. Yet Clinton nominated, and the Senate confirmed, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, both of whom lean heavily to the left.

Moreover, since we began tracking the presidential popular vote in 1824, we've had 27 elections with more than two candidates who received a noticeably measurable amount of votes. Of those, only 11 winners received at least 50 percent of the popular vote. So Trump is more aligned with historical norms than his critics allow.

Additionally, yes, Hillary Clinton received almost 2.9 million more votes than Trump. But one state supplied that margin. Without California, Clinton would have lost the popular vote by roughly 1.4 million votes. Trump was more popular nationally than his critics care to admit.

So, while they appear anachronistic to people who obsess over the concept of "fairness" — even when it often means being blatantly unfair to others — the Electoral College and the idea of balancing population imbalances by giving each state two senators were designed to protect the minority's rights. They were the Founder's bulwarks against the tyranny of the majority.

As the libertarian philosopher Ludwig von Mises wrote nearly 70 years ago, "It is not true that the masses are always right and know the means for attaining the ends aimed at. ... Majorities too may err and destroy our civilization."

We tempt that fate if we surrender to the idea that our system's "design flaws," as O'Donnell put it, must be fixed. If you want to "resist" something, resist that impulse.