To begin with, we should observe that the civil-rights movement did not rely entirely on the aid of courts for its greatest triumphs. The selective memory that suggests otherwise is useful for the same-sex marriage movement, insofar as it calls to mind, and seems to legitimize, an enlightened judiciary nobly overruling a bigoted majority—an image the proponents of redefining marriage would like to conjure for their present purposes. This, however, is not the whole story. After all, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would have to be considered two of the greatest legal milestones of the civil-rights movement. Yet both were the work not of the courts but of a Congress that framed and enacted them and a President who urged them and signed them into law. That is, they were the work of institutions responsible to the people. To this extent, at least, the advances of the civil-rights movement raised no questions of democratic legitimacy.

[We should] maintain economics’ strong empirical-positive dimension, but blend it with a deeper appreciation for human complexity, and thus engender more humility about economics’ predictive power—a virtue all of us could use more of in our post-crisis era.

What happened to encouraging vigorous debate? Has Obama done anything to indicate that he has real interest in actually debating the issue of the inherent value of human life? He spoke glowingly of “honest, thoughtful dialogue,” but his actions on this issue reflect sheer power politics.