Paradoxes and Possibilities: Domestic Human Rights Policy in Context

Abstract

The United States of America was founded on the principle of equality through law, even if this ideal has not always been realized. Indeed, the struggle to realize equality and full participation in society and governance is a perennial theme in U.S. history. At various junctures, realizing this ideal has been challenging, especially in the face of war, economic crises, or social unrest. Nowhere is this more evident than today, when growing opposition (both at the grassroots level and among political elites) to “big government” and “judicial activism” threatens to significantly limit the capacity of the state to address discrimination and social inequality. This opposition has sharpened in the wake of economic recession, heightened national security concerns, and rising nativism. Human rights could provide a useful tool for addressing these challenges. Human rights are grounded in the notion of human dignity, and they obligate the state to assure the protection and provision of a full range of political, civil, economic, social, and cultural rights. Why, then, are human rights not central to discussions of public policy and legal reform in the United States? After all, the United States played an instrumental role both in founding the modern human rights regime in the immediate aftermath of World War II and in championing human rights as a foreign policy priority at various junctures over the ensuing six decades. Yet many politicians, civil servants, members of the judiciary, academics, and pundits have long insisted that international human rights norms do not apply (or apply in only a limited manner) to the crafting, implementation, or evaluation of U.S. domestic laws and public policy. American citizens have tended instead to frame their grievances over