Despite all of the negative attention HB2 has drawn to North Carolina, the intention of this article is not to criticize the law, nor is it to comment on the undeniably exclusionary nature of the ordinances therein. Rather, it is to question the role of those with power, and the responsibility of the people who put them there.
North Carolina has recently been catapulted into the national spotlight over what The New York Times has dubbed “one of the most sweeping anti-LGBT bills in the country.” House Bill 2, colloquially referred to as the “bathroom bill,” mandates that individuals must only use the restroom of the sex they were assigned at birth and has drawn staunch criticism from members of the LGBT community, corporations and politicians across the country.
The new law, which nullifies an anti-discrimination ordinance passed in Charlotte that permitted transgender individuals to use the bathroom of their choosing, has caused businesses throughout the nation to reconsider their holdings in North Carolina. Most recently, PayPal backed out of a deal with North Carolina as a result of the new law, costing the state an estimated 400 jobs. North Carolina’s governor, Pat McCrory, who signed HB2 into law on March 23, is on the Washington Post’s list of top five most vulnerable incumbent governors, possibly as a result of his term's track record.
While the media has focused almost exclusively on opponents of the law and its creators, it has conveniently failed to consider the constituency not just of North Carolina, but of the country as a whole. Since House Bill 2’s creation and the subsequent maelstrom of criticism that has followed, some of the nation’s most powerful have openly condemned the law, including Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo. These individuals have amassed broad support from the public, despite the fact that the majority of Americans (nearly 60 percent) oppose transgender-friendly bathrooms. That is to say, 6 out of every 10 people in this country agree with the decision made in North Carolina.
This is understandably puzzling, as the media has effortlessly painted a picture of a nation united against North Carolina’s new law. So what does this mean? The confusion stems from the fact that North Carolina’s Republican legislators, who were put into power through democratic processes, are being ruthlessly criticized despite the fact that they did exactly what their constituency wanted. And what is a democratic government, if not the collective will and determination of its people? If the media wishes to be consistent, it should criticize the majority of Americans who support this type of legislation, not the politicians who listened to them. And yet, they are not.
The controversy in North Carolina reveals a dichotomy between legislators and constituents in a democratic system that takes us beyond North Carolina altogether. In a democracy, we elect leaders based on their experience, accomplishments and goals. Conversely, however, the most important decisions leaders have to make are ones that never could have been anticipated, decisions that are a response to the unpredictable and highly improbable, the Black Swans. Thus, as a constituency cannot anticipate the unexpected and important, it would make sense that we select our leaders based not on their experience, but on their character. Character, more so than anything else, is indicative of a person’s actions in unfamiliar waters, as experience means nothing when the situation is unprecedented.
However, this is not how we vote, as experience is the most highly valued asset of any politician.
So why are we criticizing North Carolina’s legislators? For the exact same reason that they, and most politicians, got elected: Because they listened.
Although at first look it may seem that a government’s role is to enact the wishes of its people, the turmoil in North Carolina has proven that this is not the case. While our leaders are required to listen to us most of the time, when it comes to Black Swans,our voices suddenly become less important.
We elect our leaders to do exactly what the name entails: To lead. And sometimes, when questions of inequality and discrimination arise, this means going against the will of the the majority to preserve the rights of the minority. In these situations, experience means nothing, and character means everything. Had the influential lawmakers during the civil rights movement listened only to the wishes of their majority, our country would be a very different place.
Regardless, we will not change how we vote or whom we vote for. The nature of the beast is that we cannot expect the unexpected. Ideally, we would vote for people most likely to uphold the Constitution — people who would preserve the rights of all despite how unpopular that decision may be. However, in our democracy, a system in which the most experienced are most often elected, this may not be possible.