A peculiar thing about gerrymandering is its shamelessness. Its shamelessness is underrecognized and underappreciated in the sense of refusing to see itself for what it is, how proud it is of its morality. Its very morality exudes shamelessness.

But how did shamelessness get to be so moral?

Gerrymandering is inherently undemocratic. It stacks the electoral deck. Wisconsin is so thoroughly stacked as to be a scientific experiment in political engineering.

What can possibly justify a deliberately imposed constriction of a more inclusive and participatory democracy?

Here we need to swing back to shamelessness itself in order to assess its morality. That is, gerrymandering is so patently immoral that the only way to deflect its immorality is to use political descriptors that portray gerrymandered voters as evil.

This shamelessness—and the strut and swagger that celebrate shamelessness—is what happens when a deeply immoral thing is “justified” (and therefore made “moral”), when those who want the immoral thing call themselves moral.

Gerrymandering is most immoral when it protects minority rule, neo-aristocratic wealth, and racial dominance. Understanding this evil requires careful examination. But advocates of the immoral thing call their effort good and they call evil those who want this immoral thing undone.

Gerrymandering is itself the immoral thing. Why is it so difficult to recognize this truth and vote accordingly?