Submitted to a Candid World
Archive for
Guest Post: For a Brief, Shining Moment, Pat Buchanan Looked Reasonable
Thanks to John Casker for providing this guest post!
It’s amazing serendipity that ACG is looking for guest writers. I’ve spent the last four days fuming about two things: a Rachel Maddow clip that’s making the rounds, and the fact that for once I wish I had a soapbox to fume upon but don’t. Well lah-dee-dah, here’s a shiny, clean soapbox with nobody perched upon it. Thanks, A, for the opportunity.
First, the video in question:
If you don’t want to watch the whole thing, scroll to the last couple minutes, but it’s all relevant in my opinion. Coming to the defense of Pat Buchanan has never been high on my Bucket List, and generally speaking I’ve found Ms. Maddow to be a fun watch. Pat’s a gasbag who espouses some really vile things, and even when he’s staking out a moderate position he does it in cringe-worthy fashion. Maddow is articulate, relatively even-keeled, and not so hard left that I would feel embarrassed to introduce her to my parents.
However.
In the exchange above, Maddow deliberately ignores Buchanan’s point in order to get his goat; she’s not nearly stupid enough not to understand what he’s saying. The glee she has in asking him again and again “Pat, are you happy that we have a Latina on the Supreme Court?” is embarrassing; the question is no better than the classic “Senator, when did you stop beating your wife?” What Buchanan is clearly arguing is that this Latina isn’t qualified to be on the Supreme Court, so no, he isn’t happy that Sonia Sotamoyor is likely to be confirmed. NOT being willing to walk into her clumsy trap just so she’ll have tape of him saying he’s happy about it is, frankly, the principled way to go.
I’ll leave the legal analysis to ACG; for all I know she is qualified, and I’ve certainly not heard a cacophonous roar that she isn’t qualified à la Harriet Miers. The trouble is that Maddow barely touches qualifications other than Sotamoyor’s time served; aren’t appointed judges famous for keeping their jobs essentially regardless of job performance? Maddow keeps banging on this “108 of 110 justices have been white men” number, but that number is useless. For more than a century women and, especially, minorities were so thoroughly denied educational opportunities that of course there were no, say, black Supreme Court justices. That was a result of racist behaviors and policies, but it doesn’t change the fact that nominating a qualified black man or woman for the Supreme Court in 1830 would’ve likely been impossible. If we’re going to measure missed opportunities to nominate minorities, there’s no point in starting from any date before the civil rights era of the 1960s. (Yes, because of racism, but racism from farther upstream.)
Meanwhile, if you ignore Buchanan’s inanity about the country being founded on the backs of white men (Caucasian exceptionalism? Can I trademark that?) he’s actually making a fairly straight-forward argument that he doesn’t have a problem with a Latino/a on the Supreme Court but that Sonia Sotamoyor should be refused strictly on her merits.
Excuse me while I choke back the bile at writing this: Buchanan is being the reasonable person here. Personally I’m in favor of affirmative action in some circumstances, particularly with respect to educational opportunities. Previously-repressed populations will remain subjugated by circumstance even if the institutional oppression is removed; whites have a centuries-old head start in a lot of ways, and it’s just to think about offering assistance to even things up. On the other hand, a seat on the Supreme Court bench has a high “minimum competency” requirement that has to be met for the good of the country, and Buchanan claims that Sotamoyor doesn’t meet it (again, the truth of that is another conversation).
Compounding Maddow’s logical problems are her incredible arrogance and condescension. She says Buchanan is “dating” himself with his unwillingness to express glee at a Latina’ confirmation. Awesome, old people are racists. Her headshakes alone are cringe-worthy. Liberals — don’t go for the cheap point when the clear facts of the matter are enough.
To be fair, though, if I’m going to rail about Maddow at her worst, she deserves to be seen at her best.
John Casker writes regularly for GeekUniversalis.com & Ashland Link. Want to guest write sometime in the next week? Send your name & idea to submissionstoacandidworld@gmail.com.
A Perfect World, Stephen Colbert, and the Wimpitude that is the Rest of American Journalism
(How fortunate we are Stephen Colbert is around to accompany us down the rabbit hole. It’s nice not to be alone amidst the sick, sad absurdity of it all.)
UPDATE* [8:50 a.m., EDT]: To add a little more clarity, pay attention to what Chuck Todd, NBC News Political Director and Chief White House Correspondent, says to Glenn Greenwald (as excerpted by Colbert).
Greenwald: Isn’t the best thing to do to … say to a prosecutor … ‘Were crimes committed … have this be treated like every other accusation of crime.’
Todd: Glenn, in a perfect world, yes … if you could guarantee me that we could keep this debate off of television.
The reason why American media are not performing their duties as hardhitting journalists and rather going along with the government’s (Bush’s AND Obama’s) line re: torture investigations? They are (1) afraid of losing access to the White House and (2) muzzled by their corporate owners.
I can’t fully blame Todd. He has a nice job he would like to keep, and at least he said as much as he did. So Greenwald is left as the singlemost (and as far as I know: ONLY) media voice who is relentless in his coverage of the shame of authorized torture, the authorized excuse of it, and the hypocrisy of the fourth estate in poo-pooing investigations as just so much food-fighting witch hunts. Click here for the related Greenwald post. (And yes, I got my news from Colbert before I got it from Greenwald on this one. What can I say?)
* I was too tired last night to post any text clarifying the video post, but bright-eyed and bushy-tailed this morning (ahem), I decided a little exposition is in order.
Victory: Li-Ann Thio Will NOT Teach at NYU School of Law
This from an announcement mailed to current students of the law school, but apparently not alumni (I’m hurt!!). Frequent readers will recall that Dr. Thio has made frequent, bizarre, and needlessly offensive statements in Singapore’s Parliament about the perceived immorality of homosexuality. Notably, the law school was apparently unaware of these speeches. After they emerged, however, and many students reacted negatively, Thio revealed a truly Palinesque persecution complex, manifesting itself in the form of ridiculously immature, needlessly hurtful replies to legitimate, intelligent criticism, along with a Ben Steinian attempt to wave the banner of academic freedom to cover blatant moral & intellectual failings. Truly, the worst of all worlds.
Dean Revesz’s announcement is below. Current and past law school students know Dean Revesz as a kind, welcoming, and thoroughly respectful man, which made Dr. Thio’s appointment all the more confusing. I’m happy to say that this letter is much more in conformity with his character. For one, it’s painfully clear that Dean Revesz was not a fan of Dr. Thio.
Notable elements in red, brief in-line commentary in blue; please read, below the line.
acandidworld.net now acandidworld.com!
Yesterday, some scam site called InTrust.com let me know that “www.acandidworld.com” would be coming available soon – and asked me to pay $97 to park it and use it for this site.
NEVER, I said! Upon hearing that the domain had become available, though, I went through a domain parking service and bought the chance to use the domain at the next available opportunity for $20. And here it is!
You can now update your browsers. No more are we a subpar “.net” domain (although that one still works too, it just redirects); we’re a full-on .com domain! From now on, feel free to visit us here.
Now back to my self-imposed bar study seclusion.
When You Hear “The Family,” Don’t Think Charles Manson, Think Rich, Delusional, Fundamentalist, Christian Safe House in Washington
Why am I not surprised to learn there is a fundamentalist Christian “club” offering safe haven, counsel, and political strategy to tarnished GOP members of Congress (and one Latina-loving Republican governor).
They call themselves “the Family,” and reporter Jeff Sharlet has written a piece for Salon (published yesterday) highlighting the Family’s role in providing accommodations for multiple GOP politicians (i.e. Sen. John Ensign [NV], Rep. Chip Pickering [MS]) so they might meet with their mistresses without fear of being caught in flagrante. (Of course, running off to Argentina to boink your lover probably isn’t a good idea, but Gov. Mark Sanford [R-SC] was able to find friendly shoulders to lean on when sharing his sexual adventures with his buddies in the Family.)
That there is an actual building in D.C. where GOP politicians can park their wayward genitalia is no big deal, really. What is a big deal is that this group, this strange cabal of super-righteous fundamentalist Christians have taken their beyond-Machiavellian world view, cloaked in the holy image of a vengeful, opportunistic Christ, to the highest levels of power in federal government. The Family lobbies, and lobbies HARD without having to register as a lobby group. They move in and out of power circles in government without fear of reprisal of correction.
And this is exactly the way they like it.
Some excerpts from Sharlet’s Salon article (my bold):
If sexual license was all the Family offered the C Street men, however, that would merely be seedy and self-serving. But Family men are more than hypocritical. They’re followers of a political religion that embraces elitism, disdains democracy, and pursues power for its members the better to “advance the Kingdom.” They say they’re working for Jesus, but their Christ is a power-hungry, inside-the-Beltway savior not many churchgoers would recognize.
….
The Family likes to call itself a “Christian Mafia,” but it began 74 years ago as an anti-New Deal coalition of businessmen convinced that organized labor was under the sway of Satan. The Great Depression, they believed, was a punishment from God for what they viewed as FDR’s socialism. The Family’s goal was the “consecration” of America to God.
….
Family leaders consider their political network to be Christ’s avant garde, an elite that transcends not just conventional morality but also earthly laws regulating lobbying. In the Family’s early days, they debated registering as “a lobby for God’s Kingdom.” Instead, founder Abraham Vereide decided that the group could be more effective by working personally with politicians. “The more invisible you can make your organization,” Vereide’s successor, current leader Doug Coe preaches, “the more influence you can have.”
….
But David Coe, Doug Coe’s son and heir apparent, calls himself simply a friend to men such as John Ensign, whom he guided through the coverup of his affair. I met the younger Coe when I lived for several weeks as a member of the Family. He’s a surprising source of counsel, spiritual or otherwise. Attempting to explain what it means to be chosen for leadership like King David was — or Mark Sanford, according to his own estimate — he asked a young man who’d put himself, body and soul, under the Family’s authority, “Let’s say I hear you raped three little girls. What would I think of you?” The man guessed that Coe would probably think that he was a monster. “No,” answered Coe, “I wouldn’t.” Why? Because, as a member of the Family, he’s among what Family leaders refer to as the “new chosen.” If you’re chosen, the normal rules don’t apply.
You simply cannot make this stuff up.
News Flash! After Aborting All U.S. Babies, Liberals Want to Force Old Geezers to Off Themselves
You know us crazy liberals: We’re not satisfied until we have coerced a million doe-eyed college co-eds into abortion clinics to wrench their babies from their wombs. Apparently, too, we aren’t satisfied until the federal government goes in and tricks grandma and grandpa into committing suicide so that we can save a few bucks on Medicare expenses.
We’ve seen shades of the former accusation on this site many-a-time, but the latter’s a new one. Courtesy of a Right-Wing-Nut comes this little gem to my personal e-mail (bold mine):
This is not to scare anyone but to inform you. This health care bill is the biggest defining legislation in our country’s history. We all have to be informed on [sic] what is taking place in this health care take over. …
Here’s information on the health care [sic]:
“ON PAGE 425 OF OBAMA’S HEALTH CARE BILL, the Federal Government will require EVERYONE who is on Social Security to undergo a counseling session every 5 years with the objective being that they will explain to them just how to end their own life earlier. Yes…They are going to push SUICIDE to cut medicare spending!”
The GOP and the insurance industry are in full-frontal-assault-mode right now, working feverishly to stoke fear (in the name of “information”) with all levels of hysteria over impending health-care reform. Their catalysts of said fear: under-informed social conservatives (apologies for the unavoidable redundancy).
But like Karl Rove so cynically used wedge politics to spin the Christian Right into a frothy maelstrom of hate and fear that catapulted him and his powerful patrons to the highest levels of power, so too, is today’s GOP and their insurance-industry donors. Along with Bill Kristol, good ol’ Fred Thompson is in on the action allowing deliberate misinformation to enter the public debate. Click here to listen to Fred chat with Betsy McCaughey about the dread page 425 in the 1018-page proposed bill (H.R. 3200) that passed the House Committee on Education and Labor last Friday.
Here’s an excerpt of McCaughey’s hysteria (bold mine):
I am so shocked at the vicious assault on elderly people and the Boomer Generation in this bill. I hope that people listening will protect their parents from what is intended under this bill.
Whither the viciousness? Language in the bill that provides for standardization of Advance Health Care Directives (a.k.a. Living Wills, Health Care Proxies) that are currently recognized in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. These documents EMPOWER INDIVIDUALS, enabling them to set out what they expect in terms of health care should they be incapacitated or otherwise unable to speak for themselves in critical situations.
Bar Exam Hiatus
Unfortunately, it’s that time of life — in a little over a week, I’ll be taking the bar exam, along with the eight billion other new lawyers that New York state apparently needs. Because this requires cramming a lifetime’s worth of useless knowledge into my brain, I won’t be able to keep up with this site, until it’s over. I regret this decision immensely. I don’t think I’ve missed a day, between me and co-bloggers, in at least six months. But it has to be done. Please don’t remove us from your feed readers, though, because we’ll be back in a little over a week.
In the meantime, enjoy this beautiful summer. Did you know that the fact that it’s a little cooler than previous summers basically disproves global warming? I heard it at RedState, and from some Republican congressmen. Good thing one nonconforming data point obviates a trend! Phew! Haha, dodged that bullet!
Seriously, though, enjoy your week! And — incidentally — if any of you would fancy a position as guest blogger, for a week, or for a few posts, feel free to let me know. I’d be happy to fill the void with new talent. Just e-mail submissionstoacandidworld@gmail.com.
Oh — and wish me luck!
Politico is a Functionally Worthless Site
From their Sunday front page story:
The rest of the country has a new reason to hate the inside-the-Beltway crowd: Our economy is better than yours. [. . .]
Members of Congress from harder-hit areas can’t help but notice the divide between the relative health of their part-time city and the pain back home. And it particularly rankles conservatives who’ve argued for a smaller federal government but now see it making up one-third of the region’s economy.
Politico devotes one page to analyzing the startling revelation that, when the private sector is hit particularly hard, the public sector somehow survives, and a full second page taking quotes from Republicans, blaming Democrats’ “notorious” love of expansive bureaucracy.
A few notes: first, the federal government isn’t keyed to the stock market, or profitability. The American President will always have a job; as will the White House Chief of Staff; and so on. Sour grapes about the federal government’s relative inelasticity are misplaced, and stem from a misunderstanding of what government does (it governs). Second, it’s wrong to blame Democrats for expanding the federal bureaucracy. Remember, the Department of Homeland Security is the second-largest bureaucracy in all of human history, and that wonder emerged under a Republican president. In fact, under Bush, like under Reagan, the bureaucracy expanded significantly. It’s remarkable that Republicans get away with the “small government” catchphrase, when no Republican President in (at least) the last 20 years has ever bothered to follow through on it.
And, any mention of the state of Washington employees would be remiss without noting two things: in his first month, President Obama capped White House staff pay above a certain level, and plans to limit the traditional annual pay increases for civil servants. Essential government workers still have their jobs, yes, but they’re not immune, as Politico seems to think.
Reporting a non-story, and then reporting it wrong: that’s Politico for you. This from the people that think pronunciation is “elitist”. All that’s missing from this overwrought attempt to wave the bloody shirt of class warfare?
Your One Reason to Get a Twitter Account
To follow Glenn Beck. You can’t make this up:
Let’s review what we’ve learned: “GI Joe,” a movie which from the previews looks like it will glorify the army as a force for good, is an insult to (“GLOBAL?”) Marines; 70% of America loves Glenn Beck and is therefore sane; it’s totally okay to use “retarded” as an insult (don’t tell Sarah Palin — doesn’t that clarify as “making fun of Trig”?); and Transformers II was surprisingly unrealistic (“who knew” indeed).
I’m going to hazard a guess. Based on these midnight-Saturday messages, and this bizarre screaming session, Glenn Beck has finally lost it, and is about one well-phrased insult away from breaking down. Any takers?
Alternate Reality: What a Fully Candid Senate Confirmation Would Look Like
Judge Sotomayor concluded her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, with every sign that she’ll be confirmed handily, with Republican support, even. But for those of us with knowledge of the legal system, or even a decent respect for the process of judging, the hearings were a painfully dull exercise, full of all the dull evasion that’s come to typify every confirmation since Justice Thomas’. Indeed, the enduring result of those hearings, famous for their vitriol and tabloid value, may be the utter intellectual poverty of the modern Supreme Court confirmation hearing, where judicial nominees can do no more than affirm their commitment to impartiality, while avoiding any attempt to explain what that means, for fear of setting off the private little war that so tarnished Justice Thomas.
It’s too bad. The confirmation of a Supreme Court justice could be a valuable chance to explain to the public what the Constitution means in the modern world, and a chance to expose the right’s shallow talking points for what they really are. Instead, we’re forced to endure what Professor Tribe calls the equivalent of kabuki theater — all spectacle, no substance.
But, what would an honest, fully candid Supreme Court confirmation hearing look like? To quote another professor (Farnsworth, on the “fing-longer”), man can only dream. This, then, is one man’s dream:
J. SOTOMAYOR:
OPENING STATEMENT: Senators, it is a rare honor and a privilege to have the chance to speak with you today. In the ancient world, men and women the world over looked to the Roman Senate for aid and enlightenment on the issues of the day. As the United States has exceeded Rome in the freedom it affords its citizens and even its foes, so this chamber exceeds the republican Senate in openness and accessibility.
Accordingly, mindful of the greatness of the assembled individuals and indeed the nation that I address, it is not my intention to obfuscate or conceal, for my benefit or yours. Far too often we speak delicately, with candor decreasing as the weight of the issues in play increases. Let me say plainly, this trend cheapens all of us. If you are to live to your reputation, you should question me fully; if I am to live up to mine, I should answer honestly. I intend no less.
From the tenor of debate, I expect you to question me about my “impartiality.” Americans expect their judges to apply the law neutrally, and in my years on the bench, I have done no less. But let us dispense now with the pretense that the law is apolitical. Truly, neither “liberals” nor “conservatives” believe it to be. Indeed, although the Constitution seeks to minimize the politicization of the bench (hence lifetime appointments), politics is unavoidable. On the great questions of our day, the Constitution is silent. What Founding Father could have conceived of the dangers and benefits of warrantless wiretapping, or cloning? When adjudicating novel questions of constitutional rights, Supreme Court justices can never find a complete answer in the document itself. Thankfully, though, the Constitution’s greatness, and its drafters’ ingenuity, lies not in the document’s substantive completeness, but in its basic framework. The Constitution declares abstract values, and sets out a structure through which they are to be realized. From this framework, judges balance, imply, infer, reason, and apply, always striving for an answer that resonates with the document’s basic premises.
Often, constitutional values point in different directions. The Constitution gives the President broad authority to respond to imminent dangers to the state. However, the President cannot declare war. How are we to reconcile these seemingly irreconcilable ideas?
There is no mechanistic way to answer this question. In selecting the theory of decisionmaking to employ (Originalism? Textualism? Intentionalism? The list goes on), and the factors that inform the theory, there is necessarily an act of judgment, in which one’s opinion of the relative weight of relevant constitutional values in play ought not be, indeed cannot be, irrelevant. Judges will weigh factors differently, and there’s no use in denying that fact. Justice Scalia, for example, values the historical pedigree of legal norms; the late Justice Brennan, on the other hand, looked to the degree to which the same theories comported with modern notions of justice and “fair play.”
Some will call this acknowledgement of the subjectivity inherent in the judicial process an embrace of “activism.” It is not. Rather, it is an attempt to honestly acknowledge that judging has a human element. We all strive for neutrality and constitutional fidelity; if we fall short, this can be evaluated or criticized on a case-by-case basis, but few mainstream judicial ideologies — none of which I espouse! — are inherently and deliberately unfaithful to the document.
Because judging is a human act, it is important that you understand the balance I accord to different constitutional values. It would be improper for me to comment on particular cases, but I will happily answer questions in the abstract. For example, I firmly believe that the Constitution does protect a zone of individual privacy. It’s hard to read the Bill of Rights and not see the word in the structure and effect of the individual amendments, just as it’s hard to read the Constitution and not see the phrase, “states’ rights.” Similarly, while I don’t believe that sympathy for an individual litigant is ever relevant to the process of judging, a judge ignores at her peril the Framers’ conscious decision to protect minorities from the caprice of majorities. The “tyranny of the majority” was a problem in democratic theory of which constitutional drafters from Jefferson to Bingham were well aware.
I thank you for your patience, and your indulgence in this admittedly atypical opening. The world is watching, and I urge you all to take this chance to speak not to your individual party bases, but to the American people in general, and the world at large. I will endeavour to do the same.
