I have not blogged on the Supreme Court race lately, so I have a few posts coming. The Coalition for America's Families released two ads yesterday criticizing Justice Butler's opinions in two criminal cases, State v. Armstrong and State v. Jensen. A change was made to the Armstrong ad after a station in Green Bay pulled them, but that change seems to have related to what the ad said about Armstrong and not what it says about Justice Butler or the decision.
I have to prepare some remarks for a discussion on free speech in judicial elections next Tuesday and want to use the ads as vehicles for thinking about this. Let's start with the Jensen ad.
The salient issue involved a letter written by the victim Julie Jensen stating that, if anything were to happen to her, her husband ought to be the first suspect. Julie Jensen was found dead and her husband was subsequently charged with poisoning her.
The ad says that Justice Butler, according to the Wisconsin Law Journal, "would not have allowed the jury to hear the letter."
That may be a reasonable inference from his decision, but there is no way to know that for certain.
Justice Butler's campaign put out a press release stating that he did not vote to admit or to exclude anything, but to remand the case to the trial court to have it determine whether to admit the letter - something that all seven justices agreed needed to be done. (The trial judge had, after initially saying that it should come in, decided to exclude it.)
The Butler campaign's statement is correct.
Where Justice Butler differed with the other six justices was in the standard that ought to be applied. The issue was whether admitting the letter would violate the defendant's right to confront witnesses against him. The letter was, everyone agreed, "testimonial" in nature and, of course, the person "testifying" in the letter - Julie Jensen - could not be "confronted" (cross examined) because she was dead, allegedly at the defendant's hand.
All of the Justices (including Justice Butler) agreed that, nevertheless, the letter could come in if it satisfied a doctrine called "forfeiture by wrongdoing." Where they disagreed was in the definition of the doctrine. The majority would let a testimonial statement like the letter come in if the defendant's wrongdoing caused the unavailability of the witness. Justice Butler wanted to add a second requirement so that the letter could come in if the defendant's wrongdoing caused the witness' unavailability and that the defendant had acted for the purpose of preventing the witness from testifying. In Justice Butler's view, this narrower concept of forfeiture was required by the United States Constitution.
Justice Butler's formulation of the standard is, of course, more stringent. It does not seem unreasonable to think that it would have resulted in the exclusion of the letter. Jensen arguably acted to kill his wife because he wanted to be free of her, not for the specific purpose to prevent her testimony.
But we can't be sure because it is unclear whether the trial judge had applied that or some other standard before the appeal and, on remand, he was required to apply the broader exception adopted by the majority. Nor can we know for sure how Justice Butler would have applied the narrower standard to the letter because he did not address that.
Is the ad literally false? I don't know. Maybe the Wisconsin Law Journal did express the view that the letter would have been excluded under the standard that Justice Butler wanted to apply as the ad claims. If so, the language is "artful," but true.
Is is misleading? Justice Butler did not address the application of his standard to the letter. While it may be reasonable to assume that it would have kept the letter out, it would have been more accurate to say, as the press release accompanying the ad did, that his opinion would have made it "impossible to admit the letter at trial" or, with even more care, that it would have made it unlikely that the letter could be admitted.
But, then, I don't think that would much change the message communicated by the ad or its impact on voters.
One could still object to the ad's argument by saying that there are countervailing considerations other than the probative value of the letter. If you think that the US Constitution prohibits admission of the letter because it violates Jensen's confrontation rights, your hands are tied. Justice Butler apparently did reach that conclusion, although the others did not.
The United States Supreme Court (ironically, in an opinion by Justice Scalia) has recently taken a rather hard line on the confrontation clause. There are very real issues raised by the admission of the Jensen letter and, who knows, maybe it will turn out that Justice Butler was right about the impact of the Sixth Amendment here.
It is true that a thirty second spot does not convey the complexity of the matter. It can't. It raises some of the pertinent issues, i.e., the letter has probative value and the witness is gone because she is dead and the defendant may have killed her, but not all of them.
Of course, no political ads ever do complete justice to an issue. We worry about it more in the context of judicial campaigns because we see judges as resorting to external authority and not simply applying their own points of view. To understand whether they have acted properly, the argument continues, you have to understand that external authority and how it is said to apply here. There is a certain irony in the advancement of this complaint by people who believe that this external authority is highly malleable and capable of supporting many, many different outcomes, but, as a conservative legal academic, I buy it.
But it's hard to do that in any kind of campaign communication that can be understood and attended to by the general public. One response to that is to reject the election of judges. I am tempted by that, but, then, I don't see the appointment process as avoiding the problem. The stuff that Ted Kennedy says at confirmation hearings is every bit as mindless as the worst ad slamming the jail door shut.
The other is to drive substance from the campaign by imposing a set of requirements for complete accuracy and thoroughness that makes ordinary discourse impossible. In this world, judicial candidates compete by their endorsements and "qualifications." This isn't any better.
So I think that the best course is to let those who are interested speak.
My response to the Armstrong ad raises some different issues, so I'll put it in a separate post.
NB:There was another disagreement between Justice Butler and the majority on whether or not another statement made by Julie Jensen prior to her death was testimonial. But the ad doesn't get into that.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Judge strikes back
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge John Siefert has sued the Wisconsin Judicial Commission seeking a declaration that certain portions of the Judicial Code are unconstitutional and to enjoin their enforcement. Judge Siefert says that he would like to join the Democratic Party and endorse candidates. He would also like to personally solicit contributions for his next re-election campaign. I've got more sympathy for the former than the latter.
Judge Siefert is represented by Jim Bopp, a prominent first amendment lawyer from Indiana, and local stalwart (and MULS alum) Mike Dean. Jim will be participating in a symposium on free speech in judicial elections next Tuesday at the Milwaukee Athletic Club, along with James Sample, counsel with the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School and your humble blogger.
Everybody who is anybody (which is, after all, everybody) will be there.)
Judge Siefert is represented by Jim Bopp, a prominent first amendment lawyer from Indiana, and local stalwart (and MULS alum) Mike Dean. Jim will be participating in a symposium on free speech in judicial elections next Tuesday at the Milwaukee Athletic Club, along with James Sample, counsel with the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School and your humble blogger.
Everybody who is anybody (which is, after all, everybody) will be there.)
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
The War of the Roses
I am in the throes of completing two papers, so I've got to squeeze in the daily post. On this Last Stand Tuesday, I have a few random political thoughts.
1. Obama's response to Hillary's red phone ad raises a question about the left's judgment on foreign policy. When I was a kid, Democrats fought with other over who was first to jump ship on Vietnam as if opposition to the war was clearly right from the outset and early resistance was a sign of intelligence and moral clarity. Maybe.
We see the same thing on Iraq but it seems even less appropriate. Two administrations thought that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism (it was) and that it had an ongoing WMD program. This view was largely shared by intelligence agencies around the world. Saddam had a history of aggression and the sanctions regime was, for a variety of reasons, problematic. 9-11 had made terrorism a more salient issue - it had shown what these groups will and can do - and had highlighted the particular evil that runs through the Middle East - call it Islamofascism, Militant Islam, etc. That evil is not limited to the person of Osama Bin Laden and his associates.
In light of that, Bush and many Democrats chose to take Saddam out. We can debate the wisdom of that (at the time I thought it was an exceptionally close call) and, in hindsight, can argue that certain things that everyone believed to be true were not and that we "should have" known this. (The argument that "Bush lied" is specious.) Quite possibly, that knowledge would have tipped the balance against invasion.
But Illinois State Senator Barack Obama had no access to any information that anyone else did not have. His suggestion over the weekend that Hillary Clinton "did not read" the NIE and his implication that, if anyone had, they would have voted "no" is silly (and, as it turns out, was inaccurate in other ways.) The available intelligence and then current circumstances suggested that Saddam posed a serious problem in a number of ways (WMDs being one of them) and Illinois State Senator Obama knew no more about that - and probably a good deal less - than others who came to the conclusion that the invasion was warranted.
Obama's "early" opposition to the war seems far more likely to reflect a greater predisposition against the use of force than superior judgment. As a general matter, candidates with that predisposition have not done well in US presidential elections or, for that matter, as foreign policy Presidents.
2. In response to one of my posts on the politics of Obama's response to Louis Farrakhan's endorsement, some readers brought up John Hagee's endorsement of John McCain. I said that McCain should throw Hagee under the bus. He hasn't adequately done so. What that means for me, however, is better put by my old law school classmate Robby George (although I barely knew him)posted at Mirror of Justice.
3. The movement seems to be toward Hillary right now. Unless the pollsters have turnout misfigured, it looks like she may win in Ohio and fight to a draw in Texas (where she might get shorted on delegates). If that happens, is there any way it doesn't come down to Pennsylvania and a nasty battle over Michigan and Florida? The longer this lasts may hurt Obama because it increases the window of opportunity for his bubble to burst before the nomination is settled. Or maybe it does because it narrows the window of time for McCain to define him at a time when people are listening.
But I still think he puts her out today.
1. Obama's response to Hillary's red phone ad raises a question about the left's judgment on foreign policy. When I was a kid, Democrats fought with other over who was first to jump ship on Vietnam as if opposition to the war was clearly right from the outset and early resistance was a sign of intelligence and moral clarity. Maybe.
We see the same thing on Iraq but it seems even less appropriate. Two administrations thought that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism (it was) and that it had an ongoing WMD program. This view was largely shared by intelligence agencies around the world. Saddam had a history of aggression and the sanctions regime was, for a variety of reasons, problematic. 9-11 had made terrorism a more salient issue - it had shown what these groups will and can do - and had highlighted the particular evil that runs through the Middle East - call it Islamofascism, Militant Islam, etc. That evil is not limited to the person of Osama Bin Laden and his associates.
In light of that, Bush and many Democrats chose to take Saddam out. We can debate the wisdom of that (at the time I thought it was an exceptionally close call) and, in hindsight, can argue that certain things that everyone believed to be true were not and that we "should have" known this. (The argument that "Bush lied" is specious.) Quite possibly, that knowledge would have tipped the balance against invasion.
But Illinois State Senator Barack Obama had no access to any information that anyone else did not have. His suggestion over the weekend that Hillary Clinton "did not read" the NIE and his implication that, if anyone had, they would have voted "no" is silly (and, as it turns out, was inaccurate in other ways.) The available intelligence and then current circumstances suggested that Saddam posed a serious problem in a number of ways (WMDs being one of them) and Illinois State Senator Obama knew no more about that - and probably a good deal less - than others who came to the conclusion that the invasion was warranted.
Obama's "early" opposition to the war seems far more likely to reflect a greater predisposition against the use of force than superior judgment. As a general matter, candidates with that predisposition have not done well in US presidential elections or, for that matter, as foreign policy Presidents.
2. In response to one of my posts on the politics of Obama's response to Louis Farrakhan's endorsement, some readers brought up John Hagee's endorsement of John McCain. I said that McCain should throw Hagee under the bus. He hasn't adequately done so. What that means for me, however, is better put by my old law school classmate Robby George (although I barely knew him)posted at Mirror of Justice.
3. The movement seems to be toward Hillary right now. Unless the pollsters have turnout misfigured, it looks like she may win in Ohio and fight to a draw in Texas (where she might get shorted on delegates). If that happens, is there any way it doesn't come down to Pennsylvania and a nasty battle over Michigan and Florida? The longer this lasts may hurt Obama because it increases the window of opportunity for his bubble to burst before the nomination is settled. Or maybe it does because it narrows the window of time for McCain to define him at a time when people are listening.
But I still think he puts her out today.
Monday, March 03, 2008
On the eve of Last Stand Tuesday
I started to respond to some comments in response to one of my recent Obama posts and decided to move it into a new post.
Here is my problem with Obama. I appreciate that politicians speak in grandiose language. It is, for the most part, the response of Obama supporters that I find creepy. This type of hagiography was not present in 1980.
When I try to understand how it is that Obama might warrant such a response and we look to his stump speeches, I hear a hard left populist who seems to want to talk about what "they" have done to you and who spouts largely erroneous statistics about CEOs wrapped into meaningless non sequiturs about Main Street and Wall Street.
In response, smart commenters like Seth Zlotocha and friends that support Obama tell me that he's not that liberal at all. What's so extreme, they say, about a 1 % tax credit for companies that don't outsource jobs or extending ordinary income treatment to hedge fund managers?
Of course, the answer is nothing. But it's also nothing to get excited about.
Seth's response seems to be - repeatedly - to say that Obama wants to change the "tone" of politics and to encourage participation and to "reach out" to the other side. With all due respect, I have no idea what any of this means.
Obama's stump speeches are unifying only if, by unity, you mean bringing "us" together against "them."
Reagan did not move the country around incremental reform, but by a paragigm shift. He did not do that, contrary to Democrat myths, by the strength of his personality but by the fact that these ideas were right for his time.
He may have spoken about hope but it was linked to something substantive. That substance was not about having the government change your life. He wanted the government out of your life. Is that what Obama has in mind? Because that's not what I hear.
I understand that there is a difference between recognizing a limited role for government in facilitating opportunity and overweening statism. I just wrote an op-ed about it. But the over the top rhetoric and response does not seem to point to anything that is so modest.
If Obama is offering a paradigm shift that is other than what his stump speeches suggest that it is, e.g, a significant increase in collectivization whether through increased governmental spending or reregulation of the economy in the guise of fighting global warming, more protectionism as expressed by hostility to NAFTA and the imposition of costs on companies who respond to the pressures of global markets, or an increased willingness to subject American interests to some type of international system, I don't know what it is.
Suggesting that Obama will change the country just because of the kind of guy he is leaves me unimpressed. I am old enough to remember when Jimmy Carter promised a government as good as the American people. We fell for that once. I hope that, if Obama wins, we have a better reason than that.
Here is my problem with Obama. I appreciate that politicians speak in grandiose language. It is, for the most part, the response of Obama supporters that I find creepy. This type of hagiography was not present in 1980.
When I try to understand how it is that Obama might warrant such a response and we look to his stump speeches, I hear a hard left populist who seems to want to talk about what "they" have done to you and who spouts largely erroneous statistics about CEOs wrapped into meaningless non sequiturs about Main Street and Wall Street.
In response, smart commenters like Seth Zlotocha and friends that support Obama tell me that he's not that liberal at all. What's so extreme, they say, about a 1 % tax credit for companies that don't outsource jobs or extending ordinary income treatment to hedge fund managers?
Of course, the answer is nothing. But it's also nothing to get excited about.
Seth's response seems to be - repeatedly - to say that Obama wants to change the "tone" of politics and to encourage participation and to "reach out" to the other side. With all due respect, I have no idea what any of this means.
Obama's stump speeches are unifying only if, by unity, you mean bringing "us" together against "them."
Reagan did not move the country around incremental reform, but by a paragigm shift. He did not do that, contrary to Democrat myths, by the strength of his personality but by the fact that these ideas were right for his time.
He may have spoken about hope but it was linked to something substantive. That substance was not about having the government change your life. He wanted the government out of your life. Is that what Obama has in mind? Because that's not what I hear.
I understand that there is a difference between recognizing a limited role for government in facilitating opportunity and overweening statism. I just wrote an op-ed about it. But the over the top rhetoric and response does not seem to point to anything that is so modest.
If Obama is offering a paradigm shift that is other than what his stump speeches suggest that it is, e.g, a significant increase in collectivization whether through increased governmental spending or reregulation of the economy in the guise of fighting global warming, more protectionism as expressed by hostility to NAFTA and the imposition of costs on companies who respond to the pressures of global markets, or an increased willingness to subject American interests to some type of international system, I don't know what it is.
Suggesting that Obama will change the country just because of the kind of guy he is leaves me unimpressed. I am old enough to remember when Jimmy Carter promised a government as good as the American people. We fell for that once. I hope that, if Obama wins, we have a better reason than that.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Sunday's Olde Faire
The first English electric folk band may have been Fairport Convention. This is a 1967 performance of "Time Will Show the Wiser."
This clip doesn't really capture the best thing about the late Sixties iteration of Fairport - the vocals of Sany Denny who was to die of a cerebral hemorrhage in 1978 at the age of 31. Here is Denny singing "Gypsy Davey" with Fortheringay, a group she formed after leaving Fairport:
Another celebrated member of the early Fairport was Richard Thompson. Here he is playing "She Moved Through the Fair."
But the best version of that traditional Irish song is by the haunting Loreena McKennitt (who will get her own Sunday here in the near future):
This clip doesn't really capture the best thing about the late Sixties iteration of Fairport - the vocals of Sany Denny who was to die of a cerebral hemorrhage in 1978 at the age of 31. Here is Denny singing "Gypsy Davey" with Fortheringay, a group she formed after leaving Fairport:
Another celebrated member of the early Fairport was Richard Thompson. Here he is playing "She Moved Through the Fair."
But the best version of that traditional Irish song is by the haunting Loreena McKennitt (who will get her own Sunday here in the near future):
Shark on dead tree
Read my latest column in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel here. I understand that it is a bit vague. It's hard not to be in 800 words on that topic. My point is that conservatives need to think harder about how our core principles apply to today's issues. In 1980, there was a need to disrupt the postwar consensus about the state, taxation and regulation that had lead to a stagnant and increadingly unproductive economy. It was no longer working in a world that was even then globalizing. There was a need,as well, to disrupt an international consensus that left millions to their chains.
Things are different today. (Nothing stays the same.) My purpose in writing the piece was to participate in the discussion of how we ought to respond. I hope to be able to continue to participate in that conversation here and elsewhere.
Here are examples of the kinds of things I think we should be talking about.
We have a health care system that has evolved by accident and which, although it workes well for most people, doesn't work as well for everyone and creates certain economic inefficiencies.
We have a stubborn residual underclass that liberal welfare policies have helped to create and that we have not managed to eliminate or reduce.
Economic growth and free markets are going to create some greater measure of equality. The idea is that we'll all be better off as a result of the growth and innovation that results from relatively unfettered markets. I think the past 25 years have borne that out, but there remains a need to demonstrate that growth trickles down and there are limits to the degree of inequality that is consistent with social cohesion. I tend to think that the former is currently more a challenge than the latter and that Bush's concept of an ownership society was the kernel of the way in which it ought to be addressed. Unfortunately, for Bush, Iraq crowded everything else out.
Globalization challenges our educational system - a system that is well funded and underperforming. We have tried to respond with vouchers and I think that remains a good idea, albeit one in need of a bit of reform. Bush responded with No Child Left Behind, an odd combination of conservative (high standards) and liberal (unprecedented federalization of education) approaches. Maybe it doesn't need to be abandoned but it ought to be rethought.
The Republican Party went into the tank on spending during the Bush years. If we can't control spending, what is the rationale for us?
While I think that the charge that Bush's income tax rate reductions were "tax cuts for the rich" is misleading (any across the board cut in a progressive tax will favor the "rich"), our emphasis on the estate tax, capital gains and dividends - while ignoring the AMT - left us open to the charge that we are more concerned with the wealthy. There are good reasons to address capital gains and dividend rates, although I might have done it differently. My own prejudice is against taxing different sources of income at different rates. Capital gains taxes ought to be imposed after appropriate adjustments in basis and the problem of double taxation should be addressed by eliminating - or drastically reducing - corporate income taxes. Money should be taxed when it is received and at the same rate no matter how it is earned. (Although, in service of the ownership society, it might be appropriate to exempt an initial dollar amount of capital gains.)
Things are different today. (Nothing stays the same.) My purpose in writing the piece was to participate in the discussion of how we ought to respond. I hope to be able to continue to participate in that conversation here and elsewhere.
Here are examples of the kinds of things I think we should be talking about.
We have a health care system that has evolved by accident and which, although it workes well for most people, doesn't work as well for everyone and creates certain economic inefficiencies.
We have a stubborn residual underclass that liberal welfare policies have helped to create and that we have not managed to eliminate or reduce.
Economic growth and free markets are going to create some greater measure of equality. The idea is that we'll all be better off as a result of the growth and innovation that results from relatively unfettered markets. I think the past 25 years have borne that out, but there remains a need to demonstrate that growth trickles down and there are limits to the degree of inequality that is consistent with social cohesion. I tend to think that the former is currently more a challenge than the latter and that Bush's concept of an ownership society was the kernel of the way in which it ought to be addressed. Unfortunately, for Bush, Iraq crowded everything else out.
Globalization challenges our educational system - a system that is well funded and underperforming. We have tried to respond with vouchers and I think that remains a good idea, albeit one in need of a bit of reform. Bush responded with No Child Left Behind, an odd combination of conservative (high standards) and liberal (unprecedented federalization of education) approaches. Maybe it doesn't need to be abandoned but it ought to be rethought.
The Republican Party went into the tank on spending during the Bush years. If we can't control spending, what is the rationale for us?
While I think that the charge that Bush's income tax rate reductions were "tax cuts for the rich" is misleading (any across the board cut in a progressive tax will favor the "rich"), our emphasis on the estate tax, capital gains and dividends - while ignoring the AMT - left us open to the charge that we are more concerned with the wealthy. There are good reasons to address capital gains and dividend rates, although I might have done it differently. My own prejudice is against taxing different sources of income at different rates. Capital gains taxes ought to be imposed after appropriate adjustments in basis and the problem of double taxation should be addressed by eliminating - or drastically reducing - corporate income taxes. Money should be taxed when it is received and at the same rate no matter how it is earned. (Although, in service of the ownership society, it might be appropriate to exempt an initial dollar amount of capital gains.)
Saturday, March 01, 2008
His Sacred Name
Charlie Sykes. via Hot Air, posts the latest Doxology to Obama. I join Charlie in extending my sympathies to Christian Schneider on Jessica Alba. It's a good thing that men are pigs. I mean, really, who cares ...?
Seriously, when the Reddess described this to me, I thought that she must have come across a spoof. I couldn't imagine that anyone would really lack the perspective and, oh I don't know, passing acquaintance with reality to make a video chanting the name of a politician.
My question to Obamatons: I understand that you all don't think that the repose of this kind of devotion to - and expectations from - one individual or, even worse, the state is dangerous. You like candlelight vigils and torchlit parades. I get it.
But don't you think that this kind of mindless hero worship is embarassing?
Seriously, when the Reddess described this to me, I thought that she must have come across a spoof. I couldn't imagine that anyone would really lack the perspective and, oh I don't know, passing acquaintance with reality to make a video chanting the name of a politician.
My question to Obamatons: I understand that you all don't think that the repose of this kind of devotion to - and expectations from - one individual or, even worse, the state is dangerous. You like candlelight vigils and torchlit parades. I get it.
But don't you think that this kind of mindless hero worship is embarassing?
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Playing the Farrakhan card
Ann Althouse takes apart Barack Obama's response to the question in Tuesday night's debate about Louis Farrakhan. Obama was playing politics, trying to distance himself from Farrakhan while trying to hang on to whatever Farrakhan's support might bring him. He makes clear that he rejects Farrakhan's anti-semitism while dancing away from the idea that he ought to explicity reject his support.
I can understand why he wants to do this. Farrakhan has some support within the African American community and Obama wants to avoid getting cross-wise with anybody over that issue. He would have preferred to avoid the question altogether but tried to minimize the damage from Russert's question, even calling this virulent racist "Minister" as in "I have been very clear in my denunciation of Grand Dragon Duke's racist remarks.) (If you don't think that how he treats Farrakhan is an issue, listen to WMCS sometime.)
Hillary tried to push him on it but gave up too soon. What she should have done is ask a follow-up: "Will Louis Farrakhan have a place at the table in the Obama administration? He will be persona non grata in mine."
Maybe she felt that, the Democrat coaliton being what it is, that would be going too far. That's hard to believe (I think she just blew it), but McCain won't hesitate to draw that line.
How would Obama answer? I don't see how he could do anything other than say that Farrakhan won't be invited to the White House. But, if David Duke endorsed McCain (he has, in fact, said he sees no difference between McCain, Clinton and Obama; they are all equally terrible in his view), you'd see no hesitation or equivocation about rejecting him, his support and his statements. His very existence would be regretted and McCain might even allow as he wishes that Duke had never uttered - or even heard - his name.
Is there a difference?
I understand that some people think that there is, but, politically, Farrakhan is poison. If it came to it, I suspect that Obama would not hestitate to throw him under the bus, but there is a lot of hard left stuff in Obama's background and record that will not be so easily jettisoned. We don't hear it from Hillary because it can't much help her in a Democrat primary. But we will hear plenty in the fall and, until we do, the Democrats should hold off on ordering the champagne.
I can understand why he wants to do this. Farrakhan has some support within the African American community and Obama wants to avoid getting cross-wise with anybody over that issue. He would have preferred to avoid the question altogether but tried to minimize the damage from Russert's question, even calling this virulent racist "Minister" as in "I have been very clear in my denunciation of Grand Dragon Duke's racist remarks.) (If you don't think that how he treats Farrakhan is an issue, listen to WMCS sometime.)
Hillary tried to push him on it but gave up too soon. What she should have done is ask a follow-up: "Will Louis Farrakhan have a place at the table in the Obama administration? He will be persona non grata in mine."
Maybe she felt that, the Democrat coaliton being what it is, that would be going too far. That's hard to believe (I think she just blew it), but McCain won't hesitate to draw that line.
How would Obama answer? I don't see how he could do anything other than say that Farrakhan won't be invited to the White House. But, if David Duke endorsed McCain (he has, in fact, said he sees no difference between McCain, Clinton and Obama; they are all equally terrible in his view), you'd see no hesitation or equivocation about rejecting him, his support and his statements. His very existence would be regretted and McCain might even allow as he wishes that Duke had never uttered - or even heard - his name.
Is there a difference?
I understand that some people think that there is, but, politically, Farrakhan is poison. If it came to it, I suspect that Obama would not hestitate to throw him under the bus, but there is a lot of hard left stuff in Obama's background and record that will not be so easily jettisoned. We don't hear it from Hillary because it can't much help her in a Democrat primary. But we will hear plenty in the fall and, until we do, the Democrats should hold off on ordering the champagne.
Voter fraud's veil of ignorance
I haven't had a chance to spend much time with the Milwaukee Police Department's report on irregularities in the 2004 election and probably won't until later today. I agree with Jay Bullock that it's something of a political Rohrschach test. (Subliminally influenced there, Jay?) The voter ID issue in general is such an issue. My sense of the issue is that voter ID would deter very few votes and prevent very little fraud. Where you come down tends to turn on how you weigh the ease of voting vs. the potential for fraud.
But I approach the debate with one huge qualification. There is really no way to know how much fraud there is because, at least in Wisconsin, we have created a system where it is damn near impossible to get caught. I assume that there is not wholesale schemes to game our elections because I suspect that somebody involved would talk, but no one can really know. And, when elections are as close as they have been here, even a little cheating can go a long way.
I have always thought that the combination of no real identification requirement combined with same day registration (along with partisan registrars)pretty much amounts to a license to cheat. I don't know how many people actually do so, but, then again, neither does anyone else.
In the 2004 election, I watched a guy from a Democrat front group (Americans Coming Together)register people at the polls on election day based on things like a lease or utility bill. In that particular case, I am confident that he did not knowingly abet fraud because I happened to know the guy (we worship at the same church) and I don't think he'd do that. But I also know that he had no way to tell if he was being gamed and neither did I (or the other seven lawyers that were lolling around the polling place).
But, without regard to who it hurts or helps, shouldn't this make us uncomfortable?
But I approach the debate with one huge qualification. There is really no way to know how much fraud there is because, at least in Wisconsin, we have created a system where it is damn near impossible to get caught. I assume that there is not wholesale schemes to game our elections because I suspect that somebody involved would talk, but no one can really know. And, when elections are as close as they have been here, even a little cheating can go a long way.
I have always thought that the combination of no real identification requirement combined with same day registration (along with partisan registrars)pretty much amounts to a license to cheat. I don't know how many people actually do so, but, then again, neither does anyone else.
In the 2004 election, I watched a guy from a Democrat front group (Americans Coming Together)register people at the polls on election day based on things like a lease or utility bill. In that particular case, I am confident that he did not knowingly abet fraud because I happened to know the guy (we worship at the same church) and I don't think he'd do that. But I also know that he had no way to tell if he was being gamed and neither did I (or the other seven lawyers that were lolling around the polling place).
But, without regard to who it hurts or helps, shouldn't this make us uncomfortable?
Monday, February 25, 2008
"Swift boaters" respond
Don Daugherty has responded to the Mike McCabe "swift boat" innuendo (that was brought to me, at least, by Illusory Tenant, whose post was brought to may attention via a phone call) as follows:
Mr. McCabe – I just gotta respond to your post. Neither Rebecca, Dan, David nor I have any interest in “Swiftboating Our Supreme Court.” However, to use your language, I guess we can be fairly accused of wanting to “swiftboat” (or, as I prefer, to “bork”) the WJCIC.
Please let me also correct you on what the Federalist Society does and doesn’t do, as well as what Rebecca, Dan, David and I are doing and not doing.
The Federalist Society does not support any candidate for judicial or other office. Similarly, I am not publicly supporting either Justice Butler or Judge Gableman, and I’m not aware of Rebecca, Dan or David doing so either, so your statement that we’re trying to “talk up conservative candidate Michael Gableman” is incorrect. Although, again, we can be fairly accused of trying to make members of the State Bar, and the public generally, aware of serious concerns we have about the WJCIC, nothing we have done or will do can be characterized as being between “the low road and the gutter.” We are simply exercising our right to publicly question the wisdom behind the WJCIC, and doing so in a responsible manner, I think.
We’re all proud members of the Federalist Society and participate in its efforts to raise public awareness about issues relating to the state courts (e.g., the role of such courts, judicial philosophy, etc.), but we speak on own behalves. We are not “working at the behest of” anyone. To the extent the Federalist Society facilitates getting our voices heard, that’s great. To the extent the Federalist Society engages the CRC to help do so, also great. (The Cap Times wrote about it a couple of years ago, so it’s old news.) Presumably, your organization engages others to help get your message out, as do Justice Butler, Judge Gableman, the Greater Wisconsin Committee, One Wisconsin Now, and many other people who want to participate in public debate. All great. But, so what? Rather than who is helping who help who say something, the much more important topic is what is being said – here, whether the WJCIC is a good idea or not.
To that end, we are scheduling a debate about the WJCIC to take place in Milwaukee sometime over the next few weeks. (Details will be posted shortly on our Milwaukee Federalist Society website, http://fswi.blogspot.com/.) We have extended several invitations to the WJCIC and its chair, Tom Basting, to represent the WJCIC’s position at the debate, but so far they’ve ducked. It’s not going to be much of a debate if nobody shows up to defend the WJCIC, so I ask that you and anyone else concerned about how judges are elected in Wisconsin to please encourage Mr. Basting and his committee members to participate. Also, we have asked the American Constitution Society, which is essentially the liberal answer to the Federalist Society, to co-sponsor the debate and hope that they will do so.
As stated in our January op ed, http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=708869, our criticisms focus on the problems caused by using the mantle of the state’s leading organization of lawyers to police speech protected by the First Amendment. However, it’s turning out that not only is the WJCIC a really, really bad idea in theory, but it’s much, much worse in practice. As evidence of this, look at e-mail uncovered recently between WJCIC members, http://wicfg.com/index.cfm/m/6/s/39.cfm/story/55.cfm. WJCIC has a responsibility to come forward and defend what it is doing, especially given that it is funded with dues that Bar members like Rebecca, Dan, David, and I are required to pay. Our upcoming debate will be a perfect opportunity for WJCIC to do so.
Thanks for the chance to respond, and I hope you’re able to attend the debate. Don Daugherty
By way of full disclosure, I am supposed to be one of the panelists for this debate.
Mr. McCabe – I just gotta respond to your post. Neither Rebecca, Dan, David nor I have any interest in “Swiftboating Our Supreme Court.” However, to use your language, I guess we can be fairly accused of wanting to “swiftboat” (or, as I prefer, to “bork”) the WJCIC.
Please let me also correct you on what the Federalist Society does and doesn’t do, as well as what Rebecca, Dan, David and I are doing and not doing.
The Federalist Society does not support any candidate for judicial or other office. Similarly, I am not publicly supporting either Justice Butler or Judge Gableman, and I’m not aware of Rebecca, Dan or David doing so either, so your statement that we’re trying to “talk up conservative candidate Michael Gableman” is incorrect. Although, again, we can be fairly accused of trying to make members of the State Bar, and the public generally, aware of serious concerns we have about the WJCIC, nothing we have done or will do can be characterized as being between “the low road and the gutter.” We are simply exercising our right to publicly question the wisdom behind the WJCIC, and doing so in a responsible manner, I think.
We’re all proud members of the Federalist Society and participate in its efforts to raise public awareness about issues relating to the state courts (e.g., the role of such courts, judicial philosophy, etc.), but we speak on own behalves. We are not “working at the behest of” anyone. To the extent the Federalist Society facilitates getting our voices heard, that’s great. To the extent the Federalist Society engages the CRC to help do so, also great. (The Cap Times wrote about it a couple of years ago, so it’s old news.) Presumably, your organization engages others to help get your message out, as do Justice Butler, Judge Gableman, the Greater Wisconsin Committee, One Wisconsin Now, and many other people who want to participate in public debate. All great. But, so what? Rather than who is helping who help who say something, the much more important topic is what is being said – here, whether the WJCIC is a good idea or not.
To that end, we are scheduling a debate about the WJCIC to take place in Milwaukee sometime over the next few weeks. (Details will be posted shortly on our Milwaukee Federalist Society website, http://fswi.blogspot.com/.) We have extended several invitations to the WJCIC and its chair, Tom Basting, to represent the WJCIC’s position at the debate, but so far they’ve ducked. It’s not going to be much of a debate if nobody shows up to defend the WJCIC, so I ask that you and anyone else concerned about how judges are elected in Wisconsin to please encourage Mr. Basting and his committee members to participate. Also, we have asked the American Constitution Society, which is essentially the liberal answer to the Federalist Society, to co-sponsor the debate and hope that they will do so.
As stated in our January op ed, http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=708869, our criticisms focus on the problems caused by using the mantle of the state’s leading organization of lawyers to police speech protected by the First Amendment. However, it’s turning out that not only is the WJCIC a really, really bad idea in theory, but it’s much, much worse in practice. As evidence of this, look at e-mail uncovered recently between WJCIC members, http://wicfg.com/index.cfm/m/6/s/39.cfm/story/55.cfm. WJCIC has a responsibility to come forward and defend what it is doing, especially given that it is funded with dues that Bar members like Rebecca, Dan, David, and I are required to pay. Our upcoming debate will be a perfect opportunity for WJCIC to do so.
Thanks for the chance to respond, and I hope you’re able to attend the debate. Don Daugherty
By way of full disclosure, I am supposed to be one of the panelists for this debate.
A political Rohrschach test
Doesn't the way that you respond to this quote from Michelle Obama say something about your underlying political philosophy?
Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.
I'm not talking about partisanship. Oh yes, it's good to be informed and involved and out of your comfort zone, but is getting you there a proper function of the state? Doesn't this suggest that much of life ought to be politicized? Doesn't it endorse a revolution from above? You won't push Obama; he will push you.
I understand that he is talking about politics, but should politics change your life?
I know that some of the readers of this blog are nonplussed that anyone would think that the Obama campaign has anything approaching a messiah complex or that it is hard left (two different, although related, propositions). But there seems to be a creepy statement supporting one or the other of these propositions every other day.
Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.
I'm not talking about partisanship. Oh yes, it's good to be informed and involved and out of your comfort zone, but is getting you there a proper function of the state? Doesn't this suggest that much of life ought to be politicized? Doesn't it endorse a revolution from above? You won't push Obama; he will push you.
I understand that he is talking about politics, but should politics change your life?
I know that some of the readers of this blog are nonplussed that anyone would think that the Obama campaign has anything approaching a messiah complex or that it is hard left (two different, although related, propositions). But there seems to be a creepy statement supporting one or the other of these propositions every other day.
Interesting Stats
Orin Kerr points out an article by Lori Ringhand counting the number of times that members of the Rehnquist court voted to strike down legislation over a given period. With the exception of Chief Justice Rehnquist (who was markedly less inclined to strike down legislation), Kerr reports that all of the Justices voted to strike down legislation between 57 and 67 times.
What is interesting is that the "conservatives" were far more likely to strike down federal laws while the "liberals" were more likely to strike down state laws. This is what you'd expect but it tends to illustrate that the debate around "judicial activism" is not really about striking down legislation. That certainly is part of it but how many times and under what circumstances legislation is struck down is going to depend on what legislatures do. Professor Ringhand's numbers, while not, I suppose, unexpected or an entirely new revelation, prompt us to think more about the underlying philosophies in the activism/restraint debate.
What is interesting is that the "conservatives" were far more likely to strike down federal laws while the "liberals" were more likely to strike down state laws. This is what you'd expect but it tends to illustrate that the debate around "judicial activism" is not really about striking down legislation. That certainly is part of it but how many times and under what circumstances legislation is struck down is going to depend on what legislatures do. Professor Ringhand's numbers, while not, I suppose, unexpected or an entirely new revelation, prompt us to think more about the underlying philosophies in the activism/restraint debate.
Bumble On
State Bar President Tom Basting has apparently decided that he wants to push the train wreck that is the Wisconsin Judicial Campaign Integrity Committee down the track. A press release notes that Michael Gableman has signed his own "clean campaign" pledge. The WJIC, although it claims not to know what the Gableman pledge says (wouldn't a few mouse clicks have remedied that?), promises to hold him to it.
Of course, the self assumed mantle of arbiter of campaign etiquette (enhanced by the imprimatur of a state bar that apparently never authorized Basting's project)was precisely the reason not to sign WJCIC's campaign pledge. This group has no more authority or status than anyone else who might choose to comment on the supreme court race. After last week's e-mail fiasco, it has a lot less credibility
The press release also calls on Gableman to join Justice Butler in renouncing third party advertising. Perhaps he will, but it is, at best, easy virtue. These third parties have reasons of their own to speak on the race and they are not going to stop.
And is it even virtue? Do I want my candidates for Supreme Court to renounce the exercise of first amendment rights?
Of course, the self assumed mantle of arbiter of campaign etiquette (enhanced by the imprimatur of a state bar that apparently never authorized Basting's project)was precisely the reason not to sign WJCIC's campaign pledge. This group has no more authority or status than anyone else who might choose to comment on the supreme court race. After last week's e-mail fiasco, it has a lot less credibility
The press release also calls on Gableman to join Justice Butler in renouncing third party advertising. Perhaps he will, but it is, at best, easy virtue. These third parties have reasons of their own to speak on the race and they are not going to stop.
And is it even virtue? Do I want my candidates for Supreme Court to renounce the exercise of first amendment rights?
Sunday, February 24, 2008
More Sunday boomer indulgence
When I was 8 or so, the first band that I really liked was the Animals. I still have the group's first US album with my drawings on the back. The Animals that I liked - basically a very spare British blues band that more or less covered traditional numbers by people - were mostly over by the end of 1965. The band reshuffled and veered off into psychedelic rock which they did not do well.
But for your Sunday edification, I am offering a version of "Tobacco Road" performed by a later iteration of the group captures much of what I liked (and still like) about the early Animals, although it's a bit tarted up. I pick Tobacco Road because this is, after all, a conservative political blog.
As today's bonus, I can't help buy offer this version of the Animals' ur-hit, House of the Rising Sun, marred a bit by the insertion of annoying karaoke prompts. If you don't know this song, you aren't entitled to sing it.
But for your Sunday edification, I am offering a version of "Tobacco Road" performed by a later iteration of the group captures much of what I liked (and still like) about the early Animals, although it's a bit tarted up. I pick Tobacco Road because this is, after all, a conservative political blog.
As today's bonus, I can't help buy offer this version of the Animals' ur-hit, House of the Rising Sun, marred a bit by the insertion of annoying karaoke prompts. If you don't know this song, you aren't entitled to sing it.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Who's swifting who?
Blogger Illusory Tenant* wants us to know that Mike McCabe thinks that the Supreme Court race must be headed between the "low road and the gutter." In that, McCabe is just part of the drumbeat. The usual position is that this is WMC's fault although the only attack ad so far has been put out by the Greater Wisconsin Committee.
But McCabe finds ominous portents in the fact that the Federalist Society has hired a Washington media firm, CRC, to publicize its state court educational project. CRC is setting up media interviews for a group of lawyers who wrote an op-ed critical of the WJCIC. (Full disclosure: CRC facilitated an interview of me on Vickie McKenna's show in Madison yesterday.)CRC was retained by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and , I guess, they were bad and so CRC is bad and so all of CRC's clients are bad. It's a law of mathematics or something. These lawyers are, McCabe says, going to talk up Michael Gableman.
But he is wrong on all counts. These lawyers are not going to comment on the relative merits of the candidates and they are, in my experience, a rather bright and high minded bunch who are concerned about free and open discourse in judicial campaigns. IT or McCabe can disagree with them, but they won't find them in the gutter or on the low road.
*In the original version of this post, I responded to a paragraph that I assumed was written by blogger Illusory Tenant. He was actually reproducing a post written by Mike McCabe at the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. I initially corrected it in a way that suggested that IT may be adopting what McCabe said. Since he has made clear that he does not want to own McCabe's statement, I have, with apologies, revised my post once again. We ought to be the master of our own thoughts and, if he says that he doesn't buy into McCain's innuendo, I'll respect that. My point in posting was not to attack anyone but to defend some people who I hold in high regard. So I will, humbly, try again.
But McCabe finds ominous portents in the fact that the Federalist Society has hired a Washington media firm, CRC, to publicize its state court educational project. CRC is setting up media interviews for a group of lawyers who wrote an op-ed critical of the WJCIC. (Full disclosure: CRC facilitated an interview of me on Vickie McKenna's show in Madison yesterday.)CRC was retained by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and , I guess, they were bad and so CRC is bad and so all of CRC's clients are bad. It's a law of mathematics or something. These lawyers are, McCabe says, going to talk up Michael Gableman.
But he is wrong on all counts. These lawyers are not going to comment on the relative merits of the candidates and they are, in my experience, a rather bright and high minded bunch who are concerned about free and open discourse in judicial campaigns. IT or McCabe can disagree with them, but they won't find them in the gutter or on the low road.
*In the original version of this post, I responded to a paragraph that I assumed was written by blogger Illusory Tenant. He was actually reproducing a post written by Mike McCabe at the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. I initially corrected it in a way that suggested that IT may be adopting what McCabe said. Since he has made clear that he does not want to own McCabe's statement, I have, with apologies, revised my post once again. We ought to be the master of our own thoughts and, if he says that he doesn't buy into McCain's innuendo, I'll respect that. My point in posting was not to attack anyone but to defend some people who I hold in high regard. So I will, humbly, try again.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Speech police or keystone cops?
Yesterday, the Club for Growth released the fruits of an open records record request that netted it at least some of the e-mail communications among members of the Wisconsin Judicial Campaign Integrity Committee.
Apparently, the video of an interview that I did with Jim Pugh of WMC came to the committee's attention. They decided not to take any "action" because they thought it was "debatable fair commentary" and that we'd be fortunate if election comentary remained "on the high plane of Prof. Esenberg's video." But the issue did prompt committe member Bill Kraus (who agrees that there is no action required by the committee) to suggest how the video (which he refers to as part of "the enemies tactics") is an opportunity for the Butler campaign to respond to my "oversimplifications." Another committee member Dennis Dresang agrees and says that Kraus' "suggestion" was well stated.
I understand that he may say that he is just expressing his personal views, but it certainly creates the impression of bias and seems to be one of the themes that emerges from the e-mails. Kraus is blatantly partisan.
But there is a more serious problem. Kraus' partisanship seems to have infected the committee's response to only complaint that it has acted upon.
In response to One Wisconsin Now's complaint about a Gableman mailing criticizing some criminal law cases, Judge Deininger points out that there is nothing in the mailing that "crosses any boundaries" and that what the Gableman literature said was consititutionally protected. He suggests that the complaint is an attempt on the part of one side to enlist the committee in its cause and warns the group that its response will, for that reason, have an impact on what will happen in the future.
The other members don't seem to have heeded that caution. Kraus immediately ignores the fact that the Gableman literature was constitutionally protected, announcing that he prefers candidates who say what they will do or who they are. He wants the committee to create a bright line. Other committee members agree. They should "draw a line in the sand" and "fire a shot across the bow" by issuing a mild rebuke. And that's what they did.
Now keep in mind that this is not just a group of citizens. This is a project of the State Bar to which every lawyer in the state who wishes to be licensed to practice must belong and support. It is, under applicable law, an arm of the state.
And so it issues a statement invoking all of that authority to rebuke a statement that it acknowledges is constitutionally protected speech and does not violate the Judicial Code because it would "prefer" that the candidate say something else.
That the committee wants to impose its own rules on the process is bad enough, but the rule that Kraus, at least, wants to impose is not even handed. You don't beat an incumbent without criticizing him. Not only was the committee's "mild rebuke" illegitimate, it was not evenhanded.
This reflects why the whole project was misconceived from the outset. The committee's belief that it can impartially police the campaign in a way that transforms campaign discourse and respects the constitution is self delusion. They are a cure that is worse than the disease. They ought to disband.
Apparently, the video of an interview that I did with Jim Pugh of WMC came to the committee's attention. They decided not to take any "action" because they thought it was "debatable fair commentary" and that we'd be fortunate if election comentary remained "on the high plane of Prof. Esenberg's video." But the issue did prompt committe member Bill Kraus (who agrees that there is no action required by the committee) to suggest how the video (which he refers to as part of "the enemies tactics") is an opportunity for the Butler campaign to respond to my "oversimplifications." Another committee member Dennis Dresang agrees and says that Kraus' "suggestion" was well stated.
I understand that he may say that he is just expressing his personal views, but it certainly creates the impression of bias and seems to be one of the themes that emerges from the e-mails. Kraus is blatantly partisan.
But there is a more serious problem. Kraus' partisanship seems to have infected the committee's response to only complaint that it has acted upon.
In response to One Wisconsin Now's complaint about a Gableman mailing criticizing some criminal law cases, Judge Deininger points out that there is nothing in the mailing that "crosses any boundaries" and that what the Gableman literature said was consititutionally protected. He suggests that the complaint is an attempt on the part of one side to enlist the committee in its cause and warns the group that its response will, for that reason, have an impact on what will happen in the future.
The other members don't seem to have heeded that caution. Kraus immediately ignores the fact that the Gableman literature was constitutionally protected, announcing that he prefers candidates who say what they will do or who they are. He wants the committee to create a bright line. Other committee members agree. They should "draw a line in the sand" and "fire a shot across the bow" by issuing a mild rebuke. And that's what they did.
Now keep in mind that this is not just a group of citizens. This is a project of the State Bar to which every lawyer in the state who wishes to be licensed to practice must belong and support. It is, under applicable law, an arm of the state.
And so it issues a statement invoking all of that authority to rebuke a statement that it acknowledges is constitutionally protected speech and does not violate the Judicial Code because it would "prefer" that the candidate say something else.
That the committee wants to impose its own rules on the process is bad enough, but the rule that Kraus, at least, wants to impose is not even handed. You don't beat an incumbent without criticizing him. Not only was the committee's "mild rebuke" illegitimate, it was not evenhanded.
This reflects why the whole project was misconceived from the outset. The committee's belief that it can impartially police the campaign in a way that transforms campaign discourse and respects the constitution is self delusion. They are a cure that is worse than the disease. They ought to disband.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
More than a gaffe?
Some of my readers just can't understand why I would suggest that Obama's supporters, and maybe even the Obamas, have a rather elevated view of their own importance and seem to be suffering from an extended bout of political tachycardia.
Good liberals like Paul Krugman, Sean Wilentz and Doris Kearns Goodwin have noticed the same thing, but maybe they are also victims of the vast right wing propaganda machine. That machine couldn't put a pebble in John McCain's path but it somehow has - and continues to - distort our national political disccourse.
The evil geniuses have apparently gotten to Michelle Obama who announced that, for the first time in her adult life, she is proud of her country because hope is making a comeback.
It's hard to know where to start with a statement like this. As politics, it is a breathtaking gaffe. For a Harvard educated lawyer married to another, it suggests either a certain elitism ("hope" exists only for people like us) or a petulant lack of gratitude.
But most importantly, it reflects an overwrought sense of self importance. Michelle Obama apparently thinks that her husband reflects a resurgence of hope so unique and powerful that she can only now be proud of a country that has fought an bloody internal war to end slavery, ended two holocausts in Europe in which it had no direct stake, faced down global communist totalitarianism, underwent a civil rights revolution (from which she and her husband, deservedly, have spectacularly benefited), created a prosperity unheard of in human history and that has served, along with - really less than a handful of - other western nations England and sometime France) as a beacon for ideals of equality and liberty (even if we have not always managed to live into then.)
I understand that she made a mistake. But what concerns me is why she made this mistake. Maybe it was just the understandable enthusiasm of the campaign. But it reflects, at best, a stunning lack of self awareness and, at worst, a campaign that believes its own myth.
Good liberals like Paul Krugman, Sean Wilentz and Doris Kearns Goodwin have noticed the same thing, but maybe they are also victims of the vast right wing propaganda machine. That machine couldn't put a pebble in John McCain's path but it somehow has - and continues to - distort our national political disccourse.
The evil geniuses have apparently gotten to Michelle Obama who announced that, for the first time in her adult life, she is proud of her country because hope is making a comeback.
It's hard to know where to start with a statement like this. As politics, it is a breathtaking gaffe. For a Harvard educated lawyer married to another, it suggests either a certain elitism ("hope" exists only for people like us) or a petulant lack of gratitude.
But most importantly, it reflects an overwrought sense of self importance. Michelle Obama apparently thinks that her husband reflects a resurgence of hope so unique and powerful that she can only now be proud of a country that has fought an bloody internal war to end slavery, ended two holocausts in Europe in which it had no direct stake, faced down global communist totalitarianism, underwent a civil rights revolution (from which she and her husband, deservedly, have spectacularly benefited), created a prosperity unheard of in human history and that has served, along with - really less than a handful of - other western nations England and sometime France) as a beacon for ideals of equality and liberty (even if we have not always managed to live into then.)
I understand that she made a mistake. But what concerns me is why she made this mistake. Maybe it was just the understandable enthusiasm of the campaign. But it reflects, at best, a stunning lack of self awareness and, at worst, a campaign that believes its own myth.
Monday, February 18, 2008
More thoughts on Obama
There seems to be a lot of interest in talking about Obama. Here at S-squared, a series of posts last week attracted a fair amount of traffic and comments.
I think there are actually two issues here. The first has to do with the particular message that Obama is advancing. While that message (as opposed to what you could find in position papers) was a bit obscure at first, I think the campaign has moved to harden it and it is a fairly unreconstructed economic populism and protectionism.
While the rhetoric does not match Obama's particular policy proposals (which, while certainly expensive, seem more modest than his claims for global and generational change suggest), the message seems to at least imply that we are all suffering and it is the fault of a few.
This message is, in my view, false and informed by bad economics. It is demagogic and points toward some dangerous policies. But I know that others disagree and, to the extent that Obama can argue eloquently for their view of the world, he is like Reagan. But there's more.
The message is not unrelated to the messianic tendencies of Obama's campaign because it promises a degree of deliverance from the state that it cannot possibly deliver and that can, if attempted, cause more harm than good. But there's more.
The excitement over Obama seems to outstrip his particular policy positions and, for many, doesn't seemed tied to any particular view of the world but to the atmospherics surrounding his campaign. Obama has done a good job of capitalizing on the understandable enthusiasm of African Americans (and not a few whites) for a black presidential candidate (it's another post but I don't intend this as a criticism) and the weakness of young voters (in most places and at most times) for millenial politics.
This has resulted in the trope that Obama represents something new that transcends old politics. In the comments to my earlier posts, some tried to argue that Obama is somehow changing how we do politics but, for the life of me, I can't see how that is supposed to be so. The message is not new and it's not unifying. If you like the message, I can understand your enthusiasm for the "new" world you believe it will usher in, but what you are excited about is victory in the old political battles, not their transcendence. That you want people to be excited and "believe in" government is not particularly distinctive.
The enthusiam that has, so far, masked this is not simply "popularity." It threatens to give allegiance to a political candidate and cause a degree of intensity that it is out of order with what candidates and politics can deliver. It gives the candidate the role of a Messiah and the campaign the aspects of a Crusade. If that doesn't make you uncomfortable, then we are not simply on different pages, we are reading different books.
(NB: Of course, we have these dangers on the right. Folks on the left have rightly criticized some of my conservative brothers and sisters for conflating support for every aspect of the War on Terror with patriotism. )
I think there are actually two issues here. The first has to do with the particular message that Obama is advancing. While that message (as opposed to what you could find in position papers) was a bit obscure at first, I think the campaign has moved to harden it and it is a fairly unreconstructed economic populism and protectionism.
While the rhetoric does not match Obama's particular policy proposals (which, while certainly expensive, seem more modest than his claims for global and generational change suggest), the message seems to at least imply that we are all suffering and it is the fault of a few.
This message is, in my view, false and informed by bad economics. It is demagogic and points toward some dangerous policies. But I know that others disagree and, to the extent that Obama can argue eloquently for their view of the world, he is like Reagan. But there's more.
The message is not unrelated to the messianic tendencies of Obama's campaign because it promises a degree of deliverance from the state that it cannot possibly deliver and that can, if attempted, cause more harm than good. But there's more.
The excitement over Obama seems to outstrip his particular policy positions and, for many, doesn't seemed tied to any particular view of the world but to the atmospherics surrounding his campaign. Obama has done a good job of capitalizing on the understandable enthusiasm of African Americans (and not a few whites) for a black presidential candidate (it's another post but I don't intend this as a criticism) and the weakness of young voters (in most places and at most times) for millenial politics.
This has resulted in the trope that Obama represents something new that transcends old politics. In the comments to my earlier posts, some tried to argue that Obama is somehow changing how we do politics but, for the life of me, I can't see how that is supposed to be so. The message is not new and it's not unifying. If you like the message, I can understand your enthusiasm for the "new" world you believe it will usher in, but what you are excited about is victory in the old political battles, not their transcendence. That you want people to be excited and "believe in" government is not particularly distinctive.
The enthusiam that has, so far, masked this is not simply "popularity." It threatens to give allegiance to a political candidate and cause a degree of intensity that it is out of order with what candidates and politics can deliver. It gives the candidate the role of a Messiah and the campaign the aspects of a Crusade. If that doesn't make you uncomfortable, then we are not simply on different pages, we are reading different books.
(NB: Of course, we have these dangers on the right. Folks on the left have rightly criticized some of my conservative brothers and sisters for conflating support for every aspect of the War on Terror with patriotism. )
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Paleo-rock Sunday
Today's old rockers: Ten Years After, an English blues band fronted by Alvin Lee who was said to have - and perhaps still has - the fastest fingers in the west. This performance of "Goin' Home" was at Woodstock.
Ten Years After also recorded what may be, even if it was not so intended, the greatest conservative rock song of all time, "I'd Love to Change the World." The band never performed the song live, although here is a recent version by a reconstituted Ten Years After without Alvin Lee. Not quite the original, but not bad.
Ten Years After also recorded what may be, even if it was not so intended, the greatest conservative rock song of all time, "I'd Love to Change the World." The band never performed the song live, although here is a recent version by a reconstituted Ten Years After without Alvin Lee. Not quite the original, but not bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)