Unpropitious endorsements.
The Editors have spoken this weekend. The Washington Post endorses Sam Alito. The Globe and Mail endorses Stephen Harper and his band of ninjas.
For the record, I have no problem at all with the "centrism" of either the G&M or the WaPo. Partisan publications are all well and good, but it's been a good historical development for the West's major newspapers to stake some claim to to "objective" middle-ground of the electorates' thought (or at least of the elite, newspaper-reading electorates' thought.)
But the problem is that smart centrism is hard, especially when The Editors have to keep churning it out week after week in their editorials. And so, eventually you get lazy results like The Editors defining the "center" as whatever sounds most centrist.
Take the WaPo's endorsement of Alito. Scott Lemieux (who taught me most of what I know about the notwithstanding clause) has a good excoriation up of Fred Hiatt and co's willingness to accept Alito's mild-mannered ways and dry, meticulous opinions as proof of his commitment to "judicial restraint", as if all types of restraint are just interchangable. But the editorial's structural approach is even worse. On one side, you've got "attacks on him by Democratic senators and liberal interest groups have misrepresented his jurisprudence" (bad). On the other you've got that "Alito's record is troubling in areas" -- actually, a lot of areas if you go on to read the paragraph that follows. This too is bad. The fair-minded solution: The Editors think Alito should be confirmed but that the choice is "is harder than the case last year of now-Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr." Ba-da-boom!
Then there's the G&M endorsing the Tories 10 days early. Their reasoning is less transparently dumb; it's hard to argue with the contention that political parties in a democracy need to believe that they can win and lose power. But, again, what's their final rationale for taking comfort in the specific notion of a Tory win?:
[Harper] has shown himself to be an intelligent man and one, in this campaign at least, who has learned to master his emotions. He has gained control of a party inclined to fly off in all directions, moved it to the centre and proposed a reasonable if imperfect governing platform.
Harper sounds like a centrist! He's changed a bunch of his policy views or couched them in the non-threatening language. He doesn't flare up in public anymore. And again, the lament: "It is hard to endorse him and his party unreservedly", followed by a long list of caveats about exactly why not.
So why endorse him at all, especially in the heat of a campaign? Why not just wait and see? Let's face it: Sam Alito and Stephen Harper are a formidable tag-team. Together, they are about to move North American politics dramatically to the right. Perhaps this is an inevitable result of the Liberals having been in power so long that that can't contain their complacency, and of the Democrats losing the 2004 presidential and Congressional elections pretty solidly (though, of course, "solid" doesn't mean what it used to. It's been redefined by the 2000 result.) But however inevitable, it's a very big deal with very real consequences for North American politics and even the way we live and interact with each other and with government.
A smart centrism stops to think about that; maybe it even reserves its final judgement. It doesn't rush to accept the inevitable by locating these ascendent conservative forces squarely within "the mainstream" -- which in both cases is debatable when Americans disfavour Alito's confirmation 56% to 34% if he will vote against Roe vs. Wade, or when more than 60% of Canadians are dividing their vote among the four more liberal parties.
Mostly, though, it doesn't deliver premature blows to the other side of the "mainstream", those of us who are working and hoping to stop the conservatives from ascending.
Update: Cruising around the blogs, Peter Wrightwater at Paper Dynamite has another good take on the "style over substance" aspect of the G&M Tory endorsement.
For the record, I have no problem at all with the "centrism" of either the G&M or the WaPo. Partisan publications are all well and good, but it's been a good historical development for the West's major newspapers to stake some claim to to "objective" middle-ground of the electorates' thought (or at least of the elite, newspaper-reading electorates' thought.)
But the problem is that smart centrism is hard, especially when The Editors have to keep churning it out week after week in their editorials. And so, eventually you get lazy results like The Editors defining the "center" as whatever sounds most centrist.
Take the WaPo's endorsement of Alito. Scott Lemieux (who taught me most of what I know about the notwithstanding clause) has a good excoriation up of Fred Hiatt and co's willingness to accept Alito's mild-mannered ways and dry, meticulous opinions as proof of his commitment to "judicial restraint", as if all types of restraint are just interchangable. But the editorial's structural approach is even worse. On one side, you've got "attacks on him by Democratic senators and liberal interest groups have misrepresented his jurisprudence" (bad). On the other you've got that "Alito's record is troubling in areas" -- actually, a lot of areas if you go on to read the paragraph that follows. This too is bad. The fair-minded solution: The Editors think Alito should be confirmed but that the choice is "is harder than the case last year of now-Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr." Ba-da-boom!
Then there's the G&M endorsing the Tories 10 days early. Their reasoning is less transparently dumb; it's hard to argue with the contention that political parties in a democracy need to believe that they can win and lose power. But, again, what's their final rationale for taking comfort in the specific notion of a Tory win?:
[Harper] has shown himself to be an intelligent man and one, in this campaign at least, who has learned to master his emotions. He has gained control of a party inclined to fly off in all directions, moved it to the centre and proposed a reasonable if imperfect governing platform.
Harper sounds like a centrist! He's changed a bunch of his policy views or couched them in the non-threatening language. He doesn't flare up in public anymore. And again, the lament: "It is hard to endorse him and his party unreservedly", followed by a long list of caveats about exactly why not.
So why endorse him at all, especially in the heat of a campaign? Why not just wait and see? Let's face it: Sam Alito and Stephen Harper are a formidable tag-team. Together, they are about to move North American politics dramatically to the right. Perhaps this is an inevitable result of the Liberals having been in power so long that that can't contain their complacency, and of the Democrats losing the 2004 presidential and Congressional elections pretty solidly (though, of course, "solid" doesn't mean what it used to. It's been redefined by the 2000 result.) But however inevitable, it's a very big deal with very real consequences for North American politics and even the way we live and interact with each other and with government.
A smart centrism stops to think about that; maybe it even reserves its final judgement. It doesn't rush to accept the inevitable by locating these ascendent conservative forces squarely within "the mainstream" -- which in both cases is debatable when Americans disfavour Alito's confirmation 56% to 34% if he will vote against Roe vs. Wade, or when more than 60% of Canadians are dividing their vote among the four more liberal parties.
Mostly, though, it doesn't deliver premature blows to the other side of the "mainstream", those of us who are working and hoping to stop the conservatives from ascending.
Update: Cruising around the blogs, Peter Wrightwater at Paper Dynamite has another good take on the "style over substance" aspect of the G&M Tory endorsement.
5 Comments:
Re: WaPo on Alito. This was a surprisingly weak post. I have to admit that I was somewhat confused about what you were writing. You end the sentence "On one side" with the comment "(bad)". Then you write, soon after, "This too is bad." What are you referring to? The Post's editorial, or Alito's record? I couldn't figure out exactly what you were criticizing.
I thot the structure of the Post's editorial was fine - they outlined their ideological disagreements, explained that the basis of their decision was broader than ideology, justified that basis for a decision, and then presented their reasoning for supporting his nomination based on their reasoning. They have a commitment both to specific laws and the process by which laws are passed. In this case, while they have reason to feel uneasy about him on ideological grounds, they do not have strong enough reasons to oppose him. And in terms of their commitment to the process, i.e. Presidents' constitutionally defined perogative of appointing justices, they do not find ANY good reason to oppose him. I thought it was a reasonable and thoughtful editorial.
I disliked Scott Lemieux's piece, largely because of the tone. I am almost automatically suspicious of a post that is sarcastic and condescending, so his attitude did not score any points with me. I find the use of sarcasm and condescension lazy. He uses the term "Fox News Democrat," which is smearing the Post with no justification. The Post has a long history of taking significant risks to oppose those in power. There are also columnists and editors there who have consistently taken strong stands against Bush. Too conflate the Post with Fox News is, in my mind, a cheap shot. And then, having taken that cheap shot, to accuse the Post of not being serious is hypocritical. I watch Jon Stewart to get snide and cynical commentary, and I thoroughly enjoy it in that context. Because Lemieux's attitude rubbed me the wrong way, I am suspicious of his claims, and I just don't trust his intrepretations of either Alito's record or the law. He may be well right, but I don't trust him.
I am also skeptical of the sturm und drang surrounding judicial appointments because I have heard predictions of the sky falling from liberals since Reagan was appointing judges. And the Republic is still functioning. Judicial appointments also have a way of surprising those who appointed them. We will survive Alito.
So I am going to go with the Post on this one, and not Mr. Lemieux.
Oh John! I get tired of the screeching and sneering on a lot of blogs too, but I think you need to make an exception for Scott and the rest of them at LGM. His point is that the WaPo editors assume that Alito's erudite, dry opinions mean that he practices "judicial restraint" even though his actual opinions are pretty far right and take a pretty extreme view of Congress' ability to regulate interstate commerce (re: machine guns, the Family Medical Leave Act). Just because you write those opinions with respect for dissent doesn't make them any less extreme.
My point -- though I agree, not terribly clear re-reading it -- is that the editors contrast Alito's right wing judicial history with the unfair attacks on him by Democrats, as if these are offsetting political arguments, both things being equally bad. Then strike out the "middle ground": we should confirm him, but we shouldn't feel too good about it. This, to me, is foolish.
Nevertheless, I hadn't heard from you in a while and I'm glad you're still reading.
John--I have no idea what Watergate has to do with the way they have treated the Bush administration. Can you please cite some of the risks that the Post has undertaken to challenge the current administartion?
And I note you don't defend any of the Post's claims that I excerpted. What is the evidence that Alito is a consistent proponent of judicial restraint? How can his own banal assertions be considered evidence?
Laura-
That's so sweet that you missed me! And thanks to you and Scott for responding.
I thot both you and Scott were mistaking style for substance. Specifically, Scott writes:
"This, of course, is the obvious fallacy that because Alito writes in dry, technical terms rather than in the acerbic manner of a Scalia, he therefore must be less conservative."
But at no point did the Post say anything about Alito's writing style indicating that he is more moderate than Scalia. They made it very clear what their substantive disagreements with him were; he is too deferential to elected officials, which is highly relevant right now, he has construed civil rights laws too narrowly, etc.
At no point did the Post editorial say anything whatsoever about Alito being any kind of moderate, or in any way compare him to Scalia. They made it clear that he is a conservative, and that they disagree with him on a number of substantive issues. Others may have made the argument that Alito is a moderate, but the Post didn't in this editorial. Your argument lost validity with me because I couldn't find reference to your specific charges in the content of the editorial.
Back to Laura-
You seemed to be bothered by the Post seeming to be too balanced, as if they were giving equal weight to both perspectives in an effort to strike a middle ground ideologically. I don't think that's what they were doing. I thot they were trying to be scrupulously fair in their criticism, making it as clear as possible on what grounds they disagreed with Alito. Trying to be scrupulously fair is part of their effort to give their own arguments more credence. It's also standard practice for editorials (except the Wall Street Journal).
I also don't think they decided to endorse him out of an effort to find a middle ground, but because they have to acknowledge the rules of the game: they will expect Republicans to give the same deference to a Democratic president. Which, by the way, is a reasonable expectation: Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed 99-0.
Back to Scott:
I'd like to clarify my issue with your column. You clearly have thot about this deeply and feel passionately about it, and it seems like I would probably agree with you. So I'd like to keep reading your blog.
But you accuse the Post of being condescending to its readers. Specifically:
(Really, Hiatt's contempt for the intelligence of his readers is positively Althousian.)
Here's my issue. I read the Post all the time. I have been reading it for many years. Sometimes I disagree with the editorials and Op-Ed pieces, sometimes I don't. But I never feel like I am being condescended to, and I always feel like they are making a serious effort to examine the issues carefully and responsibly. I do not make that judgment lightly. I make that judgment from having read the WaPo for almost twenty years.
But if I follow your comment to its logical conclusion, then I must be either naive or clueless for not noticing that I am being condescended to. I have a degree in philosophy from Swarthmore and worked for anti-death penalty groups; I am neither clueless nor naive.
It feels like I have to be defensive when I am reading your blog because I take the WaPo seriously. One reason I read LWC is that I never feel that way reading Laura (the same is true of Andrew Sullivan and Josh Marshall). Your feelings about the WaPo are your own, but I'd like to read your blog without feeling like I have to have my defenses up. I'm sure you didn't intend to imply that someone like me is either clueless or naive, but that was how I read it. For me, your style distracted from your arguments, which was unfortunate, because I would have liked to have spent more time and energy listening to your arguments. And I would like to have a reason to come back to your blog.
Scott-
One more response to your questions to me. You wrote:
"Can you please cite some of the risks that the Post has undertaken to challenge the current administartion?"
The WaPo exposed the CIA's network of illegal prisons around the world. I think exposing a worldwide CIA plot is a good example of challenging the Bush Administration.
Also, the WaPo always has reporters on the ground in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Just being in those situations means that the reporters are at risk.
Post a Comment
<< Home