The Right and the Left are Both Wrong
Elizabeth Bumiller and David Kirkpatrick, writing for the Old Grey Lady, have produced a piece that chronicles the sad, sad state of affairs on both the right and the left as President Bush mulls over his choice to replace Sandy O’Connor.
As Official Washington Takes a Holiday, Combatants on Both Sides Carry On
Ralph Neas and the People for the American Way are preparing to run a predictably laughable ad, excerpted below; can you catch the irony?
Mr. Neas said People for the American Way would begin televising an advertisement this week as part of what he described as the “preselection message campaign” aimed at senators, the public, the media and, he said, Mr. Bush.
“Our founding fathers gave justices lifetime appointments to free them from partisan politics,” the narrator says in that advertisement. “Now the question is, Will President Bush follow history, choosing a judge who protects our fundamental rights and freedoms? Or will he divide the country, trying to force through a judge who threatens our basic rights as Americans?”
Further, He declared that his group was not “looking for a fight” with Mr. Bush. But, referring to Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, he also said, “I’m sure that if he one more time chooses confrontation over collaboration and, say, if he replaces a mainstream conservative like Sandra Day O’Connor with someone like Thomas or Scalia, a right-wing ideologue, that would mean a constitutional crisis.”
So much for keeping the process “free from partisan politics”, and therewith the “People for the American Way” keep intact their perfect record of being utterly clueless what the “American Way” entails…
The right isn’t doing one whit better in keeping the process de-politicized:
Many prominent conservatives are using contacts with the White House to press against a nomination of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, a presidential confidant frequently mentioned as a Supreme Court contender. Conservatives, who suspect that Mr. Gonzales is not strongly opposed to abortion, are reluctant to criticize him directly because he is a friend of Mr. Bush. Instead, many are arguing that his current work as attorney general would force him to recuse himself from important cases involving the federal government.
Others are taking a blunter approach. Adam McManus, a San Antonio radio host who says his program reaches 50,000 listeners, has been urging them to call the president about Mr. Gonzales.
“The values votes - conservative Christians in particular - were the ones who brought George W. Bush to the presidential dance, and he needs to remain loyal to his conservative base,” Mr. McManus said in an interview. “Now is the time to strike while the iron is hot, to e-mail him, to call him, to write letters. We need to, by the thousands, let him know that he needs to do right by his commitment to protect the lives of unborn babies.”
Will someone tell the truth? Does anyone, anyone at all, understand the issues, that it’s not about making sure the justice supports one political position or another? It’s about how a prospective justice views the Constitution; that’s exactly all it’s supposed to be about; give me a pro-choice constructionist over a pro-life activist any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. It’s about the law, folks…and we cannot afford any more justices, like Sandy O’Connor, who don’t really believe that the Constitution is the law of the land…
Marco Polo Didn't Go There: Stories and Revelations from One Decade as a Postmodern Travel Writer (Travelers' Tales Guides)
Younger Evangelicals, The: Facing the Challenges of the New World
Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences
This phrase comes from the 1978 "Jonestown massacre" in which most members of the Peoples Temple cult, blindly following their leader Jim Jones, committed suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.
Osborne: A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God
Schlossberg: Idols For Destruction
3 Responses to “The Right and the Left are Both Wrong”
Well said, sir. Well said.
Hefe ~ Jul 5, 2005 at 10:52 am
But it is about politics, which is precisely why you want a constructionist.
jpe ~ Jul 7, 2005 at 10:29 am
Well, yes and no. Of course we need a constructionist, but if it is political TERMS that are being used—and political thinking that is being employed—then we need a “conservative”. My point is that there is a problem with the politicization of the process, that it should not BE about politics—though you’re right, in the current climate, it IS. I believe, though, that when we allow it to be “about politics”, then we simply get into shouting matches and power games.
If, on the other hand, we elevate principle above politics, consistently saying to folks, “the liberals (yes, I realize that’s a “political” term) are mangling the whole idea of our democratic republic in their politicization of the judiciary”, then we assist the process (which would certainly be aided BY having constructionists on the court!) of returning America to some semblance of the nation that it was intended to be. If, on the other hand, we settle for political power ploys, then even though we are right on the end point, we’ve employed an invalid means, and have abrogated principle, making it that much harder to employ principle to the next issue we face.
It IS about politics, but it cannot BE—and that is the point that we need to make.
Byron ~ Jul 7, 2005 at 10:41 am