South Dakota Politics

In Praise of Contemporary Politics

Professor Schaff blogs incitefully below about the contemporary decline of political rhetoric, and the deviseness that causes it.  Michael Barone has a rather cheery interpretation of the same phenomenon in Real Clear Politics, one with which I agree.  He begins by acknowledging that contemporary politics looks pretty ugly.

It is not a pretty season in our politics. Both our major parties seem to be busy disqualifying themselves. The Republicans are desperately trying to avoid getting caught up in the scandal of the disgraced and disgustingly greedy lobbyist Jack Abramoff (his clients contributed to Democrats as well as Republicans, they are quick to assert). The Democrats are fortifying their reputation for being unwilling to defend their country from its violent enemies, by attacking George W. Bush for ordering National Security Agency electronic surveillance of calls from al-Qaida suspects and by filibustering reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

But he refers us to Judge Richard Posner's book Law, Pragmatism and Democracy, which treats the subject with some perspective. 

"American democracy," writes Posner, "enables the adult population,  at very little cost in time, money or distraction from private  pursuits commercial or otherwise, to punish at least the flagrant mistakes and misfeasances of officialdom, to assure an orderly succession of at least minimally competent officials, to generate feedback to the officials concerning the consequences of their policies, to prevent officials from (or punish them for) entirely ignoring the interests of the governed, and to prevent serious misalignments between government action and public opinion."                

All of which is a little too astringent to me. I prefer the uplift of Jefferson and Lincoln, the Roosevelts and Ronald Reagan (who appointed Posner to the bench). I note that voter turnout rose 16 percent from 2000 to 2004 and Bush's popular vote rose 23 percent: Our polarized politics has increased participation, though not in the way most of the academy and mainstream media would prefer.

Well, there you have it.  If you want to increase voter turnout, ratchet up the passion on both sides.  File that one under 'be careful what you wish for.'  And then read Barone's last paragraph.  Its about as good as everyday political rhetoric gets.  It rises to the level of political philosophy.

A city on a hill is, after all, a city -- and cities are messy places. As are suburbs and farmlands. Americans are busy striving and risking their lives and making the world better, as they have for 60-plus years. There have been few if any pretty seasons in our politics over those years: Go back, and try to find them. Yet the result, pace Posner, is better than what Rome achieved. We'll get through this season, too.

 

Anti-Americanism Fades in Canada II

From the Washington Post:

BURLINGTON, Canada -- Rob Hlohinec, 58, doesn't see what's so bad about Americans. He even admits to knowing some.

"I've talked to Americans. They want the same things we want," Hlohinec said as he watched a Conservative Party campaign rally in this Ontario town last week.

At his side, Irene Heller, 82, agreed. She said that was one reason she would vote to replace the government headed by the Liberal Party's Paul Martin in Canadian national elections on Monday. Martin, she said, uses anti-Americanism to try to win votes.

"He gets votes when he knocks America, and I don't approve of that," said Heller, who braved a sleet storm to attend the rally.

The Liberal Party won by the skin of its teeth last time by playing on Anti-Americanism.  This time it isn't flying. 

The Conservative Party's lead in the polls hovers at about 10 percentage points, putting the party in position to lead a coalition government that would probably be more in tune with the Bush administration.

The Liberal Party's attack on Harper's American sympathies was mostly political posturing; Martin himself has sought good relations with the United States. But his party has a mixed history on the issue. The prime minister had to expel one member of Parliament who stomped on a Bush doll on television, and a spokeswoman for his Liberal Party predecessor, Jean Chretien, referred to the American president as a "moron."

The Liberals were resorting to a campaign tactic that had worked before; they successfully erased Harper's lead in the polls in the last election, in 2004, by painting him as too pro-American. But this time, some Canadians say they feel the anti-Americanism has gone too far.

"You would think that issue would be more fertile ground because there has been an erosion" in the relationship between Canadians and Americans since the last election, said Frank Graves, president of Ekos, an Ottawa polling company. "Both countries look at each other with less regard than before."

But surprisingly, Graves said, "the America card doesn't seem to have had much traction this time."

"We think it's wrong. We're not against Americans," said Linda Armstrong, 60, who attended the Burlington rally with her husband, Mike, 61, like her a retired schoolteacher.

Sibby

Sibby is taking on Kranz and the Argus:

Again we have Dave Kranz writing an Op-ed attacking John Thune that involves Judge Larry Piersol, but fails to disclose the longtime friendship of Piersol and Tom Daschle:

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid teed off on a number of Republican colleagues last week in a memo, saying they were trying to "provide cover from their culture of corruption."

Reid likened Republicans reforming themselves to asking John Gotti to clean up organized crime.

But a day later, Reid did an about-face on his harsh memo that included Sen. John Thune.

The Washington Post reported that he sent a letter to the Republicans and apologized for his remarks.

In reference to Thune, Reid mentioned legal maneuverings by the Daschle campaign against the Thune campaign. They charged that Republican poll workers in Lake Andes were intimidating Native American voters.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Piersol ruled that Republicans could not write down license plate numbers or follow Native Americans from polling places on Election Day.

...

What Kranz refused to provide his readers was the facts that show the scandal Reid used was not John Thune’s, but actually was on the part of Tom Daschle who abused the power of his longtime friend in a desperate attempt to win re-election. And Tom Daschle must of known that he could depend on Piersol, based on what he said at the American Trial Lawyers Association convention on July 20, 2003:

In 1978, I won my first election to the House by 14 votes. Don’t laugh, in South Dakota, that’s 60 percent of the vote. Apparently undaunted by that landslide of support, my opponent sued to contest the election. I was fortunate to be represented by a great lawyer and a dear friend, Larry Piersol.

And know you know the rest of the story. The part that the Argus Leader refuses to print.

Check out the whole thing.

Herseth

Joel Rosenthal of South Dakota Straight Talk doesn't think much of Stephanie Herseth:

Representative Herseth appears not to have a grounded political philosophy that she acts on. She is beginning to remind me of the young Larry Pressler. It is almost like she is taking her plays right out of his game book. Senator Pressler also did not seem to have an overriding political philosophy. In his early Congressional career (until about 1984) it was hard to understand where he was coming from. He was an unreliable vote for the party position and Congressional Quarterly (CQ) ranked him the lowest Republican Senator in his support of President Ronald Reagan. Herseth and Pressler also seem to share the same modus operandi in embracing coalitions with support by throwing lots of our cash at them and share an affinity for taking of photographs with constituents at every possible opportunity and never missing a photo or media opportunity.

Novak on the Filibuster

Robert Novak briefly mentions the potential filibuster of Alito without offering much insight.  While liberal organizations who oppose Alito may prefer a filibuster, Alito said nothing during his confirmation hearings that suggest he is the sort of "extremist" judge worthy of a filibuster in the eyes of the general public.  I think these public perceptions of Alito will be enough to overcome any pressure top Democrats are feeling from liberal activists to filibuster his nomination. 

Pressure from liberal activists to oppose confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court has been so intense that Democratic senators may be trapped into a filibuster that they do not want to wage.

Despite the consensus that Alito performed well in his confirmation hearings, leaders of liberal organizations opposing him -- Ralph Neas, Nan Aron and Wade Henderson -- demand that Democrats vote against him. Consequently, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska is the only Democrat at this writing who has announced in Alito's favor.

That means the number of senators voting "no" will be well over the 41 needed to prevent cloture. Pressure groups then could ask why no filibuster had been launched. But Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid may not want to risk causing Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist to set a precedent by using the "nuclear" option: to end a filibuster by simple majority vote.

RMN

Jim Sheeler of the Rocky Mountain News has a story entitled "Wake for an Indian Warrior: Oglala Sioux bestow a lasting tribute - a name - to first tribal fatality in Iraq."  Excerpt:

Since arriving at the home of Cpl. [Brett] Lundstrom's mother in nearby Black Hawk to inform her of her son's death, Marines from Buckley Air Force Base in Aurora had spent two days helping with plans for a nonstop, 42-hour wake on the reservation - the beginning of nearly five full days of traditional honors.

As the procession advanced, residents poured from their homes. The hearse passed families sitting on the hoods of their cars, their children wrapped in colorful blankets. One couple stood at the side of the road, their heads bowed. A boy on horseback watched with his dog near a barbed-wire fence. A man in a rusty pickup stared from atop a grassy hill.

The procession continued to grow as cars from the side of the road pulled in, stretching the line for more than five miles.

On their car radios, the tribute continued.

"We mourn, but honor the warriors who have given of their lives in the field of battle. We embrace their spirit, for they are our very breath of life.

"Great Spirit, we ask of you to receive our warriors."

Check out the whole thing.  Has this been covered in any of our local papers?

Munson and the Argus Leader

Well, now that the Governor is somewhat off the hook, the Argus is shifting it's hysterical attacks back to Mayor Dave Munson. They've got an article in Sunday's edition of the paper, which you can check out here

Europe's Money Votes with its Feet

Powerline notes this piece from the British Telegraph:

Europe's most successful companies are turning their backs on EU markets because of red tape, a high-level report said yesterday.

The companies that Europe needed to survive were instead investing more money than ever in the United States and Asia, concluded the report, presented to the European Commission in Brussels.

The lack of investment was so dire that it threatened Europe's "comfortable" way of life. "Europe has to act before it's too late," said the report's author, Esko Aho, the former prime minister of Finland.

The findings made unsettling reading for the EU leaders, ripping into their pledges to build a "knowledge-based Europe" that would overtake America in 10 years.

The reality was the opposite. Not only were US, Chinese and Japanese firms outspending Europe on research and development, the gap with Europe was growing.

Perhaps most damagingly, Europe's most important countries were pouring more and more of their technology investment overseas, as they despaired of the European Union becoming "innovation friendly".

Unless EU governments took bold action to increase spending on research, freed labour markets so skilled workers could move more easily, and stopped pouring taxpayers' money into dying industries, Europe's post-war way of life was doomed.

Bork's Last Laugh

I do not often agree with Cass Sustein, but he gets this at least half right.  From the New Republic, hat tip to Real Clear Politics:

Is Robert Bork having the last laugh? There is good reason to think so. Over the last months, the nation has witnessed something genuinely new--a kind of un-Borking of the confirmation process, produced by exceptionally shrewd leaders in the Republican Party.

I am not accustomed to praising Republican leadership.  I think it was my Dad who told me that "the difference between the two parties is simple: the Democrats are stupid; the Republicans are just plain dumb."  That certainly seems to me to accurately describe the Republican leadership during much of the last decades.  But not on judicial confirmation politics. 

When Bork was rejected by the Senate in 1987, it was because his opponents successfully portrayed him as holding extreme views that would endanger civil rights and liberties. It is true that Bork was the victim of an effective (and unfair) public relations campaign, featuring an influential attack ad narrated by Gregory Peck. But Bork also lost the battle of ideas. He argued that the Constitution should be interpreted to mean what it meant when it was originally ratified. Repudiating the modern right to privacy, Bork insisted that his own approach, based on the document's "original meaning," was neutral--not at all political, but a simple matter of fidelity to law. Spurred by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Senate rejected that claim, concluding in the process that Bork's approach to the Constitution was unacceptable.  Republican politicians learned their lesson well, and subsequent Republican appointees pointedly failed to endorse Bork's approach.

Sustein sees the Roberts and Alito hearings as signs that a conservative approach to the Constitution is suddenly triumphant. 

Significantly, however, John Roberts did not follow the script set by his Republican predecessors. His overall message was much simpler: He would follow the law. At the same time, he announced, "I do not have an overarching judicial philosophy that I bring to every case." He explained, "I tend to look at the cases from the bottom up rather than the top down."

Samuel Alito largely followed Roberts's script, but at key points he was much more specific. Asked about his general approach, he said, "I think we should look to the text of the Constitution, and we should look to the meaning that someone would have taken from the text of the Constitution at the time of its adoption." He also said that "it is the job of a judge, the job of a Supreme Court justice, to interpret the Constitution, not distort the Constitution, not add to the Constitution or subtract from the Constitution." 

Although Alito offered various qualifications, this is Bork's view in a nutshell. . . .  [T]he most important point is the development of a new script for confirmation--one that emphasizes fidelity to law, an idea that might well include favorable references to Bork's approach to the Constitution.

This is a fundamental change, one that signals a huge victory by Republican politicians. To a remarkable extent, Republican leaders have convinced the nation that their goal is to ensure that judges follow the Constitution--and that Democratic politicians want judges to "add to the Constitution or subtract from the Constitution."

There is something to this.  Democrats insistence on the value of precedent, motivated by their desire to preserve the achievements of judicial activism, seem to have bound themselves to an operationally conservative view of the judiciary.  Don't do anything exciting seems to be the new rule.  But I am not at all sure about the next part.

[The confirmation] process has been successfully un-Borked. If President Bush is able to fill other vacancies on the Supreme Court, the right script is firmly in place. And if Democratic presidents are able to fill future vacancies, their nominees may well run into trouble, because it will be easy to characterize them as wanting to "add to the Constitution or subtract from the Constitution."

I think that misstates what has happened.  Its true that a more conservative approach to the Constitution has been vindicated, but that may be temporary.  What is liable to be more lasting is the idea that judges ought to be confirmed if they are highly qualified and not radicals.  I think Republicans will honor that rule when the next Democratic President sends up a name to the Senate.