When extremists on either side of the political spectrum control the debate the discourse becomes anti-intellectual. Extremists like to talk about common sense because they do not want to deal with the complexities of the real world. They find it much easier and, from a political standpoint, more effective to take a simplistic approach they can convert into mind numbing slogans people will remember. In this regard common sense has become a misnomer. Common sense is what tells us not to place our hands on a hot electric heater. Ohms Law and the other things we need to know to design or make an electric heater are not common sense. My point is that most of our endeavors require a combination of knowledge and judgment as well as common sense, and governing is no exception to this rule. We should expect everyone running for public office to know the structure of our government and how it works. We should also expect everyone running for public office to have a grasp of the issues and an understanding of the problems confronting us. It is perfectly reasonable for us to expect our legislators to know what a proposed bill will do for or to the citizens of this country.
Asking a candidate running for Congress or the Vice Presidency of the United States to name a Supreme Court decision with which that candidate disagrees is not a trick question. It is the job of the Supreme Court to decide complex and often controversial legal issues. The fact that those issues are controversial means that everyone who has given the matter any thought at all can name at least one decision they consider to be wrong. Furthermore, some of the decisions have such a strong impact on us that the names of the cases in which those decisions were rendered have become a part of our vocabulary. Yet neither Sarah Palin nor Christine O’Donnell could name a single Supreme Court decision with which they disagreed. The question posed to Ms. Palin allowed her to choose any case decided during any time in the entire history of Supreme Court. She could have at least said Dread Scott. The question posed to Ms. O’Donnell was to name a recent case. Ms. O’Donnell, however, was free to define recent. She also knew that Ms. Palin had fumbled a similar question, and because of the recent controversy over the decision in the Citizens United case she should have been prepared for a question about Supreme Court decisions.
The Supreme Court decisions a candidate will consider objectionable or desirable tell us a lot about that candidate’s political philosophy and what legislation that person will support or oppose. Given the position Ms. Palin and Ms. O’Donnell have taken on abortion they could have honestly named Roe v. Wade as a decision they find objectionable. The problem with calling the Roe v. Wade decision wrong, however, is that it will draw the ire of all the people who favor a woman’s right to choose. As candidates both women might have wanted to avoid that issue, but what about the role religion should or should not play in our public schools? Both Ms. Palin and Ms. O’Donnell have objected to what they erroneously consider to be a ban on prayer in public schools, yet neither of them named Engle v. Vitale or Murray v. Curlett as objectionable decisions. All right, I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume for the sake of argument that they were looking for a case that would not draw attention to their unpopular opinions. The perfect case to cite as objectionable if they wanted to appeal to their anti-government base without appearing too extreme would be Kelo v. City of New London, which allows local governments to use eminent domain to procure property for commercial development. Kelo was a recent decision and easy to remember because of the outrage it provoked.
Since my political philosophy is somewhat left of center I agree with the decisions in Roe v. Wade, Engle v. Vitale, and Murray v. Curlett. There is not enough time for me to name all of the decisions with which I disagree. The four fairly recent decisions that come readily come to mind are as follows:
1. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The decision rendered in this case ranks right down there with the most poorly reasoned decisions in history. Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to buy elections or politicians and it certainly does not mean the freedom to do so anonymously.
2. Bush v. Gore. This is the decision that helped George W. Bush steal the 2000 Presidential election. It was outrageously partisan and dangerous.
3. Miller v. California. In this horrific decision the Supreme Court abrogated its responsibility to interpret the first amendment to the Constitution by allowing local communities to ban any material those communities deemed pornographic.
4. Plessey v. Ferguson. This decision said segregation was constitutional under the separate but equal doctrine.
I will concede that even an educated person might not be able to name all of the decisions that person finds objectionable. I think we have all walked away from a conversation thinking about what we should have said. Sarah Palin did not have the opportunity to confirm the names of any Supreme Court decisions during her interview with Katie Couric, but an educated person still should have been able to name at least one of them. I also think Ms. O’Donnell should have been prepared for a question regarding Supreme Court decisions. Even if Ms. Palin and Ms. O’Donnell could not recall the names of the cases, they should have been able to demonstrate some knowledge of case law. For example, they should have been able to say they objected to the Warren Court’s decisions regarding the role of religion in public schools or the Rehnquist Court’s decision regarding eminent domain. The inability of either of then to do that could be cured, but the ignorance it demonstrated is just one example of why neither of them is qualified to hold a federal office. The way they yammer about common sense and almost flaunt their ignorance tells me they have to appeal to low information extremists. The sad fact is that they both lack the requisite intellectual curiosity to learn what they need to know to make informed decisions. Unfortunately, Sharon Angle, Art Robinson and the other extremists running as Republican nominees share that deficiency.
No comments:
Post a Comment