Libertarian Leanings

Supreme Liberal Wisdom

The American Story, a college level U.S. history textbook, devotes two of its chapters to the early progressive movement which gained force in the first decades of the twentieth century.  Based on its description of the "spirit of progressivism" you would be hard pressed to detect a difference between the early progressives and today's variety.

'Third, more than many earlier reformers, the progressives were willing to intervene in people's lives, confident that it was their right to do so.  They knew best, some of them thought, and as a result, there was an element of coercion in a number of their ideas.  Fourth, while progressives preferred if possible to use voluntary means to achieve reform, they tended to turn more and more to the authority of the state and government at all levels in order to put into effect the reforms they wanted.'  (Divine et al. 595).

The progressives movement arose in the wake of the Gilded Age which was notable for its corruption, but which was also the period when America became an industrial power.  You might say that improved standards of living brought about by industrialization enabled the progressive movement, which waged its most important battles was against conditions also brought about by industrialization. 

With mass production came a huge demand for labor.  Immigration increased dramatically.  The demand drew laborers into the cities -- to the factories for work and to the slums to live.  Life was not easy in the crowded tenements.  As people packed themselves into the cities, crime, alcoholism, prostitution, gambling and a variety of other other social ills took off.  Enter the progressives, who took it upon themselves to fix things, and they were often successful.

The progressives got a lot of good things done, like the enactment of child labor laws that put an end to the employment of children in factories.  But they were also successful getting prohibition passed, and what a disaster that turned out to be.  The common element in progressives' approach to reform was an unshakable faith in their own innate superiority. 

But there was a darker side to this, one that is unlikely to be explored in college level text books, and is hardly mentioned in The American Story. Early progressives were proponents of eugenics.  This meant that early progressives believed lesser people ought to be discouraged from having children.  Even further, they believed defective, or dysgenic people should not be permitted to have children.  This meant forced sterilization.

Among the early progressives who believed this was Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, and recently included by Time Magazineamong its 100 most important people of the 20th century.  Although Sanger's mission was to give women more control over their own lives, her efforts went somewhat beyond that.  According to Wikipedia:

In A Plan for Peace (1932), for example, Sanger proposed a congressional department to:

Keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.^[22]

And, following:

Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.^[23]

But that was 1932 and this is 2009 and the progressive movement has come such a long way since the bad old days.  Or not.  Consider a recent column by Michael Gerson which examines statements made by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a recent New York Times interview.  (My emphasis below.)

'Q: "Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid abortions for poor women?"

Justice Ginsburg: "Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae -- in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion."

Gerson cautions that Justice Ginsburg's statements must be taken in context, although he seems to be aghast that whatever the context, the media in general and the Times in particular considered it perfectly acceptable for Ginsburg to cavalierly refer to "populations that we don't want too many of." 

'Given this context, can it be argued that Ginsburg -- referring to "populations that we don't want to have too many of" -- was merely summarizing the views of others and describing the attitudes of the country when Roe v. Wade was decided? It can be argued -- but it is not bloody likely. Who, in Ginsburg's statement, is the "we"? And who, in 1973, was arguing for the eugenic purposes of abortion?

It is more likely that Ginsburg is describing the attitude of some of her own social class -- that abortion is economically important to a "woman of means" and useful in reducing the number of social undesirables. Neither judge nor journalist apparently found this attitude exceptional; there was no follow-up question.'

It's amazing to me that in this day and age we could have one Supreme Court Justice who would say something like this, but now we have another one coming along, certain to be confirmed.  Sonia Sotomayor:

'And she often said that she hoped those experiences would help her reach better judicial conclusions than someone without such a varied background might reach.

The line was almost identical every time:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."

That sentence, or a similar one, has appeared in speeches Sotomayor delivered in 1994, 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2001.'

From the Democratic side of the aisle and the left side of the political spectrum come the explanations and excuses.  Senator Pat Leahy went so far as to offer a revisionto what Sotomayor actually said.

'Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), at the opening of questioning, misquoted the nominee’s “wise Latina” statement as a means to assert that she didn’t say what she said.

“You said that, quote, you ‘would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would reach wise decisions,”’Leahy said.  Not quite, Sen. Leahy.'

In reality, it was acknowledgment by the Leahy that Sotomayor's sentiment was truly unacceptable.  Otherwise, why bother to misquote it?  I guess progressives haven't come all that far since the early days of the 20th century.  They still have an undying faith in their own superiority, convinced that a liberal philosophy is proof of a towering intellect.  Liberalism has become the English Chaplain in George Bernard Shaw's St. Joan.

'WARWICK. I am a soldier, not a churchman. As a pilgrim I saw something of the Mahometans. They were not so ill-bred as I had been led to believe. In some respects their conduct compared favorably with ours.

CAUCHON [displeased] I have noticed this before. Men go to the East to convert the infidels. And the infidels pervert them. The Crusader comes back more than half a Saracen. Not to mention that all Englishmen are born heretics.

THE CHAPLAIN. Englishmen heretics!!! [Appealing to Warwick] My lord: must we endure this? His lordship is beside himself. How can what an Englishman believes be heresy? It is a contradiction in terms.

CAUCHON. I absolve you, Messire de Stogumber, on the ground of invincible ignorance. The thick air of your country does not breed theologians.'

It is simply not possible for a progressive to be guilty of bigotry.  It is a contradiction in terms.  Lucky us!  Now we get to have two just beauties on the Supreme Court of the United States.  I'm sure they're nice people, and I have no doubt that they will do their very best to do the right thing in every case that comes before them.  But I'm not at all optimistic that their best will be particularly good.

Can anyone who is caught uttering such nonsense in candid moments really be all that bright?  Not to worry.  With the Times on the case, whatever should spew forth from the mouths of Ginsburg and Sotomayor is already brilliant.  In the world of the New York Times, progressive idiocies are transformed into Supreme Wisdom.

Work Cited

Robert A. Divine, et al, The American Story, Third Edition, New York: Longman Publishers, 2007

Supremes Overturn Sotomayor

Ruling in favor of white New Haven firefighters, the Supreme Court reversed a decision by Obama Supreme Court Nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor in Ricci v. DeStefano.  The firefighters were denied promotions when the city of New Haven threw out the results of a promotion test because no African Americans and only two Hispanics passed it.  The city of New Haven claimed it feared a lawsuit from minorities.

'The white firefighters filed suit, saying their rights had been violated under both the law and the Constitution's protections of due process.

District Judge Janet Bond Arterton dismissed their suit before it went to trial. She said in her 47-page decision that the city was justified under the law in junking the test, even if it could not explain its flaws.

The case then went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, where Sotomayor and judges Robert Sack and Rosemary S. Pooler heard the appeal. Oral arguments lasted an hour, with Sotomayor leading the questioning, as is her reputation. But instead of issuing a detailed and signed opinion, the panel said in a brief summary that, although it was "not unsympathetic" to the plight of the white firefighters, it unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision for "reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion."

Kennedy's opinion referred to the judgment of Sotomayor and the other judges only by noting the short opinion.

Kennedy said the standard for whether an employer may discard a test is whether there is a strong reason to the employer to believe that the test is flawed in a way that discriminates against minorities, not just by looking at the results.

In New Haven's case, "there is no evidence -- let alone the required strong basis in evidence -- that the tests were flawed because they were not job-related or because other, equally valid and less discriminatory tests were available to the city," Kennedy wrote.

The case has drawn considerable attention not just because of Sotomayor's role but because of the sympathetic nature of the claim brought by the firefighters, who said they were discriminated against simply because of the color of their skin.

The lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci, is a veteran firefighter who said in sworn statements that he spent thousands of dollars in preparation and studied for months for the exam. Ricci said he is dyslexic, so he had tapes made of the test materials and listened to them on his commute to work.'

And now for the bad news.  

'On the last day on the bench for retiring Justice David H. Souter, the court failed to reach a decision on one of its most important cases of the term: whether a conservative group's production of a 90-minute film on Hillary Rodham Clinton amounted to a documentary, or merely a long commercial of the type restricted by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act.

Instead, the court took the unusual action of scheduling new arguments on the case for Sept. 9, before the court's new term begins next October. The court wants new briefings on issues that could lead to the justices declaring unconstitutional that part of the act, formally called the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002.

The court's decision probably will lead Democrats to push efforts to have a vote on Sotomayor's confirmation so she can be in place before the September hearing, although it is unclear whether her replacement of Souter would affect the outcome of the case.'

So we'll have to wait until September to find out if the court will strike down the constitutional right liberals would like to have for limiting conservative speech.

The Post-Racial President

A very post-racial editorial by Shelby Steele appears in the Wall Street Journal today, in which Mr. Steele argues that in reality post-racialism is a myth,

'But of course "post-racialism" is not a real idea. It is an impression, a chimera that grows out of a very specific racial manipulation that I have called "bargaining." Here the minority makes a bargain with white society: I will not "guilt" you with America's centuries of racism if you will not hold my minority status against me. Whites love this bargain because it allows them to feel above America's racist past and, therefore, immune to charges of racism. By embracing the bargainer they embrace the impression of a world beyond racial division, a world in which whites are innocent and minorities carry no anger. This is the impression that animates bargainers like Mr. Obama or Oprah Winfrey with an irresistible charisma. Even if post-racialism is an obvious illusion -- a bargainer's trick as it were -- whites are flattered by believing in it.

But the Sotomayor nomination shows that Mr. Obama has no idea what a post-racial society would look like. In selling himself as a candidate to the American public he is a gifted bargainer beautifully turned out in post-racial impressionism. But in the real world of Supreme Court nominations, where there is a chance to actually bring some of that idealism down to earth, he chooses a hardened, divisive and race-focused veteran of the culture wars he claims to transcend.'

What's a Lefty to Think...

One thing the left does not believe in is the rule of law.  For all his talk about it, President Obama doesn't believe in it, either.  His first nomination to the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, confirms this.  Here is what she said during her 2001 Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”

It goes without saying, that if similar words were ever to come from the mouth of a white male Supreme Court nominee his rejection would take less than a heartbeat.  It wouldn't matter what life he lived.  But to the point of the Judge's statement, for legal decisions to come out differently based on ethnic background, they must be based on factors other than what the law says. 

Judge Sotomayor and Barack Obama are of the same mind on this.  Both are impatient with the law and above it.  Judge Sotomayor has said the court is one place where policy is made.  This was at a panel discussion at Duke University. 

'She made the comment in response to a question from a student on the differences between working at the federal appeals court as opposed to the district court. The New York judge said that traditionally, those interested in academia, policy, and public interest law tend to seek appeals court clerkships.

"All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made," she said. "And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [Laughter from audience] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [More laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application."'

A wink and a nod?  While denying that judges are supposed to make the law she seemed to concede that, well yes in practice that's what happens.  Which is precisely the kind of talk that will endear both Sotomayor and Obama to their lefty supporters.  It was apparently well received at Duke.  This reliance on empathy is what makes Sotomayor and Obama the right sort of people, people in whom the left can put their trust, even when they can't.

Take, for instance, when Obama campaigned for his presidency.  He did it with promises to end the war in Iraq and get the troops out of there, but once elected he backed away from the idea of a precipitous withdrawal.  He had promised an immediate end to military tribunals for trying terrorists captured in battle and signed an order to that effect.  But he has recently reinstated them.  In fact, Bush administration policies are the bulk of his strategy for fighting the War on Terror.  Here is Charles Krauthammer's take on it. 

'If hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue, then the flip-flops on previously denounced anti-terror measures are the homage that Barack Obama pays to George Bush. Within 125 days, Obama has adopted with only minor modifications huge swaths of the entire, allegedly lawless Bush program.

The latest flip-flop is the restoration of military tribunals. During the 2008 campaign, Obama denounced them repeatedly, calling them an "enormous failure." Obama suspended them upon his swearing-in. Now they're back.

Of course, Obama will never admit in word what he's doing in deed. As in his rhetorically brilliant national-security speech yesterday claiming to have undone Bush's moral travesties, the military commissions flip-flop is accompanied by the usual Obama three-step: (a) excoriate the Bush policy, (b) ostentatiously unveil cosmetic changes, (c) adopt the Bush policy.'

Still, they have faith on the left.  It makes no difference what Obama actually does.  On the left they believe in the man.  Or, they believe in the man they believe him to be.  And the man says empathy wins out over cold legalities.  It is enough.  They believe.  Actions matter little, laws perhaps even less.  It's all about the man.  Sound judges of character they are, over there on the left.  They think.