Timothy Noah of Slate, fearing that he'll sound like a conspiracy theorist, does a little Googling and discovers that yes, in fact, Bush talkin' bout Dred Scott = Bush talkin' to the evangelical base.
Come on.
I mean, anyone who's ever listened to Alan Keyes knows that.
Oh.
Never mind.
13 comments:
Maybe it's "code" because the decisions are strikingly similar......just a thought.
The similarity of the decisions is only a tangential consideration; it's "code" because it substitutes for saying straight up, "I am against abortion," as it gets the same point across to those on the inside.
it's "code" because it substitutes for saying straight up, "I am against abortion,"
This is rather funny. Do you mean like he said "straight up" at the end of the debate how he thinks "it is a worthy goal in America to have every child protected by law and welcomed in life." Oh, that's right. Tricky Bush, speaking in his fancy code again. Man, one second the guy is so dumb he can't even form a sentence and the next he's delivering secret messages to his constituency.
It's pretty clear from the end of the debate he wasn't hiding his position from anyone.
The uninformed (liberals, many) wonder why Bush says Dred Scott, which (to them) seems obscurantist. It's "code;" not a big conspiracy, just another way of saying abortion is a judicial litmus test without saying "abortion is a judicial litmus test."
No one doubt's Bush's position on abortion--as the end of the debate made clear--but why just not say that outright? Why mention Dred Scott at all, without referring to the issue it was connected to? No matter how clear Bush was on the follow-up direct question, he was anything but clear when responding to the judicial question. That's the point.
"Speaking in code" isn't a matter of intelligence; as far as I care, he could have been parroting what an advisor told him. I don't care, though. The fact is that people don't get the Dred Scott reference; the joke was on Alan Keyes. Lighten up, eh?
By the way, when I wrote what I did (about "straight up"), I hadn't seen the very end of the presidential debate, since I've been watching them on tape. (Between that and college football, cable's almost worth $35 for at least a couple months out of the year.) The issue isn't whether Bush feels abortion is bad--my ignorant, and rather stupid, phrasing--but whether abortion is a litmus test for judicial appointment. Why else use "Dred Scott" instead of "Roe vs. Wade?" Again, though, it's not a conspiracy. It's about using language that appeals to a select group that votes 99% Republican based on a single issue.
It seems so odd that a man who prides himself on being so direct and understandable would be so obscure about such a matter of ethical delicacy.
...
Never mind.
He was much clearer later in the debate, but only when the explicit abortion question was raised. Even in his stump speeches, the "culture of life" plank gets only a brief, almost salutary mention--one paragraph out of scores. Bush, like Kerry, is politically savvy; although he may feel less like oblique mentions now that he's already lost the female vote.
Why else use "Dred Scott" instead of "Roe vs. Wade?"
Maybe because "Dred Scott" is the first instance of what is known as "judicial activism" (the very thing Bush states he's against in that very same answer. Do you have any idea whether Bush thinks Roe v. Wade is an instance of judicial activism? We know he's against abortion as a practice, but it seems the only grounds on which you know that he treats Roe v. Wade as the same as "Dred Scott" is the (rather tenous and speculative) "code theory." Why buy the code theory, though? Clearly he wasn't trying to hide his position....either that he is against abortion or judicial activism. They are different issues AND it seems he made the right answers for the right questions. "What kind of judge would you appoint?" Not one that's a judicial activist. "Are you against abortion?" Yes. Why expect him to answer the second question when asked the first?
"Bush, like Kerry, is politically savvy; although he may feel less like oblique mentions now that he's already lost the female vote."
Why has he lost "the female vote?"
Roe vs. Wade "invented" the "right to privacy." (Here's a site comparing Roe to the current gay marriage controversy.)
Note that I've amended my position. Yes, Bush later was clear about his feelings on judicial activism and abortion, but he was very unclear on his position that abortion rights is a litmus test for judicial appointment, and yes, talking about "Dred Scott" is "code" (again, not in any conspiratorial sense; but it speaks to a select group of Americans. Most don't get it). Maybe "jargon" is a better word.
Truly, though, Roe is considered equally as "judicially activist" as Dred Scott, and is much more familiar to Americans. There's no good reason to bring up Dred Scott instead of Roe, except perhaps for scoring some weird debate point about having a simplistic grasp of history. Dred Scott was hardly the first example of judicial activism.
(This, though, from a man who, when asked what "tribal sovereignty" meant today, said, "Well, that means that tribes are sovereign.")
The polls just before the last debate showed that Bush is losing in key states to Kerry among women;* even the Fox pundit brought up that fact right as the debate was about to begin. Don't know what the latest numbers are; do you?
(Besides, the polls will change again tonight. Speculation is just that.)
*That poll was taken right after the debate, but the numbers hadn't changed significantly.
Here's a brief, somewhat useful introduction to the uses and abuses of the phrase "judicial activism." It's often shorthand for "decisions I disagree with," and is hardly a tenable definition under the rubric of a cogent (or even unified) political philosophy.
"but he was very unclear on his position that abortion rights is a litmus test for judicial appointment,"
What grounds besides the "code theory" do you have for thinking this? It seems your saying, "We know he was speaking in code because he treats abortion as the litmus test for judicial appointment, and we know he treats abortion this way because he was speaking in code." Now, there are times when arguments aren't vicisiously circular, but it seems this is not one of these times. Because "code theory" is speculative it doesn't warrant the conclusion you are wanting it to. If you have other evidence that Bush does treat abortion as the litmus test for appointment then the circular argument might be valid.
Rather than argue that Bush views abortion as the litmus test for appointment, why not think that he views judicial activism (yes, loosely defined) as the litmus test for judicial appointment--as he said?
As for the "women" vote, an outlandish prediction: Bush wins it easily. The "poll" you pointed me to polled a whole 500 people....that gets maybe 300 that were women in states of millions. If they split the poll 50/50 rural/urban then it's no wonder Bush came out slightly behind.
Oh, and that's a really interesting article. What journal is it from? I have become much more interested in jurisprudence in recent months.....
It's not a circular argument; I think it's more inductive or probabilistic.
1. Alan Keyes, prominently, and thousands of other conservatives, use Dred Scott in their discussions of abortion. To them, it's a shorthand way to encapsulate the thought, "Judicial activism once declared a class of people to be non-persons; this has happened again with abortion (Roe v. Wade)."
2. Bush, when asked what criterion he would appoint a judge by, used "Dred Scott" instead of any other case representative of judicial activism.
3. It is therefore likely that this particular choice of words was intentional, to show that the issues of judicial activism, strict constructionism, and abortion are all interrelated. Abortion might not be an explicit litmus test; it could be implicit; and perhaps it works the other way, and choosing strict constructionists is the way Bush sees as most fit to overturn abortion (other than back-door legislation).
At any rate, regardless of Bush's intentions about justice appointing (which I grant is speculative), his choice of words was not unintentional, and was clearly jargon as explained above.
As to the women's votes, the numbers are hard to come by immediately (Gallup wants money, darn them), but a 50-50 split urban-rural probably overstates Republican influence. In many states, urban areas are far more likely to be Democratic. (That's certainly the case in Washington.) I won't press this case too hard, though; I'm just quoting what the Fox News pundit said when introducing the candidates. They'll have new talking points tonight, I'm sure. And for once, I'll be watching live.
(The journal comes from the Vermont Bar Association.)
Iron, as always, sharpeneth iron.
Another relevant article. The connection between abortion and judicial appointment isn't just seen by conspiracy theorists, liberals, or pundits, but by conservatives themselves.
Also, Dahlia Lithwick is always fun to read.
Post a Comment