July 21, 2004

Sandy Berger: Why People Don't Trust the Dems on National Security

Actually, the title pretty much says it all. But I'll elaborate anyhow. (Although I'll refrain from speculation on how much press coverage this would have gotten if Berger was a Republican, since it's an article of religious faith on the left that the press is slanted to the right.) Sandy Berger was the United States' number one man when it came to national security for four years, and it turns out the man is cosmically stupid. (Yes, I realize that he might be corrupt, but unless and until we get proof rather than coincidences, I'll stick with my key maxim: never attribute to malice what could as easily be attributed to stupidity. I made the same argument about the infamous 16 words that a lot of people on the left would have been wise to heed.)

Let's think about this. Berger was considered one of the Democrats' strengths on national security. He was an advisor to the Kerry campaign. When the Democrats were trying to convince the electorate that they could be trusted with national security, Berger was exhibit A. Now it turns out he was so worried about national security, he walked off and lost numerous documents classified at the highest possible level of clearance. What the Hell would the Democrats who don't take national security seriously do with classified information?

Don't get me wrong; I don't think the Democrats are really that much worse than the Republicans. But I can't really take them seriously when they talk about national security when it turns out one of their top guys committed criminal negligence, and the last Democratic president thinks it's a joke. Something here is a joke, and it's not Sandy Berger dumping classified documents in his dumpster at home.

Posted at 09:07 PM | Politics | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)



July 19, 2004

Logrolling the Constitution

[Update: Mr. Shane has responded to my piece, and his response has altered my position on this question. I am leaving the original piece untouched, with further information in an update below.] Peter M. Shane is a law professor at Ohio State University. Based on his egregious op-ed piece in today's Washington Post, anyone studying law at Ohio State would be well-advised to avoid Mr. Shane's course.

Mr. Shane presents his readers with a scenario he seems to think should be met with great horror: in the 2004 election, states could choose to select electors for the presidential election by means other than a statewide popular vote. For example, the Republican-dominated state government of Florida could decide that, rather than risk another close election this November, they will simply select a slate of Bush electors and send them to the electoral college. Worse, Mr. Shane tells us that this is permissable because of the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, "the justices ruled in that case that state legislatures have unlimited authority to determine whether citizens in their respective states shall be allowed to vote for president at all."

Shane then goes on and on about how there are numerous scenarios under which certain state legislatures might take away their citizens' rights to vote for president and instead send their own preferred slate of electors. Shane clearly wants us to believe that this scenario is unprecedented, and that it is not at all farfetched this November. His breathless conclusion?

It ought to be unthinkable that a state legislature is authorized to usurp the people's role in choosing presidential electors. But unless the Supreme Court repudiates its dictum in Bush v. Gore, there is an entirely serious prospect that a capricious state government, Republican or Democratic, might seek to decide the presidential election by removing the choice from the voters. And there is probably not much that can be done to remedy this situation before the 2004 elections.

Now, anyone who is familiar with the Constitution already knows that Mr. Shane is desperately wrong in his reporting thus far, but let me lay it out with those who may not be as familiar with the Constitution. The Constitution granted state legislatures the right to select electors to select the President from day one. It didn't take very long for states to move towards popular elections for electors, but that didn't become the norm until well into the 19th century. And ever since, state legislatures have retained the right to select electors by another means, yet nobody has ever worried about the nightmare scenario Mr. Shane presents to us. So why is Shane so worked up? I see two possibilities.

Possibility number one is that Mr. Shane isn't very bright. Despite a degree in law, he's unaware of the provision in the Constitution granting state legislatures the power to select presidential electors and he's too stupid to take the time to find a copy of the Constitution and find out. So he honestly believes that the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore suddenly created this power of the state legislatures, and he is trying to find a way to solve the problem. If that's the case, anyone considering attending Ohio State ought to reconsider, because they're hiring some real bricks as professors, but at least he's an honest brick.

Possibility number two is that Mr. Shane is well aware of the history surrounding the selection of presidential electors, but he's a dishonest hack who wants to remove that power because he's convinced himself that one side or the other will use that ability to 'steal' the 2004 election. (I'm guessing that I know which side he's afraid of, too, given his throwaway line about impeaching a president for lying about sex.) But regardless of his motives, Mr. Shane is concerned about this, and he wants to stop it. He can't be bothered to do it the proper way, through a Constitutional amendment, because that would take too long (and because, in all likelihood, he comes from a political school of thought that believes the Constitution means whatever you can convince a judge to say that it says.) So he writes this essay trumping up a problem that is highly unlikely to arise in the hopes of creating some public outcry that might convince the Court to simply ignore the plain language of the Constitution. In which case, people thinking about attending OSU might want to think about whether or not they want their kids taught by people as dishonest as Mr. Shane. But at least, in this case, he's not mind-blowingly stupid.

I don't see this as a real issue; the states gave the power to select members of the Electoral College to the people because they figured (correctly) that it would be a popular move. A state legislature that chose to take that right away from the people might succeed in throwing an election to their favored candidate, but the electoral fallout would ruin them, and would probably do major damage to their party as well. And you know what? If it didn't, then that would indicate to me that the people didn't really care, in which case, why should we? Roughly our first half-dozen presidents were selected by state legislatures rather than by popular votes, and they included such disasters as George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Suddenly the system that gave us Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter doesn't look at great, does it?

Update (7/26/04): If there is one thing blogging should teach people, it's humility. Mr. Shane took the time to read my piece and has further explained his reasoning regarding the people's right to select presidential electors. While I am not wholly convinced that the 14th Amendment overrides Article II's provision regarding the selection of electors, I cannot definitively argue that it does not, and Mr. Shane is correct in his argument that American history has trended quite consistently for increased democracy. I also continue to disagree with Mr. Shane's belief that this is a significant concern for the reasons I have already stated. However, it is clear to me that Mr. Shane is not, contrary to my assertions, either dishonest or mind-blowingly stupid, and I apologize to him for jumping to such a harsh conclusion, particularly in such a public forum. I'd also like to publicly thank him for taking the time to expound on his thesis here, and I recommend the reader take the time to check out his comment as well as this abstract, which addresses the question as well.

Posted at 04:34 PM | Politics | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)



July 18, 2004

Bootstrapping

Bill Cosby was the first comedian I got to know as a child. My parents kept his record, "Why is there air?" in a prominent place among their record collection (records...like CDs, only bigger...never mind). There was a time when I could probably recite most of the routines from that album by heart, we listened to it so many times. Like all great comedians, Cosby highlighted the absurdities of life, his humor effective in large part because it was so familiar.

Cosby is also, of course, black. That didn't really mean anything to us, because the situations he discussed were perfectly applicable to what we knew. It wasn't until I was much older that I learned that Cosby had been a pioneer for blacks in entertainment, having been the first black host of The Tonight Show and the first black to star in a 'white' drama, "I Spy". I had heard that he, like many people in entertainment, tended towards the left end of the traditional spectrum, but that didn't really mean much to me either, since it didn't render him any less entertaining.

Cosby is currently embroiled in a controversy of sorts, as he made some remarks in speeches over the past few months regarding poor blacks and what they need to do to improve their situation that didn't sit well with organizations like the NAACP. Barbara Ehrenreich savaged Cosby as a rich man attacking defenseless blacks, and while others from the left didn't necessarily attack the messenger, they were critical of him for saying such things in public. Debra Dickerson, meanwhile, seems surprised that Cosby would do such a thing, noting the 'evolution of the man we thought we knew so well.' Might I suggest that no such evolution has taken place?

Bill Cosby is undoubtedly phenomonally talented. He starred in two very successful television shows, wrote multiple bestselling books, released numerous comedy albums that topped the charts, and even found time to star in a movie or two. All of that didn't happen by accident. His talent helped him open those doors, but they would have remained sealed shut if he hadn't worked very hard to open them. In 1965, the year "I Spy" premiered, Congress passed a bill you might have heard of: the civil rights act. Segregation and Jim Crow were on the way out, but they weren't going peacefully or easily, and it would have been quite easy for Hollywood to decide that America wasn't ready for a television show where a black man was portrayed as the equal (indeed, in many ways, superior) to a white man. Cosby got the job because he worked his ass off proving that he could get the job done, and doing it so well he would win three Emmys in three years for his work on the show.

Nor did he stop there. As Dickerson notes, from 1965 to the present Cosby has had a show, book or album doing well for the vast majority of that time. While it might be easy to dismiss that as simply coasting on his earlier success, the facts don't seem to support that. I myself went to see him live earlier this year, and his performance was almost entirely new material that was just as funny as anything from his earlier years, and I'm confident that comedy routines are, like genius, more persperation than inspiration. The bottom line is very simple: Bill Cosby had to deal with racism worse than just about anything black Americans have to face today, but he broke through it by working hard and persevering. (His breakout role in "I Spy" came when he was 38. How many people would be willing to wait that long rather than throwing in the towel?)

It is quite understandable, then, that Cosby is disappointed in what he sees in parts of black America today. I don't believe Cosby was arguing that racism was no longer a factor, or that blacks have it easy today (although I would that blacks today probably have it a bit better than Cosby did, in terms of institutional racism). But when faced with a tough situation, there are two options: suck it up and go on as best you can, or cry and whine about it and stay where you are. Which option is more likely to get you ahead? Again, this isn't to say that it's easy, or that obstacles for progress aren't out there; of course they are. But working hard to break through them is the only real road to success for the poor. Outside forces may be able to reduce some of the difficulties, but it's still up to them to do the work. I think it's a shame that Cosby is being vilified for pointing that out.

Posted at 07:33 PM | Philosophy | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)