Re-Framing O’Connor
I strongly disagree with what Kevin says here :
It’s true that O’Connor has been a swing vote on the court, but statements like these make it sound like she’s in the dead center of constitutional jurisprudence. She’s not. She’s a conservative, and Democrats should make that clear.Generally speaking I don’t have a big problem with O’Connor’s tenure on the court, but when even Democrats start calling her a moderate, it moves the goalposts too far. They should be referring to her as a “moderate conservative,” a “mainstream conservative,” or a “thoughtful conservative.” Anything like that is fine. But whatever they call her, they should make it clear that she’s a conservative.
What’s said now about O’Connor and her role in the court will set the stage for how the American people judge Bush’s pick. If everyone has the word “conservative” drilled into their heads, the idea of replacing O’Connor with an arch-conservative won’t seem nearly as unpleasant as it should. For the people who pick up on the rhetoric but don’t really pay attention to things, replacing an O’Connor style conservative with a George W. Bush style conservative would be a move towards the status quo, rather than the dramatic shift to the right we all know it would be. The best defense Democrats have against a truly repellent Supreme Court nominee is to remind the American people that the Bush Administration wants to replace a moderate justice with a conservative one.
10 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Framing O’Connor
FRAMING O’CONNOR….I can’t help but think that leading Democrats are setting the bar too low in their statements about Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement. Here’s Howard Dean:Justice O’Connor…has been a voice of moderation whose career was marked by a …
Trackback by Political Animal — July 1, 2005 @ 12:46 pm
how ’bout replace a moderate conservative justice with a conservative extremist.
Comment by somegirl — July 1, 2005 @ 2:58 pm
You are exactly right, Greg.
Here’s the rub:
Kevin is technically correct, but he is politically wrong.
Dead fucking wrong.
It doesn’t make two shits of difference in the public’s mind that O’Connor isn’t a moderate but a conservative, b/c the public won’t follow her career closely enough to know the difference anyway.
The public perception will be created right now, in real time, based upon what the fake conservatives and the liberals say about her. It’s like lionizing the dead to get a seat at the table for the disbursement of the will.
In the new “no-rules, no-referees” America that Eric Alterman cited the other day (in a piece about Karl Rove), Dean and Reid are preemptively defining O’Connor in a manner more acceptable to liberals in order to strike the best bargain we can from an inferior bargaining position.
It’s good, sound strategy in an era of profoundly cynical fucking politicking.
Again, as Alterman said: “There’s a lesson for liberals in all this: American politics has become a game with no rules and no referee. Play by the old rules — fairness, honesty, good faith — and face political extinction.”
What’s the point in showing strict fidelity to O’Connor’s record? It reminds me of Groucho’s famous line: “We’re fighting for this woman’s honor, b/c Lord knows, she never did.”
And she’s history anyway.
So shape her tenure in a way that serves liberals as best it can and not the fake conservatives.
Doing what Kevin says will just allow Bushco to define whatever reactionary dogmatic nitwit they gin up as “conservative” and thereby grease the skids to confirmation.
dr
Comment by dr — July 1, 2005 @ 4:45 pm
Very good point. My sense is that most people are content with the current balance on the Supreme Court and don’t want it to shift too far in one direction or another. That would make people’s perception of O’Connor’s place on the ideological spectrum quite important.
On the other hand, how many people have more than a passing familiarity with O’Connor? 10, 15% My sense is that most people view the court as moderate and will react to Bush’s nominee based on how far he or she is from the center rather than how far he or she is from O’Connor.
Comment by Jason — July 1, 2005 @ 4:57 pm
Amen! The kooky cons will fall right into this too because they want a Thomas-style conservative nominated. They’ll call O’Connor moderate or even the dreaded “liberal.”
Comment by Unstable Isotope — July 1, 2005 @ 7:29 pm
“It’s good, sound strategy in an era of profoundly cynical fucking politicking.” It is a thoughtful strategy, I guess, but I can’t see it making any difference as W sits down to go over his short list, or as the approval process begins.
And if it doesn’t make a difference in the nomination itself, then is reframing O Connor’s record as that of a moderate (or in Kevin’s words “conceding a battle we shouldn’t”) worth possibly a few extra votes next year?
I’m not really sure, but I know that I wouldn’t say Mr. Drum is “dead fucking wrong”.
Comment by robin — July 1, 2005 @ 8:32 pm
I agree: I think Kevin has it wrong. (Actually, I think Kevin’s been on a Wrong Streak most of this week.)
If, as Kevin says, people think a conservative president should be able to replace a moderate justice with a conservative, why the heck wouldn’t they think he should be able to replace a moderate conservative with a slightly more conservative justice? In any event, I think the distinction would be lost on a lot of people.
I suppose, to play devil’s advocate, one could argue calling her a conservative for two reasons:
1) To frame the image that Democrats are okay with conservative justices, just not REACTIONARY conservative justices. I’m dubious that this would work.
2) Unrelated to the nomination process, to try to halt the rightward drift of the idea of “center” in this country. I doubt this one instance would help that much, and I think the nomination is more pressing at the moment than more abstract framing issues.
Those relatively minor issues aside, I think framing her as a moderate is the best call under the circumstances. Not that I think it’ll do much good either way.
Comment by Royko — July 2, 2005 @ 2:21 am
Unrelated to the nomination process, to try to halt the rightward drift of the idea of “center” in this country.
If we wanted to halt that shit, we needed to start work in 1971. Google on “Powell Memorandum” to find out why.
Comment by Captain Slack — July 2, 2005 @ 9:27 am
No amount of framing will change who Team Moron is going to nominate. Conservative idealogy will take a backseat to complete unquestioning loyalty to the house of Bush (see Anton Scalia for an example of this)
We knew it was only a matter of time before the combination of life support and black magic that keeps most of the Justices alive failed and Team Moron got a chance to appoint an accomplice in their various criminal enterprises. Alberto Ganzoles (who I do not expect to be nominated) is an example of expanding Team Moron’s criminal ring, any Supreme Court nominee will be an example of this trend.
Comment by mrvetinari — July 2, 2005 @ 10:36 pm
You’re right on Greg. “Moderate” it is!
I accidentally (subconciously) did exactly as you said in my post about O’Connor, repeatedly referring to her as moderate. Perhaps only because with the goalposts where they are, she really is moderate compared to Thomas, Scalia and especially her eventual replacement.
Oh, and Drum has been steadily slipping for weeks now.
Comment by Mr Furious — July 6, 2005 @ 12:28 pm