While some of us on the left view the right as a monolith, the truth is that the right is made up of a coalition of various groups. Libertarians, big business types, religious, cultural, and social conservatives, main street business people, and neo-conservatives all have a seat inside the right’s tent. Many of those groups have little in common. A poor, rural, Southern, religious conservative does not exactly run in the same crowd as a rich, yankee, Wall Street merger and acquisition tycoon.
What holds that coalition together?
Mark Kleiman suggests one common element of the various groups on the right is that they support polices that “as a practical matter, increase the share of the national income going to the top 1% of the distribution and decrease the shares going to the bottom tenth, bottom quartile, and (in most cases) bottom half.”
One of Mark’s readers, Steve Teles, is a political scientist at Brandies. He emails Mark and suggests a different commonality:
What holds all those folks on the conservative side together, fundamentally (along with a few substantive issue) is hatred of liberals. Disgust, on a very deep, gut level, and a sense that conservatives are marginalized in the institutions liberals control and a sense that they manipulate language and procedure to control those institutions and to keep conservatives out.
The specific issues identified by conservatives to support that position include abortion, rights of criminals, school prayer, school desegregation and affirmative action.
That argument is as dated as Austin Powers. Each of those decisions occurred at least a generation ago. The seminal abortion decision, Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Affirmative action was approved in the 1978 Bakke decision.
Miranda was a 1966 case. Schools were desegregated by the 1955 Brown vs. Board of Education case. School prayer was addressed in the 1962 case of Engel v. Vitale.
Does it seem strange that conservatives claim that the current Federal Judiciary is liberal based on cases from twenty-five to fifty years ago?
The only recent “liberal” decision extending individual rights that I can think of off the top of my head is the Lawrence case overturning the Texas sodomy statute. That case was a 6-3 decision with four of the seven Republican-appointed Justices in the majority. If Lawrence is to be the example of recent liberal judicial decisions besieging conservative values, perhaps conservatives should take it up with the Republican politicians who appointed those Justices.
The conservative argument that the Federal Judiciary is controlled by liberals may have been true at one time but is clearly not the case today. That point can be demonstrated in three ways. First, the numbers show that it is Republican Presidents, not Democrats who, by and large, have shaped the current Federal Judiciary.
Of the nine current members of the Supreme Court, seven were appointed by Republicans. In the last thirty-five years (since 1969) there have been thirteen appointments to the Supreme Court. Republican Presidents have made eleven of those appointments while Democratic Presidents have made two.
At the Circuit Court of Appeals level, the pattern remains the same. Since 1969, Republican Presidents have appointed 211 Judges to the Circuit Courts. Democrats have appointed 122. Since 1969, Republican Presidents have appointed 813 trial Judges to the District Court bench while Democrats have made 508 such appointments.
If the Federal Judiciary is comprised of a bunch of liberal activists, it is the GOP who put them there.
The second method of showing that the Federal Judiciary is not dominated by liberals is to look to policy prescriptions advocated by conservatives. For instance, Republican tort reform proposals would funnel much class action litigation into the Federal courts and to give more power over such suits to Federal judges. If conservatives really believe that the Federal courts are infested with liberal, activist judges, why would they want to provide them with more power and control rather than less?
Finally, the idea that the Federal courts are a bastion of liberalism does not comport with my experience. When I was a defense lawyer representing some of the nation’s largest companies, I removed state court suits to Federal court whenever possible. Similarly, when I represent human beings against large corporations, the defense routinely removes the action to Federal Court if my complaint permits them to do so. It would be a strange coincidence if corporate America was seeking a more liberal, judicially active forum while poor, powerless individuals preferred the more conservative tribunal.
I have long wondered why conservatives keep making the argument that the Federal bench consists of a bunch of liberals when it is plain that it is just not so. Thanks to Steve Teles, I now understand. The factual basis for such a contention is irrelevant. The fiction that the Federal courts are a bastion of liberalism is politically necessary to keep the conservative coalition together. The idea of a liberal judiciary cuts across the right's coalition and gives shape and direction to the anger of the various parts of the coalition. It unites the northern, urban, M&A tycoon with the rural, socially conservative Southerner.
Regardless of how conservative the Federal courts become, conservatives will always argue that the courts are liberal because the argument is politically necessary. The political imperative trumps the reality.
.
"The fiction that the Federal courts are a bastion of liberalism is politically necessary to keep the conservative coalition together. The idea of a liberal judiciary cuts across the right's coalition and gives shape and direction to the anger of the various parts of the coalition. It unites the northern, urban, M&A tycoon with the rural, socially conservative Southerner." Well said!
Conservatives are looking for a rollback on hot button issues: abortion, affirmative action, Miranda warning, pornography, flag burning, and school prayer. As long as the courts uphold prior decisions on these issues, they're still liberal.
Posted by: Bernie Simon at April 19, 2004 07:16 PMWhat holds the conservatives together is fear. Fear that modern liberals are crypto-Stalinists who will annihilate all that they hold dear. Fear that the straw men they have so cunningly created will leap to life. And a deep abiding fear that they do not hold the hearts and minds of a majority of Americans.
Posted by: Chris at April 20, 2004 09:36 AMWow! One of the best posts I've read in a long time. into my personal file. Thanks, Dwight!
Posted by: sq1 at April 21, 2004 10:34 AMExcellent analysis. I'm glad I stopped by.
Nice job, Dwight. Now for a shameless plug:
I made a similar argument in my master's thesis. Though my topic was in regard to a nascent conservative attack on scientism during the early post-WWII period, I noted the fact that conservatives at that time were rather divided over what conservatism ought to stand for.
The glue, as I saw it, was anticommunism. Even if they weren't sure what they were for, all conservatives did agree on one thing to be against. Since conservatives saw liberals as closer to being communists then they were, liberals were to be opposed. The world has changed considerably since the Cold War, but the politics of opposition that functions as a kind of political cement hasn't.
Posted by: Linnaeus at April 22, 2004 08:10 PMIf it weren't that I am researching the judiciary I never would have come across this. I am sorry I ever did. If this is indeed what the left thinks of the right then I am afraid no rapproachment is possible. Forget Freud, conservatives don't think as they do because they are looking for a big daddy that can assuage their fear. This is a bigoted a view as those who accuse all of those on the left of being would-be Stalinists. If you want to know what conservatives think as they do, look into the writings of conservatives. Read Russel Kirk's "Politics of Prudence" or "The Conservative Mind", read Edmund Burke the great grandfather of conservatism. If you want a unifying idea of what underlies many of todays conservatives it is basically a notion of limited government. Now the "wheres" and "whys" take a little more nuancing. As someone appropriately pointed out there are social conservatives and there are fiscal conservatives (libertarians tend to be fiscally conservative while morally liberal). Another unifying principles of conservatives is a commitment to tradition. Which is why I find it so odd that more Native Americans aren't conservative. As the name itself suggests it an abiding regard for conserving those enduring structures of a society that guides "conservatives". Given the overwhelming emphasis on remembering our ancestors and passing on the traditions of the past is fundamentally a conservative notion. As is not tampering with those structures of a society because of the possible devastating consequences. Burke summed it up best when he said that adhering the tradition is a way of giving our ancestors a voice. Why more Native Americans don't abide this is still a mystery to me. It is "progressives" not conservatives that scoff at the elderly and tradtiions of the past. Progressives always think they are on the pinnacle of human development. Conservatives take a little more incredulous view of such notions as the evolution of a society. If you want to read more, I suggest Orwell who rightly spurned progressive notions of "Utopia". In this respect Orwell was conservative.
TlauwaAkta
Posted by: TlanuwaAkta at July 27, 2004 04:33 PMDarling, commenting on a post this far back is not that useful. I suggest you write to Dwight and let him know you've a comment.
Do let him know you're at Bruce Chapman's shop, and perform whatever discovery institute ritual you think appropriate.
You probably don't want to know why Indians don't agree with what you think we should think.
Posted by: Eric at July 27, 2004 05:51 PMEric,
Engage my arguments. Ad Hominem attacks are an informal fallacy and an invalid mode of argumentation.
As for Native Americans, WE are not a singular interest group. Much as there were wars among the tribes there are ideological differences even now. I just find it curious that those who claim to speak on behalf of ALL Native Americans are almost univocally on the left and they are given a pass.
It's an oddity for sure. How would someone treat someone who claimed to speak on behalf of all Anglos?
TlanuwaAkta
Nope. Here are the rules.
1. You state your tribal affiliation, if any.
2. You drop the anony pretense, a real user at a discovery.org mailbox.
Tribal Affiliations:
-Cherokee through my maternal grandmother (name Parker mean anything to you?)
-Choctaw through my maternal grandfather.
That Native American enough for you? Or are you going to call me "Fort Indian" just like African American who disagree with other African Americans call them "house slaves".
My point still stands, you used an ad hominem that is invalid. I don't care what mode of argumentation you use this is covered in every basic logic course. The truth or falsity of a proposition is not determined by the person saying it.
Keith Pennock
Just what was the ad hominum? And you still haven't provided a email address. user@discovery.org is the required form.
Posted by: Eric at July 27, 2004 08:02 PMThe Ad Hominem was saying that merely because I work at Discovery Institute (which by the way is a non-partisan thinktank, anyone who has taken a look at all of our programs knows as much) my argument must be without merit. By analogy, that would like saying that a study by the NYSUT that found better paid teachers perform better was invalid merely by virtue of being done by the NYSUT. Once again the truth of falsity of a proposition has nothing to do with a person putting forward the proposition. If you don't trust me on this reference Irving M. Copi's "Introduction to Logic".
And I am not going to release my e-mail address for work because this is purely my own affair. The institute does not endorse any of what I say.
I think it is perfectly within my right to keep what I do on my time limited to my time, don't you? If you want to respond to me respond to my personal hotmail account. That's what it is there for.
Keith Pennock
Posted by: Keith Pennock at July 27, 2004 08:17 PMYou are mistaken. Whether your affiliations add, or detract, or mearly distract, doesn't interest me. What did was the attempt at anonymity which doesn't match the network information. You are browsing from behind firewall.discovery.org. Dwight wouldn't know this, if he noticed your comment at all, and I've no idea if he will even think your original comment interesting enough to respond to.
I'm actually not picking on you, though it may seem to you that way, when I upgrade this blog I'll ban all the "free" mailers. Folks that really want to be anonymous can ask me via mail.
Now, is your affiliation CNO, UKB, ECN, or Choctaw?
Posted by: Eric at July 27, 2004 08:42 PMNone of the above. My family didn't live in Indian Territory during the Dawes Act when the roll calls were made. They were poor sharecroppers in Mississippi. No blue card either, at least not to my knowledge. Just the stories and words of my grandparents and maternal greatgrandmother. But I have the skintone to prove it and the classic almond eyes of the Cherokee.
Once again, another odd question, do we ask someone to prove they are African American or Latino? Particulary if you have knowledge of Native American history, as I am sure you do, you full well know that many left the rez a long time ago. And some never went on the rez. Not to mention a rather protracted period of time in which one didn't mention that they were American Indian and many parents even discouraged their children from learning the old tongue and ways.
KP
Posted by: Keith Pennock at July 27, 2004 10:22 PM