Harry Beck was a telephone linesman and a member of the Communication Workers of America Union. If he wanted to be a linesman he really had little choice about membership. If you want to be a linesman, you are compelled to pay union dues. Beck, however, was displeased that part of his dues were used for union political activities — contributions to candidates and lobbying for legislation.
With the support of the National Right to Work Foundation, Beck sued his union and the suit ultimately wound its way to the US Supreme Court. In 1988, that court ruled that Beck’s First Amendment right to free association precluded the Communications Workers of America from, in effect, compelling Beck to support political activities. Workers who are compelled to pay union dues, the court said, are free to withhold that portion of the dues devoted to political activity.
Belatedly in 1992, George H. Bush issued executive order 12800. The order required federal contractors to post in a conspicuous place worker rights under the Beck decision. When Bill Clinton became president, he wasted little time. In February 1993, Clinton paid back union support and withdrew the executive order. The decision in Beck versus Communication Workers of America is the law of the land, but Clinton was in no frame of mind to enthusiastically pursue enforcement. Free association rights for union workers were not a priority for the Clinton administration.
The focus here is not on the wisdom or folly of the Beck decision. Rather, it is to place in context the derisive question conjured up by Democrats as to whether John Ashcroft will enforce the law as US attorney general. Of course, he will enforce the law, but the question is ill-posed and not particularly illuminating. Then again, the purpose of the question was not to shed light but rather to paint a picture of darkness.
Attorneys general, like all prosecutors save independent counsels, have finite time and funding. They must, therefore, set priorities in the application of those resources. This is a good thing. Who would enjoy a society overseen by prosecutors with unlimited resources rigorously enforcing laws without the necessity to exercise judgment.
Reasonable people can disagree as to the best apportionment of resources for pursuing violent or white-collar crime. However, the selection of these priorities is a reflection of the values and standards of an administration. How much effort is devoted to enforcement of environmental regulations, organized crime, or anti-trust laws is a measure of where an administration believes the nation’s problems lie.
It is a safe bet that George W. Bush and his attorney general will devote fewer resources to raiding the compounds of religious cultists, storming Miami homes at gunpoint in search of young illegal Cubans, and seeking out and eradicating instances of possible federal aid to Boy Scouts. Squandering prosecutorial resources dissipates the moral authority of an administration. The sage and thoughtful enforcement of the law, by contrast, can help define an administration and reinforce and support its legislative initiatives.
For example, it is a melancholy fact that a large number of African-Americans are concerned that Bush’s aversion to a racial spoils system and race-based preferences will undermine the ladder to educational and employment success. The Bush position imposes an additional moral burden to aggressively enforce anti-discrimination laws. Vigorous enforcement of equal protection laws can validate the Bush claim to be a uniter.
Bush is also unconvinced of the efficacy and legality of the proliferation of laws restricting the Second Amendment freedom to bear arms. If Bush believes that such laws unreasonably constrain law-abiding citizens, he is under an additional obligation to prosecute and jail those convicted of using a gun in the commission of a crime. Again priorities in enforcement define an administration’s vision.
Some Democratic Senators in the Ashcroft confirmation hearings were so bent on angrily satisfying their core constituencies that they failed to ask the real and important questions. Rather than asking Ashcroft if he will enforce the law, they should have asked about his priorities in enforcement.
Parting Gifts
Sunday, January 28th, 2001If you are the kind of person who enjoys waxing indignant about corrupt behavior or shamelessness, Bill Clinton is certainly the gift that keeps on giving. For most, Clinton is like the recalcitrant party guest who is oblivious to hints and insists on staying a little longer than welcome. In the case of the transition of presidential power between Clinton and George W. Bush, Clinton is more like the party guest who not only outstays his welcome, but also feels entitled to depart with a few souvenirs.
Consider the last few weeks:
Clinton is not directly responsible for those who serve him, but his example cannot help but be noticed by those who look to him for leadership. The new President Bush dispatched the jet normally used as Air Force One to ferry Clinton and his party to New York. According to yet to be confirmed reports, this graciousness was repaid by members of the Clinton party with the petty theft of items from saltshakers to china marked with the presidential seal. In the offices of the Executive Office Building, ex-staffers engaged in everything from the charming prank of removing W‘s from computer keyboards to apparent vandalism.
The actions of Clinton and his minions over the last week are perhaps unintentionally the best gifts that could have been presented to George W. Bush in his first week as President. In the immediate juxtaposition of the comportment of Clinton and Bush, Bush’s star rises. Clinton’s tawdry behavior made it seem that this last week a mature adult was taking over the presidency from a clever, but narcissistic adolescent. As people remember what it is like to have a President whose character one can respect, they will wonder why they were ever satisfied with less.
Posted in Politics, Social Commentary | No Comments »