Practical politics and principle often chafe against one another. A well-functioning democracy rarely secures its entire trust in any single political party or faction. Adherence to principle is important, but sometimes even the most ideologically devout must reluctantly yield to compromise. A smug ideologue boasting political purity is self-indulgent. A political sail who responds instantly to the political winds is untrustworthy. A statesman pushes a polity when he can, accepts those times when he cant, and has the wisdom to know the difference.
In 1967, the sainted Conservative William F. Buckley supported the Vice-President Richard Nixon over Senator Barry Goldwater, despite Buckleys narrower political differences with Goldwater. Buckley followed what has come to be known as Buckleys rule:
“The wisest choice would be the one who would win. No sense running Mona Lisa in a beauty contest. Id be for the most right, viable candidate who could win. If you could convince me that Barry Goldwater could win, Id vote for him.
Given the Nixon presidency, both its end in disgrace and Nixons domestic movement toward the Left, one wonders whether Buckley would have liked to reconsider his decision to support Nixon. Would a second Goldwwater loss in 1968 be better than the Nixon victory?
A chance to apply the Buckley rule cam last week in the Republican primary contest. If I were a Delaware resident, I would most probably have voted for Congressman Mike Castle in last weeks Republican primary. Although I would disagree with many of Castles vote, I know he would vote for a Republican Senate Majority leader. National Review, the magazine Buckley started, also endorsed Castle. Besides pure tactical considerations, they were also concerned about personal baggage that burdened Christine ODonnell.
There is outside possibility that Republicans can takeover the Senate this fall and one Republican Senatorial victory could make the difference. Mike Castle almost certainly would have won the general election. ODonnell, who bested Castle in the Republican primary, has moved the open seat to the probable-Democratic-victory column.
In fairness, despite a late endorsement from Governor Sarah Palin, ODonnell did not so much win the race, a be the last person standing as Castle let the nomination slip away in the grease of arrogance. Castle exhibited the “Im entitled attitude that has angered the public. He did not make a sufficient effort to address concerns that Conservatives had with some of his votes. He did not have to. He thought he was a sure winner.
Public anger is not unreasonable. In the last two years, many ordinary Americans have suffering economically, while rich bankers were bailed out by the government. Many ordinary Americans worry about their jobs with unemployment uncomfortably close to 10%, while the government bails out union jobs at GM. Many ordinary Americans struggle to make the mortgage payments, while those who recklessly borrowed far more than they could afford are relieved of some of their obligations.
In this political environment, Castle represented the out-of-touch elite, while ODonnells ordinary resume made her an “every man standing up to the elite. Ironically, the very act of dismissing her qualifications reinforces her symbolism as a member of the beleaguered classes.
ODonnell does not appear to have the political skills to usher her past this race in a very peculiar election year. This very much like when comedian and failed talk-show hostAl Franken was elected to the Senate, during the anti-Republican 2008 elections. ODonnells election to the Senate — a long shot — would probably be a one-election exception.
WIlliam Buckley also once remarked:
“I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.
Given ODonnells educational and professional pedestrian past, perhaps we can argue that she represents someone selected from those names in the phone book. If she manages to win election to the Senate, we will have an opportunity to test Buckleys hypothesis.
Equal Protection
Sunday, September 26th, 2010On November 4, 2008, uniformed Black Panther members stood in pace at the entrance of a polling place in Philadelphia with night sticks. One can click here and decide for yourself whether the individuals were attempting to intimidate voters. If such an incident had occurred 10 year ago, it is unlikely that with conflicting testimony as to what really happened could be definitely sorted out. In this age, eye-witness testimony is more persuasive gi given the video evidence.
The Bush Administration response to the incident was not as aggressive as it could have been, pursuing civil as opposed to criminal sanctions against the individuals involved. Nonetheless, the Department of Justice won a default judgment against the individuals, a judgment that the Obama Department of Justice gave up when it inexplicably dropped the case.
In response to the Obama Administration decision, Christian Adams in the Department of Justice Civil RIght Division resigned. He later testified before the US Civil Rights Commission that the case was dismissed because of a disinterest in pursuing Civil Rights cases directed against minorities. Adams accusation while damning, was difficult to prove. He could be dismissed as a disgruntled, politically-motivated holdover from the Bush Administration. Some argued that there was no proof that voters were actually intimidated by the Black Panther thugs despite the actions. Nonetheless, the civil case had already been won, and the Department of Justice refused to accept victory.
The issue has been resurrected with the testimony of the Christopher Coates, the former head of the Voting Rights Section of the Department of Justice, before the US Department of Civil RIghts Commission. He had been directed by the Justice Department not to not comply with the subpoena, but complied nonetheless.
Coates justified his decision to testify:
Coates largely corroborated Adams testimony. The Holder Justice Department had decided not to pursue cases against minority defendants “until we reached the day when the socio-economic status of blacks in Mississippi was the same as the socio-economic status of whites living there.
It is impossible to paint Coates as a political partisan bent of causing problems for the Obama Administration. He was originally appointed by President Clinton, worked for voting rights for the American Civil Liberties Union, and received awards for his efforts by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. If he is concerned about selective, race-based civil rights enforcement, he brings with that concern a cache of credibility
Even more important that any particular economic or social policy, the election of President Barack Obama represented a seminal event, The US could be said to have overcome is original sin of slavery and racial discrimination. It is not that bigotry would cease to exist or disparate conditions equalized, but Obamas election and his inuaguration with nearly 70% approval, proved that the United States had crossed an important threshold in race relations.
The case in Philadelphia is a small one. No election outcome depended on what happened there, but it is still potentially damning. If the Justice Department proves not to be committed to equal protection of the law, it is denying a fundamental promise of America. Presuming President Obama is committed to an America undivided be race, he should determine who in his Justice Department refuses to believe in equal protection of the law and dismiss them. His legacy may be threatened.
Posted in Law, Politics, Social Commentary | No Comments »