Ann Althouse is one of my favorite political bloggers and is normally awfully fair and moderate: she came around to supporting Obama tenatively just 3 weeks ago. But, she misreads Obama’s redistribution of wealth interview badly. She writes:
If this alarmed you, chances are, you are not a law professor. Let me tell you that, in this radio interview from 2001, Obama is making the most conventional observation about the limits of constitutional law litigation: The courts will recognize rights to formal equality, but they hesitate to enforce those rights with remedies become too expensive or require too much judicial supervision and they resist identifying rights to economic equality. Such matters are better handled by legislatures, and courts tend to defer to legislatures for this reason.
Obama was not showing disrespect for constitutional law in any of this. More radical law professors would criticize the courts for not engaging in more expansive interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause and for failing to provide much more expensive, invasive remedies. He did not do that. He accepted the limits the courts had recognized and advised against the unfruitful pursuit of economic justice in the judicial forum. It’s a political matter. That is a moderate view of law.
This is, not intentionally I think, besides the point. Obama does not suggest that the court shouldn’t be involved in the redistribution of wealth. In fact, the entirety of his interview leads to precisely the opposite conclusion. His gripe is that the civil rights movement, in attempting to bring about ” major redistributive change”, focused on the courts and thereby neglected the possibility of enacting this agenda through the political system. This isn’t a principled objection to court-led redistributive change, but rather a practical admission that the court isn’t radical enough to pursue such an agenda. When he later, in response to a caller, says: “I’m not optimistic about bringing major redistributive change through the courts”, this becomes even clearer. Words have meaning. Language matters, as law professor Althouse surely understands. The phrase “I’m not optimistic” is a lament.
In our earliest English classes, we learned about something called the “implied you”. If I say “go to the store”, the phrase is better read as “you, go to the store”. “I’m not optimistic” has a similar implied content. The phrase “I’m not optimistic” ought to be read as “I’m not optimistic, but I’d be happy to be proven wrong”. If I said “I’m not optimistic about ending the second amendment through the courts”, linguistically you’re left with two conclusions: 1.) I support ending the second amendment, and 2.) I wish the court would end the second amendment, but they’re unlikely to do so. If I said “I’m not optimistic that we’ll be able to end the Iraq War through violent revolt”, linguistically you’re left with two conclusions: 1.) I support ending the Iraq War, and 2.) I wish that violent revolt could end the Iraq War, but sadly it can’t.
Again, this is simply how language works. It is irrational to claim that when Obama says “I’m not optimistic about bringing major redistributive change through the courts”, he’s indicating an opposition to such a possibility. Worse, it is Orwellian. Obama’s interview does not express, as Althouse claims, a moderate interpretation of the constitution; far from it. Instead, it expresses a recognition of the limits of current American jurisprudence, and a desire to work around those constraints to pursue a radical socialist agenda. It’s calmly articulated, deftly reasoned, logically coherent, and quietly chilling. First-rate temperament indeed.
Later Althouse writes, somewhat perplexingly:
He’s saying that civil rights activists made a tragic mistake by fighting for their cause in the judicial forum. It’s part of his separation-of-powers point. Changes that involve complex economic choices need to be made in the political sphere. He never says he wishes the courts would have done more. He acknowledges the limitations of law and courts.
He says nothing of the sort. To the extent that Obama brings up separation of powers, he’s arguing that a “redistributive change” through the court system might be viewed as illegitimate, and therefore, less stable. Again, this is a purely practical argument. Obama wants to bring about “major redistributive economic change” in the context of the civil rights movement. His discussion throughout centers around the best ways to do this. He doesn’t want to focus on the courts because 1.) The courts aren’t radical enough to intervene in this fashion, 2.) It distracts from the more practical political organizing, 3.) Major redistributive change, instituted by the courts, would be viewed as illegitimate, and likely wouldn’t be sustainable. None of this is remotely sympathetic to “limitations of the law” or a respect for “separation of powers”. It’s a rather bad misreading to claim that it is.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Scary stuff. Obama must be defeated. Hope Americans will hear this and wake up before it’s too late.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Nice, Matthew.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
It’s not too late.
One week in politics is an eternity.
Reagan was down 6% in the final week. He won by 10% in a landslide.
John McCain can still win in a landslide once voters start paying attention. This is the October gamechanger.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
she listened to the interview and then made that argument?….she probably would argue 2+2=7
October 27th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Reagan was down 6% in the final week. He won by 10% in a landslide.
Yeah, but there was that final debate that was the most-watched in history.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
I didn’t realize Althouse endorsed Obama. How is it possible? Along with Fried? and all the others?
I tell you: When you go to war on metropolitans and intellectuals per se, some of us will give you a big F you by voting for Obama. I’m entirely tempted but I see the bigger picture.
If you want to win in the future, you will not nominate a non/anti-intellectual such as Palin, McCain, Bush43, Bush41, Huckabee, etc. You will nominate an intellectual such as Fred, Newt, Rudy.
Oh, and Reagan WAS an intellectual, having read all the books on the right, and never ever insulting intellectuals or metropolitans. He aattacked the wrong IDEAS.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
5: True. But it does show that the polls can easily swing double digits in a short time.
Bush 1 also closed a 17 point gap after he unmasked Dukakis.
Obama’s mask is dropping too at just the right time.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
although her ability to reason and examine an argument shows she is not an intellectual…but an intellectual pretender, which unfortunately is a problem among the majority of those who consider themselves intellectual
October 27th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
#6, you only vote for egg-heads? Reagan was not an intellectual. This is a new argument from you.
What if Palin ran as a Goldwater Republican in 4 years? How would you feel?
October 27th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Jindal is intellectual.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Metro,
“You will nominate an intellectual such as Fred, Newt, Rudy.”
To me, “intellectual” means not simply that someone is intelligent, but operates largely in the realm of abstract thought and ideas. By that definition Rudy is definitely not an intellectual. He is a very capable administrator, but he is no philosopher. He hasn’t made sweeping proposals about the future (like Gingrich), and hasn’t written books centered on political philosophy/indeology (like any countless others). He is a mayor. I don’t get the Fred-Thompson-as-intellectual either.
Personally, I don’t think being an “intellectual” is necessarily a good quality in a President. He should not be ANTI-intellectual, but he also can’t be theorizing all day either.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Metro,
I bet you have a big portrait of William Jennings Bryan in your office, don’t you?
October 27th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
An intellectual is someone who recognizes that IDEAS drive history, and, yes, Kristofer, I’ve said Reagan was an intellectual 3-4 times in the last couple of weeks. Google it. So was Goldwater.
They don’t have to be an egg head, they simply have to respect (i.e., not insult) intellectuals.
Intellectuals have always shaped the history of nations. They once led this nation halfway into socialism, and they will do so again.
You will never defeat them by abandoning the real of the mind.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
#12: The strongest emotion I can remember as a teenager, was watching “Inherit the Wind” and feeling in my stomach that William Jennings Bryan was the most evil individual imaginable.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
IBD/TIPP Obama down to 2.8% lead — 47% to 44.2%. While this is not the closest the contest has been since this tracking poll began 2 weeks ago, it does represent JMac’s highest percentage recorded.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
From Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Main Entry:
1in·tel·lec·tu·al Listen to the pronunciation of 1intellectual
Pronunciation:
\?in-t?-?lek-ch?-w?l, -ch?l, -shw?l, -chü(-?)l\
Function:
adjective
Date:
14th century
1 a: of or relating to the intellect or its use b: developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : rational c: requiring use of the intellect 2 a: given to study, reflection, and speculation b: engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect
Just to define the term that is so often used so loosely around here.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
From Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Main Entry:
1in·tel·lec·tu·al Listen to the pronunciation of 1intellectual
Pronunciation:
\?in-t?-?lek-ch?-w?l, -ch?l, -shw?l, -chü(-?)l\
Function:
adjective
Date:
14th century
1 a: of or relating to the intellect or its use b: developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : rational c: requiring use of the intellect 2 a: given to study, reflection, and speculation b: engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect
Just to define the term that is so often used so loosely around here.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Sorry for the double post. Stupid computers. Can’t live with them and if you shoot them the neighbors call the cops.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Investors Business Daily Monday Tracking Poll
Obama: 47
McCain: 44.2
Seems more believable since 18-24 is now going to Obama by 11, up drastically from the odd McCain lead here.
Tightening here too.
Men to McCain by 5.
Women to Obama by 9.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Unless you’ve led a sheltered life and been carefully sequestered from popular media and culture, you should at least be somewhat familiar for the minimum entry standards to the “intellectual” class. An intellectual must be an atheist, work in academia, subscribe to the latest left-wing philosophical fashion, and derive his or her foundational beliefs from Marx, Lenin, or Trotsky. QED.
Reagan was portrayed by the MSM in his day as a backward rube, second-rate actor, and anti-intellectual — the latter feature because he came down hard on university student protesters as governor of California. During most of his presidency, he was portrayed as stupid and senile. Being a follower — take note of that specific term! — of Goldwater simply marked him as a violent reactionary. His decision to out-arm the Soviets was proof that he was a dangerous knuckle-dragger.
Ignore any MSM portrayals of the intellectual capacity of any Republican.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Stevens was found guilty.
There goes another Senate seat.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
That’s probably about my favorite Senate seat to lose – however, I hate to see the Dems get a fillubuster proof majority.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
have to reelect stevens, because palin could fill his seat if mccain loses.
this is the opening palin will need to grow her public image and gain experience if mccain falls short next week.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
markg, who cares what the media says. I don’t. That doesn’t mean I want “Palin, McCain, Bush43, Bush41, Huckabee, etc.” as Metro so kindly listed. I think Palin shows more promise than the others but none of them have been particularly useful leaders of the party. Even though I campaigned on the streets of seattle for Bush, I think he has been a complete disaster for the party and somewhat of a failure for the country.
October 27th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Reagan was definitely an intellectual.
Here is Reagan 12 years before he first ran for President, 16 years before he led the Reagan Revolution. In 1964 he was ahead of Palin in terms of a philosophy to lead a movement and he spent the next 12-16 years developing an even more comprehensive conservative philosophy of his own through study and through meeting with intelligent people.
http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3405