"The things that will destroy us are: politics without principle; pleasure without conscience; wealth without work; knowledge without character; business without morality; science without humanity; and worship without sacrifice."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
HAPPENINGS
Here at the end of 2002, it may be fitting to pause for a moment and take stock of what the Commonweal Institute has accomplished in the last twelve months. The short answer is "a lot." The highlights:
December 2001. Fundraising letter mailed. Original website design begun.
January 2002. CI becomes a National Planning Partner in Jim Hightower's Rolling Thunder Down-Home Democracy Tour. Receives its first endorsement, from Steve Westly, subsequently elected Comtroller of the state of California.
February. Website launched.
March. At a Rolling Thunder event in Austin, Texas, Director of Development Katherine Forrest speaks on "How to Create and Run a Successful Media Campaign."
April. CI receives IRS approval of its 501(c)(3) nonprofit status. President Leonard Salle begins giving public presentations to political groups and labor organizations.
May. First issue of the Uncommon Denominator. Compton Foundation grants CI office space for the coming year.
June. CI moves into new office space in Menlo Park, California. Begins networking with sustainability organizations.
July. Former California Assemblyman Ted Lempert speaks at CI reception. CI begins networking with election reform organizations.
August. Radio interviews with Katherine Forrest (at an NPR affiliate in Mendocino, CA) and Leonard Salle (at KPFA in Berkeley, CA).
September. Dave Johnson hired as a full-time associate. Website upgrades begun.
October. Fundraising strategy finalized.
November. Website unveiled, dramatically raising CI's profile and initiating a steady flow of monetary contributions.
December. Increased visibility on Internet attracts CI volunteers from around the country.
Finally, the latest addition to our advisory board is Geoffrey Nunberg, a Stanford University linguist who has published widely in the non-academic media about the relationship between language and politics. The Commonweal Institute is proud to have him on board.
TALKING POINTS
When was the last time - outside of a political science seminar - that you heard the phrase "conservative judicial activism"? In connection with the Taney Court, perhaps, which issued the notorious Dred Scot decision in 1853? In the wake of the truncated aftermath of Election 2000? Perhaps never. Perhaps you should hear it more often.
One of the more muscular tentacles of right-wing Conventional Wisdom is the notion of "activist liberal judges," a phrase that (by design) evokes images of Perrier-sipping ideologues running roughshod over the will of Congress and therefore over the will of the American people. Like the myth of a "liberal media," it has been used to great effect in turning public attitudes not only against the policies that conservatives oppose, but against the institutions and individuals that do not hew to the conservative line.
What we've seen in recent years, however, is a sharp rise in conservative judicial activism, with federal jurists appointed by Republican Presidents exerting power from the bench more aggressively. This trend needs to become part of the conversation that Americans have about the judiciary. What is at stake are not just individual cases and decisions, but the ability of the government to respond to social and environmental challenges.
So what is "judicial activism"? Essentially, it refers to the willingness of judges to overturn laws - and their actually doing so. Then it gets more complicated.
In its classically "liberal" form, judicial activism has implied an approach to the Constitution that emphasizes the ambiguity of language, recognizes the flexibility of meanings and circumstances, and tries to respond to the spirit of the document. In certain cases it has resulted in the establishment of legal principles, such as the right to privacy, which are seen to "inhere" in the Constitution, despite the fact that the words themselves do not appear there. What conservative commentators have done, with the Warren Court as whipping boy, is to wrap this all up as "loose constructionism" and then associate it with a cultural permissiveness and a "politicization" of the law that they blame for the decline of post-Eisenhower America.
But stop right there. Conservatives have their own brand of judicial activism, no less ideological and no less influential. It is distinct in its methodology (tending toward a narrow interpretation of text) and in its values (tending to give priority to property rights over civil rights, for example). Yet when it comes to the fundamental action of activist jurisprudence - the overturning of laws - conservative and liberal judges are equally powerful. We should evaluate their decisions, therefore, not just on abstract principles of jurisprudence, but on a real-world assessment of who wins and who loses, of which interests are served and which oxen gored.
Consider: according to University of Virginia professor David O'Brien, the Rehnquist Court has now overturned more federal and state laws than the Warren Court. It is by definition more activist. Admittedly, not all of these overturnings have been conservative in their direction, and some are hard to classify, particularly those in which two Constitutional rights conflict. This makes the effort to define decisions as "liberal" or "conservative" often problematic.
For instance, if the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation is thrown out, the decision would ground itself on the civil liberty of free speech, and might therefore be coded as "liberal." Yet the rationale would be based on a "conservative" interpretation of the first amendment, namely that spending money is a form of free speech. So the better way to understand such a decision would be to look at its practical results in the political arena. In this hypothetical case, overturning McCain-Feingold would disproportionately benefit conservatives by keeping open the pipeline of corporate money to conservative office-holders.
These caveats and complexities, however, should not obscure the central point. A judicial activism based on conservative principles and serving conservative interests is making itself felt in a wide range of policy areas, from affirmative action to environmental regulation to electoral procedure. The canard that liberal judges rule the roost is as misleading as the myth of liberal media bias. And it will only become more so as the new Senate hustles through President Bush's judicial nominees.
WIT AND WISDOM
"According to military analysts, an invasion of Iraq by U.S. forces could cost between $20 and $50 billion. The Pentagon announced that it would offset those costs by referring to it as the Verizon Wireless/Pizza Hut War Against Iraq." -- Tina Fey, Saturday Night Live
QUOTED!
"For the next several decades, fossil fuel use is key to improving the human condition. Freed from their geologic repositories, fossil fuels have been used for many economic, health, and environmental benefits." - Sallie Baliunas, Heritage Foundation Lecture #758 (Aug. 22, 2002).
CHECK IT OUT
Some truths bear much repetition. One of the most important is that successful democracy requires a well-informed public. Knowledge enables choice; ignorance invites manipulation. Truth nourishes freedom; spectacle diminishes it. An electorate mindful of the ways of power can better resist its abuse; a public unaware of the problems it faces will find it harder to achieve real self-determination.
Fortunately for democracy, there's Murray Edelman, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin. Unfortunately, there's all the stuff he writes about.
In his most recent work, The Politics of Misinformation (Cambridge, 2001), Edelman shows how the various institutions of society - from the political parties to the scientific establishment to the law - create misleading images of social progress and rational democracy which the public is all too ready to believe. These images, he argues, work to reassure people that everything is moving forward just fine while dissembling the superficial nature of most "progress," limiting understanding of the systemic problems of the country, and thereby weakening the democratic process.
Another troubling read is Edelman's earlier work, Constructing the Political Spectacle (Chicago, 1988). Here, he focuses on the means by which the language and symbols of politics are employed to create a mass-consumption spectacle that distracts attention from the real issues and thus reinforces the ideological and economic status quo. In this account, the political process obscures its own workings behind a screen of entertaining conflict and "interpretation," ably assisted by compliant media and a spectacle-hungry public.
Even if this strikes you as common sense, Edelman shows how it all works, in detail, in depth, and with theoretical sophistication. His writing is academic, and his conclusions are not exactly heartening, but both books are high-octane, high-nutrient. Check 'em out.
READY TO GO
Helping people communicate with their elected leaders or with the media is a central part of how the Commonweal Institute plans to contribute to a vital democracy. This month, the Uncommon Denominator offers a sample letter-to-the-editor on the recent controversy surrounding Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond.
The Commonweal Institute claims no proprietary rights over the text of this letter. Feel free to use all of the text verbatim, or portions of it, as you see fit - or you might just use the letter as a starting point for your own piece.
"To the Editor:
Conservatives of all stripes have been distancing themselves from Trent Lott's controversial comments at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party. For that they deserve credit. But let's keep it in perspective.
In a number of important respects, African Americans have made real advances in the last few years. We have a black Secretary of State, a black National Security Advisor, and what appears to be - on the part of most of our public figures - a sincere denunciation of racism and segregation. What the country still lacks, however, is a national policy agenda that actually benefits most African Americans.
Above all, the conservative obsession with cutting taxes is already severely limiting the government's ability to help poorer people through such programs as Head Start, Medicaid, and Social Security. In addition, conservatives are calling for less money to go to public education, dragging their heels on electoral reform, and reversing environmental regulation. All of these policies disproportionately affect African Americans.
The point of all this is that, while conservative gestures toward inclusiveness are welcome, a different set of real priorities would be more welcome. If the Trent Lott episode should teach us anything, it's that words certainly are important, but talk is cheap."
ENDORSEMENTS
"There is an urgent need today for a think tank to research and develop ideas and facts to inform the public and assist officeholders. The Commonweal Institute's work is urgently needed and I welcome what they will do and the impact they will have during one of the most trying times in the life of our country." - Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, 14th CD-CA
© 2002 The Commonweal Institute
Printer-friendly version