A very good Jonathan Cohn article in The New Republic criticizes a whiny new Democratic commercial that portrays a cute, cuddly “Phil” (Phil A. Buster; get it!) as an endangered species.
Cohn criticizes not just the commercial, but the Democrats for what it says about them.
This isn’t to say Democrats should simply forfeit the fight over conservative judges or any other matter. But, in the long run, it is a mistake to make such battles about legislative process rather than public values. Excessive appeals to parliamentary fairness merely reinforce the public’s sense that Democrats care more about legalisms than the difference between right and wrong….
Fighting Bush’s judicial nominees on the merits of their views will inevitably draw Democrats into at least a few cultural debates they probably don’t want to have right now. But, in a sense, that’s precisely the point. The filibuster has become a crutch for Democrats, a way to defend their programs and values without having to actually win over voters. This is the same essential mistake Democrats have made over and over again since the early ’70s in relying upon courts to secure rights (like unfettered access to abortion) and promote reforms (like affirmative action) for which they hadn’t yet built solid popular support. These court decisions eventually provoked political backlashes that have hobbled Democrats since and, in cases like gay marriage, probably set back the liberal cause by many years. If Democrats hadn’t been so successful in pushing the courts so far ahead of public opinion, it’s possible they might have worked harder at actually convincing voters that they were right on these issues, bringing the political consensus closer to them rather than pushing it away.
Good point, and one the Dems will no doubt ignore, to their detriment. But Cohn doesn’t do enough with the disingenuousness that oozes from this commercial. Here’s part of his description:
In the video, Phil explains that he’s part of the delicate system of checks and balances that the Founding Fathers built into American democracy. “It’s the jobs of checks and balances to make sure that no one gets too much influence and everyone’s voice is heard,” Phil says. “But there are a few politicians that want to get rid of checks and balances by squashing little old me.” With that, a giant animated robot bursts out of the Capitol rotunda and chases Phil down the street, shouting, “No checks … no balances … one-party rule!” As the video ends, Phil urges viewers to “contact your senator” so that “everyone’s voice is heard.”
So, in blocking Bush’s judges the Dems are simply standing up for “checks and balances” so that “everyone’s voice is heard”? On the contrary, their problem is not that no one hears them but that a majority disagrees with them. If they doubt that, they should let the judges come up for a vote. If they believe that some senators do not reflect the views of their constituents, then they should campaign against him or her on this issue in the next election. They are in trouble not because they are not audible but because they are not persuasive.
Since the Democrats do not have a problem being heard, talking forever is hardly a solution.
I’m sufficiently sick of complaining about judicial activism and the left’s reliance on same that I’ve started a defense of it. If you’re curious…
Worst post ever, John. We do not live in a democracy where everything is decided on a majority vote. That is to the good, else America would look very like our college campuses today and wouldn
nother – Surely you overstate. I know for a fact that I have many posts that compete with this one for “wost post ever.”
I believe you also overinfer (to coin a word). I never said or implied that I am opposed to checks and balances. My point was that that is not why the Dems filibuster these nominees. They are attempting to block them not to protect their right to block them but because they fear that these nominees, if approved, would decide cases in ways of which the Dems disapprove. If the Dems were more honest about that, it would be easier to take their opposition seriously. Instead they try to cover their partisan interest with non-sensical claims about “out of the mainstream” etc.