Shut Up, He Explained: On The Impossibility Of Arguing With Democrats

I have an old, good Democratic friend. Even though he’s a Democrat, he’s not dumb. In fact, he ‘s a Wharton Business School graduate, which presumably means that at least at one time he knew something about business. We used to be able to disagree about politics in polite, civil, and sometimes interesting discussions. Now, alas, he goes ballistic at the first hint of conservative or Republican heresy, precluding the possibility of any discussion.

Still, every now and then I’ll send him something I’ve written, just to roil his waters and remind him that not everyone he (even if begrudgingly) regards as smart agrees with him. Thus I recently sent him my essay on Justice John Paul Stevens that I mentioned and linked here, hoping to rekindle a discussion of affirmative action and judicial interpretation that we have been carrying on sporadically for years.

Those of you who accepted my implied invitation, followed that link, and read my essay will know that it documents the fact that, after an exhaustive compelling review of the legislative history of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in his power Bakke concurring opinion, for his first decade on the Court Justice Stevens regarded the “plain language” of Title VI of that act as “crystal clear,” “perfectly clear” in its prohibition of any preferential treatment based on race by educational  institutions receiving federal funds, but then he changed his mind about affirmative action and for the rest of his tenure was a consistent supporter of the very practices he had earlier so eloquently opposed. I also criticized his recent memoir and an interview he gave about it for his failure to discuss, much less explain, his about face on such a crucial issue, especially because the formerly “crystal clear” text had not changed at all.

Here is my Democratic friend’s reply, in full:

You are kidding, right – When are Alito and Rogers going to tell us when they changed their mind on Stare decisis, and why. Citizens United has turned the republican nomination process into a game (or a joke) of which multi millionaire(s) wants to spend the most. Romney destroys Gingrich in Iowa with super pac money, gingrich stays in the race only because some casino guy gives him $7 million for his superpac which he uses to beat romney in S.C., romney wins florida because he has more millionaires and therefore more TV ads than gingrich, gingrich stays in the race and keeps firing at romney.

I am not much in the mood to discuss whether supreme court justices have a responsibility to tells us when they change their mind and when. There are much bigger “fish to fry” with the supreme court.

Leaving aside the friendship issue, the saddest thing about the tone and substance of this reply to my argument is that it’s so typical of the Democratic style of “debate” these days, when all too many conversations end before they even begin.

Say What? (1)

  1. Becky February 2, 2012 at 11:04 pm | | Reply

    Yep. That’s been my experience in “discussing” issues with Democrats/Liberals. Their minds are as closed as shopkeepers’ restrooms near an Occupy Wall Street event.

Say What?