To what few people still read this, hope you're having a Happy Fourth of July!
Jill and I already began celebrating earlier this week with a commemorative exchanging of gifts. Jill gave me a box filled with debris, and a day later in exchange I gave her a scale model TIE Fighter!
Thursday, July 04, 2013
Wednesday, July 03, 2013
AIPAC Shuns Settlement Org
JTA has an interesting article up on Jewish organizations which responded to Secretary of State John Kerry's call to support a two-state solution. These groups -- mainstreamers such as the AJC, ADL, and JCPA -- all have quite vocally denounced certain segments in the current Israeli government (primarily Naftali Bennett and his buddies) who oppose the creation of a Palestinian state.
But the more interesting tidbit, from my vantage point, was a bit buried. Often times, AIPAC is cast in these dramas as a pure malevolent force that completely kowtows to Israel's far-right. If you thought, the following might be a bit of a shocker:
But the more interesting tidbit, from my vantage point, was a bit buried. Often times, AIPAC is cast in these dramas as a pure malevolent force that completely kowtows to Israel's far-right. If you thought, the following might be a bit of a shocker:
Each of the groups that repudiated Bennett framed their statements in the context of Kerry’s bid to restart the peace process and come as Israeli settler leaders opposed to a two-state solution are making their case in Washington. Dani Dayan, a leader of the Yesha Council, the West Bank settlement umbrella body, met last week with top Republican lawmakers in Congress.Not only is it important that the pro-settlement wing of "pro-Israel" be marginalized to crank groups like ZOA and the RJC, this also fits within my broader strategic vision of driving a wedge between AIPAC and its right-ward critics. The more centrist Jewish organizations, including AIPAC, view ZOA and its ilk as foes rather than friends, the more willing they'll be to work with center-left groups in order to protect Israel's longetivity as a Jewish, democratic state.
[...]
AIPAC, notably, declined an invitation to attend the meeting June 27 between Dayan and top Republicans, including Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee; Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), the chairwoman of the committee’s Middle East subcommittee; and Rep. Pete Roskam (R-Ill.), the party’s chief deputy whip.
Instead, the Zionist Organization of America and the Republican Jewish Coalition led the Jewish contingent at the meeting. The ZOA has counter-rebuked the Jewish groups that criticized Bennett and Danon. Foxman, the ZOA said in a June 24 release, was “suppressing opposition to a Palestinian state.”
Spot the Problem!
Regarding Tom Osborne, former Nebraska football coach and then Republican congressional representative:
The penultimate chapter in the book, “A Difficult Road to Walk,” is an in-depth exploration of Osborne’s Christianity — he notes that he never infringes on Sundays during the season, so his players can attend services, “Protestant, Catholic or Jewish”Via.
Tuesday, July 02, 2013
Hunting for Assimilation
This Phillip Weiss essay about Justice Kagan's recent forays into hunting feels like it could stumble across an interesting observation were it not so resolutely opposed to it. Indeed, Weiss' final paragraph (where he -- natch -- explains how this all inexorably points to the end of Zionism) is almost incomprehensible. Nonetheless, I do think Justice Kagan's experiences in this area raise some very important points about assimilation and the status of Jews in America.
The question of Elena Kagan and hunting first arose during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, the result of rural-representing Republicans who were concerned that Kagan would be hostile to gun rights while on the Court. The problem was that Kagan came from a particular culture -- east coast, urban Jewish -- that really doesn't have much of a tradition with regard to firearms. And hunting, in particular, is discouraged amongst observant Jews. Nonetheless, Kagan gamely volunteered that she'd be willing to try hunting, and that promise smoothed (albeit certainly didn't clear) the path to her eventual confirmation.
This story always resonated with me because I have also thought a bit about how the "gun question" might sink my own fantasy confirmation hearing.* Like Kagan, I have very little gun experience -- limited to once at summer camp when I was in 4th grade (I'm quite proud to report that one shot did strike the edge of the paper). And I have no interest in going hunting -- frankly, the idea makes me a little queasy. So what could I do to assert my red-blooded Americaness? Somehow, I don't think professing my love for the History Channel's Top Shot is going to cut it.
To be fair, I don't disagree with Weiss that trying something outside ones comfort zone displays a laudable flexibility when one is about to be installed in such a powerful decision-making position. But there is another way of looking at this, which is that, despite her incontestable status amongst America's rarefied elite -- Harvard Law School Dean, Solicitor General, Supreme Court nominee -- Kagan's Jewish culture still rendered her an untrustworthy outsider. If she wanted to truly be accepted as "one of us", she would have to distance herself from being distinctively and differentially Jewish.
As best I can tell, Weiss views this as a good thing. Kagan is a "Jew who was granted enormous power and who then felt a keen responsibility to represent a broader constituency than her own group." Dominant groups in America don't face these sorts of choices, because they perform their status as part of that "broader constituency" simply by living their lives. Their Americaness is an entitlement, while Jews have to earn it by casting aside their Jewishness. Jews, as a small minority in America, cannot be Jews qua Jews while legitimately exercising power. We must become "just" Americans. The "melting pot", assimilationist ideal is fundamentally incompatible with the distinctiveness of minority and marginalized groups.
Contra Weiss, this does not show that "Zionism is doomed." If anything, it shows Zionism's enduring appeal for Jews, because Zionism holds out a promise to Jews that they need not make this choice. A Zionist state is to Jews what America is to Antonin Scalia -- a place where he can just be Antonin Scalia and it is entirely normal and unremarkable. That's going to be very appealing to a lot of people.
* Of course, in the real world my lack of gun ownership would play no role in sinking my judicial candidacy. This blog's archives would more than suffice my chances of ever being confirmed, or even nominated.
The question of Elena Kagan and hunting first arose during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, the result of rural-representing Republicans who were concerned that Kagan would be hostile to gun rights while on the Court. The problem was that Kagan came from a particular culture -- east coast, urban Jewish -- that really doesn't have much of a tradition with regard to firearms. And hunting, in particular, is discouraged amongst observant Jews. Nonetheless, Kagan gamely volunteered that she'd be willing to try hunting, and that promise smoothed (albeit certainly didn't clear) the path to her eventual confirmation.
This story always resonated with me because I have also thought a bit about how the "gun question" might sink my own fantasy confirmation hearing.* Like Kagan, I have very little gun experience -- limited to once at summer camp when I was in 4th grade (I'm quite proud to report that one shot did strike the edge of the paper). And I have no interest in going hunting -- frankly, the idea makes me a little queasy. So what could I do to assert my red-blooded Americaness? Somehow, I don't think professing my love for the History Channel's Top Shot is going to cut it.
To be fair, I don't disagree with Weiss that trying something outside ones comfort zone displays a laudable flexibility when one is about to be installed in such a powerful decision-making position. But there is another way of looking at this, which is that, despite her incontestable status amongst America's rarefied elite -- Harvard Law School Dean, Solicitor General, Supreme Court nominee -- Kagan's Jewish culture still rendered her an untrustworthy outsider. If she wanted to truly be accepted as "one of us", she would have to distance herself from being distinctively and differentially Jewish.
As best I can tell, Weiss views this as a good thing. Kagan is a "Jew who was granted enormous power and who then felt a keen responsibility to represent a broader constituency than her own group." Dominant groups in America don't face these sorts of choices, because they perform their status as part of that "broader constituency" simply by living their lives. Their Americaness is an entitlement, while Jews have to earn it by casting aside their Jewishness. Jews, as a small minority in America, cannot be Jews qua Jews while legitimately exercising power. We must become "just" Americans. The "melting pot", assimilationist ideal is fundamentally incompatible with the distinctiveness of minority and marginalized groups.
Contra Weiss, this does not show that "Zionism is doomed." If anything, it shows Zionism's enduring appeal for Jews, because Zionism holds out a promise to Jews that they need not make this choice. A Zionist state is to Jews what America is to Antonin Scalia -- a place where he can just be Antonin Scalia and it is entirely normal and unremarkable. That's going to be very appealing to a lot of people.
* Of course, in the real world my lack of gun ownership would play no role in sinking my judicial candidacy. This blog's archives would more than suffice my chances of ever being confirmed, or even nominated.
Not This Again....
Alec MacGillis does not think Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley is a real candidate for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. Part of his rationale is simply that O'Malley is too "staid" and is a boring public speaker. The resurrection of "do you want to have a beer with him" logic, which drove me into fits of insanity when it was applied to Al Gore, is enough on its own to make me want ot drop MacGillis into a vat of acid.
Now, I might -- might -- be able to forgive MacGillis here simply because what he's saying might be descriptively accurate (he is not the only source I've read that has negative things to say about O'Malley's ability to connect with audiences). What's more baffling is the argument that O'Malley won't "excite" the Democratic base because he focuses too much on the utilitarian efficacy of his proposals. In essence, MacGillis seems to think that emphasizing how one's plans make the world better is incompatible with normative liberalism. It's very weird -- over and over again MacGillis concedes that O'Malley's managerial instincts have made Maryland a much better place, but he almost says it with a sneer, as if performance was not a valid metric to measure Democratic politicians. I really don't get it at all.
Now, I might -- might -- be able to forgive MacGillis here simply because what he's saying might be descriptively accurate (he is not the only source I've read that has negative things to say about O'Malley's ability to connect with audiences). What's more baffling is the argument that O'Malley won't "excite" the Democratic base because he focuses too much on the utilitarian efficacy of his proposals. In essence, MacGillis seems to think that emphasizing how one's plans make the world better is incompatible with normative liberalism. It's very weird -- over and over again MacGillis concedes that O'Malley's managerial instincts have made Maryland a much better place, but he almost says it with a sneer, as if performance was not a valid metric to measure Democratic politicians. I really don't get it at all.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
James Madison was a WOLVERINE
Interesting tidbit from Justice Scalia's Windsor dissent: He seems to endorse congressional guerilla warfare against the presidency as the right way for separation of powers questions to be hashed out between the legislature and executive.
I bet I can guess his vote in Noel Canning.
Our system is designed for confrontation. That is what "[a]mbition . . . counteract[ing] ambition,"The Federalist, No. 51, at 322 (J. Madison), is all about. If majorities in both Houses of Congress care enough about the matter, they have available innumerable ways to compel executive action without a lawsuit—from refusing toconfirm Presidential appointees to the elimination offunding. (Nothing says "'enforce the Act" quite likeSlip. op. at 14.
". . . or you will have money for little else.").
I bet I can guess his vote in Noel Canning.
Monday, June 24, 2013
A Few Thoughts on Today's Race-Related SCOTUS Cases
The Supreme Court released three race/discrimination decisions today. The most prominent, Fisher v. University of Texas, also turned out to be the least meaningful -- the Court just remanded to the 5th Circuit to properly apply the strict scrutiny test. The second, Vance v. Ball State University, narrowed the definition of who is a supervisor for purpose of Title VII harassment claims. Finally, in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nasser, the court tightened the causation requirements for retaliation claims made under Title VII. Some scattered thoughts below:
* Everybody thought Fisher would be a death knell for affirmative action. Instead, we got a very narrow decision that remanded to the 5th Circuit. I'm fine living to fight another day. And Justice Kennedy continues to confound -- he has yet to uphold a race-conscious affirmative action program, but he has also steadfastly refused to write an opinion closing the door to them entirely.
* Justice Scalia has been on the Supreme Court since 1986. Justice Thomas has been on the Supreme Court since 1991. Both have been the Court's highest profile exponents of constitutional "originalism," and both have also been the Court's primary cheerleaders for a "colorblind" constitution. Yet in all their years on the Court, these two good ships have yet to cross paths. Both Justices wrote concurrences in Fisher (Thomas' was more substantive), and that streak remains intact: Neither Justice has yet attempted to render an originalist justification of constitutional colorblindness.
* Part of Nasser's justification for the heightened causation requirement is the Court's worry about frivilous lawsuits, which the Court wants to see dismissed at summary judgment (pp. 18-19). This is infuriating on several levels. First, I'm not convinced there is any higher risk of frivilous filings in the retaliation context as in anywhere else. As I've argued earlier, there are good reasons to believe that persons do not bring discrimination cases unless they have a strong suspicion that they have been unjustly terminated. Second, there is a fair amount of evidence that people (judges included) are in fact too prone to dismiss discrimination claims as unwarranted because it interferes with their desire to view the world as just. This risk is amplified when there are other factors which could (but do not necessarily) explain the adverse decision (see the work of Katie Eyers on this).
Third, the problem of frivilous lawsuits shouldn't really be affected by this decision because the type of evidence which could support a jury verdict that an unlawful motive contributed to an adverse employment decision is no different than that which could support a verdict that it was the but-for cause of the decision. Once evidence is presented that retaliation was "on the mind" of the decision-maker, it is seemingly for the factfinder to decide how much of a role that factor played vis-a-vis other potential justifications for the adverse action. Nor will plaintiffs be able to self-regulate, because informational asymmetries prevent them from knowing their claim is precluded by a but-for cause defense. A plaintiff has only a limited ability to divine what is truly on the mind of her employer or detailed personnel records providing a basis for comparison. What an employee knows, generally, is (1) the fact of a discrimination complaint, (2) the response of the employer (presumably negative), and (3) the fact of the adverse action. In other words, she can know with some degree of certitude that her initial complaint was on the mind of the decision-maker when the alleged retaliatory decision was made, but has little knowledge of whether it was a but-for cause. Hence, we're likely to see more cases filed that end up being nowhere near the legal dividing line between good and bad cases, not because of plaintiff bad faith, but because of asymmetrical knowledge.
* Everybody thought Fisher would be a death knell for affirmative action. Instead, we got a very narrow decision that remanded to the 5th Circuit. I'm fine living to fight another day. And Justice Kennedy continues to confound -- he has yet to uphold a race-conscious affirmative action program, but he has also steadfastly refused to write an opinion closing the door to them entirely.
* Justice Scalia has been on the Supreme Court since 1986. Justice Thomas has been on the Supreme Court since 1991. Both have been the Court's highest profile exponents of constitutional "originalism," and both have also been the Court's primary cheerleaders for a "colorblind" constitution. Yet in all their years on the Court, these two good ships have yet to cross paths. Both Justices wrote concurrences in Fisher (Thomas' was more substantive), and that streak remains intact: Neither Justice has yet attempted to render an originalist justification of constitutional colorblindness.
* Part of Nasser's justification for the heightened causation requirement is the Court's worry about frivilous lawsuits, which the Court wants to see dismissed at summary judgment (pp. 18-19). This is infuriating on several levels. First, I'm not convinced there is any higher risk of frivilous filings in the retaliation context as in anywhere else. As I've argued earlier, there are good reasons to believe that persons do not bring discrimination cases unless they have a strong suspicion that they have been unjustly terminated. Second, there is a fair amount of evidence that people (judges included) are in fact too prone to dismiss discrimination claims as unwarranted because it interferes with their desire to view the world as just. This risk is amplified when there are other factors which could (but do not necessarily) explain the adverse decision (see the work of Katie Eyers on this).
Third, the problem of frivilous lawsuits shouldn't really be affected by this decision because the type of evidence which could support a jury verdict that an unlawful motive contributed to an adverse employment decision is no different than that which could support a verdict that it was the but-for cause of the decision. Once evidence is presented that retaliation was "on the mind" of the decision-maker, it is seemingly for the factfinder to decide how much of a role that factor played vis-a-vis other potential justifications for the adverse action. Nor will plaintiffs be able to self-regulate, because informational asymmetries prevent them from knowing their claim is precluded by a but-for cause defense. A plaintiff has only a limited ability to divine what is truly on the mind of her employer or detailed personnel records providing a basis for comparison. What an employee knows, generally, is (1) the fact of a discrimination complaint, (2) the response of the employer (presumably negative), and (3) the fact of the adverse action. In other words, she can know with some degree of certitude that her initial complaint was on the mind of the decision-maker when the alleged retaliatory decision was made, but has little knowledge of whether it was a but-for cause. Hence, we're likely to see more cases filed that end up being nowhere near the legal dividing line between good and bad cases, not because of plaintiff bad faith, but because of asymmetrical knowledge.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Guys and Dolls
An ongoing linguistic dilemma I have is how to generically refer to females of my rough age. "Girl" is inappropriate because they're adults. "Woman" seems overly formal and like they're middle-aged. For men, "guy" works really well, and I'm generally a proponent of converting "guy" into a gender neutral term (e.g., "the guys in my law school class" referring to everyone in the law school class, not just men). But others object to this. "Gal" is the obvious feminine counterpart to "guy", but I can't take "gal" seriously -- I feel like I'm in a Western movie.
So my co-clerk and I decided to go on Thesaurus.com and look for synonyms. Here's what we got for "gal":
So my co-clerk and I decided to go on Thesaurus.com and look for synonyms. Here's what we got for "gal":
babe, bimbo, chick, dame, dish, doll, doxy, female, floozy, gal , girl, honey, lady, lassie, miss, moll, skirt, sweet thing, tootsie.By contrast, here's "guy":
bird, bloke, boy, brother, bud, buddy, cat, chap, chum, dude, feller, fellow, gentleman, individual, male, person.So a "guy" is a "person," but a "gal" is a "bimbo." Okay then.
Monday, June 17, 2013
AJC Tackles Naftali Bennett
After Israeli minister and Jewish Home chieftain Naftali Bennett declared outright opposition to the two-state solution, the American Jewish Committee's David Harris had some harsh words for Bennett:
Bennett's statement reflects a deep divide within Bibi's cabinet, between right-wing hardliners who cling to a vision of Greater Israel and centrist realists who understand that Israel can be Jewish, a democracy, or in control of the West Bank and Gaza, but not all three. Fortunately, Bibi has so far rejected pressure from his right flank to disavow a two-state solution, and did in fact specifically disavow Bennett's comments. But it is good to see a major pillar of the American Jewish community stick to its guns on this issue.
“Minister Naftali Bennett's remarks, rejecting outright the vision of two states for two peoples, are stunningly shortsighted,” said AJC Executive Director David Harris. "Since he is a member of the current Israeli coalition government, it is important that his view be repudiated by the country's top leaders."But ... but ... I thought Jews weren't capable of criticizing Israel or its leaders!
“Bennett contravenes the outlook of Prime Minister Netanyahu and contradicts the vision presented earlier this month to the AJC Global Forum by Minister Tzipi Livni, chief Israeli negotiator with the Palestinians,” Harris continued. "Livni stated clearly that a negotiated two-state settlement is the only way to assure that the State of Israel will remain both Jewish and democratic. That is a view we at AJC have long supported.”
"We are under no illusion about the difficulties of achieving a two-state accord," Harris concluded. "But Bennett's alternative scenario offers only the prospect of a dead-end strategy of endless conflict and growing isolation for Israel."
Bennett's statement reflects a deep divide within Bibi's cabinet, between right-wing hardliners who cling to a vision of Greater Israel and centrist realists who understand that Israel can be Jewish, a democracy, or in control of the West Bank and Gaza, but not all three. Fortunately, Bibi has so far rejected pressure from his right flank to disavow a two-state solution, and did in fact specifically disavow Bennett's comments. But it is good to see a major pillar of the American Jewish community stick to its guns on this issue.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Price on Their Head
Israel is toughening its laws against so-called "price tag" militants, moving to draw parity between these terrorists and Palestinian terrorists who assault Israeli civilians.
Excellent news. These thugs are a major destabilizing force in Israel and in Palestine, and interfere with Israel's ability to effectuate a peaceful end to the occupation and the installation of a two-state solution. They are no different in any relevant respect from Hamas, and shouldn't be treated any differently either. It's good to see Bibi's government getting the message on that score.
Excellent news. These thugs are a major destabilizing force in Israel and in Palestine, and interfere with Israel's ability to effectuate a peaceful end to the occupation and the installation of a two-state solution. They are no different in any relevant respect from Hamas, and shouldn't be treated any differently either. It's good to see Bibi's government getting the message on that score.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
The Unbully Pulpit
President Obama endorsed the "Gang of Eight" immigration bill in a speech yesterday. Jamelle Bouie is in a panic:
But even taking this phenomenom at face value, what I find most interesting about it is how it falsifies the lazy beltway wisdom that Obama's problems all stem from his lack of engagement with the opposition. If only he was nicer to Republicans; if only he had more dinner parties; if only he went on more golf outings. Now he endorses a bill that prominent Republicans have worked on, and the new CW is that Obama can't get within 50 miles of something if it is to have a chance of passage. Apparently, the right doesn't just want to be wooed by Obama at all. They just don't like the guy.
In no way is it an exaggeration to say that President Obama’s speech came at the worst possible time. Later this afternoon, the Senate will take a procedural vote that will determine whether or not chamber decides to begin debate on the Gang of Eight bill.Whether I agree or disagree with this analyiss, it is kind of astonishing. And of course, Obama's decision might be tactical -- every time the right-wing lets its crazy loose with respect to immigration, another million Latinos become lifelong Democratic voters. Particularly if the President is convinced that he's got a working victory margin, he might not mind letting the GOP humiliate itself one last time.
Insofar that Rubio, Jeff Flake, Lindsay Graham and others were having a hard time bringing conservatives to their side, it’s now even more difficult. And if House Republicans take this as a cue to reflexively oppose reform, it puts Boehner in a tight spot—does he try to build a GOP majority for the bill? Does he abandon the “Hastert rule” and pass a bill with Democratic support! Or does he leave the effort altogether?
If this sounds dramatic, then you are drastically underestimating the anti-Obama furor of the Republican base, which has ended political careers for the sin of being friendly with the president. If Obama wants comprehensive immigration reform to pass, he needs to stay completely out of the way. If he wants to claim some credit, he can do so at the signing.
But even taking this phenomenom at face value, what I find most interesting about it is how it falsifies the lazy beltway wisdom that Obama's problems all stem from his lack of engagement with the opposition. If only he was nicer to Republicans; if only he had more dinner parties; if only he went on more golf outings. Now he endorses a bill that prominent Republicans have worked on, and the new CW is that Obama can't get within 50 miles of something if it is to have a chance of passage. Apparently, the right doesn't just want to be wooed by Obama at all. They just don't like the guy.
Saturday, June 08, 2013
You're Hot and You're Cold....
Now this is a story. Palestinian Finance Minister shows up at a BDS conference. Participant asks minister why they're still engaging in security cooperation with Israel, because BDS is a totally non-violent movement that absolutely does not support an ongoing aggressive campaign of terrorism against Israel. Minister insults participant for asking the question. Minister is kicked out of the BDS conference, because BDS absolutely speaks for "Palestinian society", absent the government the majority voted for. Then PA thugs grab and beat up the questioner (which I don't support either, but one notes that BDS chieftain Omar Barghouti is a grad student in Israel and has yet managed to avoid being assaulted by the Shin Bet).
Friday, June 07, 2013
Waiting for a Sign
America's policy towards Syria has been rather ambivalent. And most Americans seem to share in that ambivalence. It's not hard to understand why -- it's a complicated problem with a lot of moving parts and competing interests at stake. On the one hand, Assad is most certainly a bad guy. On the other hand, the rebels are an amalgamation of different factions ranging from genuine reformers to Islamist radicals. On the first hand, Assad's forces have been continually massacring civilians. Then again, the rebels hands aren't exactly clean either. American intervention might stop some of the more egregious atrocities; but of course America is belatedly discovering that we're generally not as good at intervening as we think we are. Stepping in could send a message that America will stand up for the innocents in the middle east, or it could be seen as yet another imperialist intrusion.
So it's complicated, and I don't begrudge anyone for thinking that it's complicated and not having firmly set views. What I do find somewhat amusing -- to the extent one can find humor in this tragedy -- is how some people clearly want to take a firm stance, but can't figure out what stance that is because the only thing that drives them is opposition to some third party who remains infuriatingly neutral.
For example, some leftists are very desparate to stake out a position opposing "Zionist" interference in Syria. Unfortunately, they're stymied by the fact that Israel doesn't have a clear favored side. Israel's relationship with neighbors like Syria is complex -- while obviously Assad is no friend of the Jewish state, he's also the devil they know, and instability on Israel's borders is a more immediate threat than the relatively manageable current Syrian regime. The result is that Israel generally doesn't care what happens inside Syria so long as their own border remains secure and weapons aren't transferred over to Hezbollah (this same logic, incidentally, is why contrary to popular belief Israel was not a prime cheerleader for the Iraq invasion). But you can see certain folks just straining to identify which side Israel supports -- propping up their puppet Assad or tearing down their enemy Assad -- so they can go all in on the other side.
I feel like I'm seeing a similar dynamic with respect to congressional Republicans and Obama. A lot of them seem quite anxious to attack our Syria policy, save for the part where they don't know what they think it should be. Are we abandoning democratic revolutionaries because we don't have a stomach for a fight? Or are we supporting the new al-Qaeda and giving comfort to terrorists? Since the Obama administration hasn't taken a decisive step, they're at a loss. It is, in a sense, a sterling example of the maxim that "today's conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today: updated daily" (specifically, the impoverishment of conservative ideology when it isn't clear what liberals want today).
So it's complicated, and I don't begrudge anyone for thinking that it's complicated and not having firmly set views. What I do find somewhat amusing -- to the extent one can find humor in this tragedy -- is how some people clearly want to take a firm stance, but can't figure out what stance that is because the only thing that drives them is opposition to some third party who remains infuriatingly neutral.
For example, some leftists are very desparate to stake out a position opposing "Zionist" interference in Syria. Unfortunately, they're stymied by the fact that Israel doesn't have a clear favored side. Israel's relationship with neighbors like Syria is complex -- while obviously Assad is no friend of the Jewish state, he's also the devil they know, and instability on Israel's borders is a more immediate threat than the relatively manageable current Syrian regime. The result is that Israel generally doesn't care what happens inside Syria so long as their own border remains secure and weapons aren't transferred over to Hezbollah (this same logic, incidentally, is why contrary to popular belief Israel was not a prime cheerleader for the Iraq invasion). But you can see certain folks just straining to identify which side Israel supports -- propping up their puppet Assad or tearing down their enemy Assad -- so they can go all in on the other side.
I feel like I'm seeing a similar dynamic with respect to congressional Republicans and Obama. A lot of them seem quite anxious to attack our Syria policy, save for the part where they don't know what they think it should be. Are we abandoning democratic revolutionaries because we don't have a stomach for a fight? Or are we supporting the new al-Qaeda and giving comfort to terrorists? Since the Obama administration hasn't taken a decisive step, they're at a loss. It is, in a sense, a sterling example of the maxim that "today's conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today: updated daily" (specifically, the impoverishment of conservative ideology when it isn't clear what liberals want today).
Wednesday, June 05, 2013
Power to the UN
Congratulations to Samantha Power, author of "A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide", who's been tapped as our next UN Ambassador. I can scarcely think of anyone better qualified.
Incidentally, I'm already hearing chatter from the unhinged-right that Power has supported invaded Israel. I happen to know precisely where this myth comes from (since I regrettably lost a friendship over my admittedly quite intemperate reaction to it the first time it popped up during the 2008 primary campaign): a 2002 interview where Power was asked a "thought experiment" about how she would respond to Israel/Palestine "if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide?" In that hypothetical situation, she stated we would need to support (among other things) "what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence."
Needless to say, supporting military intervention in a thought experiment regarding a genocide (and the question doesn't specify who is committing it) is a far cry from an ongoing desire to invade Israel.
Samantha Power Gets Nod as U.N. Amb
Incidentally, I'm already hearing chatter from the unhinged-right that Power has supported invaded Israel. I happen to know precisely where this myth comes from (since I regrettably lost a friendship over my admittedly quite intemperate reaction to it the first time it popped up during the 2008 primary campaign): a 2002 interview where Power was asked a "thought experiment" about how she would respond to Israel/Palestine "if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide?" In that hypothetical situation, she stated we would need to support (among other things) "what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence."
Needless to say, supporting military intervention in a thought experiment regarding a genocide (and the question doesn't specify who is committing it) is a far cry from an ongoing desire to invade Israel.
Samantha Power Gets Nod as U.N. Amb
Friday, May 31, 2013
Immodest Robes
TPM tries to read the tea leaves on the Supreme Court's upcoming affirmative action decision, but I was more struck by this throwaway line:
Numerous legal scholars thought the five conservative justices on the Roberts Court — not best known for judicial modesty — would end Grutter now.I don't disagree that the Roberts Court is not exactly a beacon of "judicial modesty." But remember when it was? Or more accurately, remember when it was thought that it would be? A lot of folks thought that would be a defining feature of the Roberts Court. Maybe that was always an unreasonable belief; maybe the whole idea of "judicial modesty" is conceptually incoherent. I do find it interesting, though, that the conventional wisdom regarding the Chief Justice and his cohorts has done a complete 180, such that now folks can just casually presume agreement with the statement that they're the furthest thing from "modest."
Monday, May 27, 2013
Pinkwashing Machine
I don't get "pinkwashing." As a concept, I mean. I don't get the supposed logic behind it. It is, as best I can tell, the only movement explicitly predicated on its adherents being morons -- at least if you take it at face value. If you don't take it at face value, it gets more pernicious still. But I race ahead of myself.
"Pinkwashing" is the supposed phenomenon whereby Israel uses its relatively good record on gay rights to distract people's attention away from the occupation. As supervillain strategies go, this seems relatively benign. Moreover, I can't imagine this is Israel's actual thought process. Picture the scene: The elders of Zion are meeting. They have the banks, the media, Hollywood -- all the tools of the global Zionist network -- at their disposal, and are trying to figure out how to keep Palestinians immiserated for as long as possible. The conclave is completely stumped until suddenly, Shmuel hits on a solution: Be nice to gays! It's to progressives like cat videos are to the rest of the world -- once they see it, they won't be able to think about anything else! Boom, problem solved -- until those meddling activists saw through the cunning plot and cried "pinkwashing."
This is a joke. For "pinkwashing" to make sense in the manner its proponents claim that it does, one basically is admitting that holding onto two thoughts is one too many. It's a claim that you are entirely incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. This doesn't happen in other contexts. If I wax lyrical about something I like about the United States -- our First Amendment right to free speech, for example -- I have yet to be accused of "washing away" the plight of the homeless. Our political discourse patterns regularly manage to hold multiple thoughts about the United States at the same time -- things we like, and things we dislike, and things we're ambivalent about. Amazing, I know. And I can do the same thing about Israel too -- I can like some of its characteristics, be ambivalent towards others, and outright oppose some more. It's really not that difficult.
Unsurprisingly, there is something more going on here, and that something is the "delegitimization" debate. Pinkwashing activists, I have to believe, aren't so delusional as to seriously believe that celebrating Israel's gay rights record actually prevents us from thinking critical thoughts about Israel's treatment of Palestinians. What they do think -- accurately -- is that viewing Israel positively in even a single dimension prevents us from holding onto the viewpoint of Israel as an inherently evil and fundamentally irredeemable state. Israel is fundamentally different from other states in that it is a paragon of wrongdoing -- it is rotten to the bone and must therefore be eradicated. Remember how the Church of Scotland viewed the liberal elements of Israel's declaration of independence? Seemingly proof that Zionism can encompass positive liberal elements, the Church instead dismissed them as external to and in tension with the Zionist project. Pinkwashing is the same thing. If Israel seems to be doing good, it's a trick or a distraction.
If one views Israel as of the same class as other countries -- a mixture of right and wrong, good and bad, then Israel's positive gay rights record poses no threat (what a strange reaction, incidentally, to instinctively recoil when a country does good!). Normal politics is not like a PGA Tour event where countries try to move up the leaderboard in the search for "best". In normal politics, we try to encourage the good and fix the bad, and recognize that no matter what field we work in we will invariably see a mix of both.
But the anti-pinkwashers don't view Israel as normal politics. The idea that Israel can do good really is a threat, because when it comes right down to it they really do have a problem with thinking two thoughts at once. Israel only allows for one thought: "evildoer." There's no room for engagement, no room for discussion, no room to consider the angles. Israel is evil, and anything that complicates that picture must be ruthlessly suppressed until the cancer can be eradicated. Even if individual "pinkwashing" activists don't hold that as their politics, that's the tenor of their discourse.
Is it any wonder, then, that most Jews react with such hostility to the pinkwashing charge? It's hardly because they want a world in which there are no critical thoughts about Israel -- Jews are perfectly capable of criticizing Israel, and again, I can't imagine anyone is dumb enough to think that "pinkwashing" would actually succeed in this endeavor even if that was the goal. Rather, the reason this politics is rejected is because it is fundamentally eliminationist in character. They understand that the conceit of "pinkwashing" really relies on a view of Israel as a wholly and purely demonic entity that must be dismantled and destroyed.
To the extent we care about what the Jewish community thinks about Israel (and many people -- pinkwashers generally included -- really don't), that discussion isn't going to go anywhere until it's accepted that Jewish views don't stem from a place of ignorance, delusion, or mass communal psychosis. When we perceive a discourse or a politics as a threat to us, that understanding should be accorded deference. Not unlimited deference, and not unthinking deference, but deference none the less. Jews reject the pinkwashing narrative because Jews understand that the pinkwashing narrative comes from a fundamentally malignant place; one that views Jewish communal projects not as flawed but as a flaw, not as having done wrong but as simply being wrong. There's no reason for us to view it as anything other than bigotry. And that's how I see it too.
"Pinkwashing" is the supposed phenomenon whereby Israel uses its relatively good record on gay rights to distract people's attention away from the occupation. As supervillain strategies go, this seems relatively benign. Moreover, I can't imagine this is Israel's actual thought process. Picture the scene: The elders of Zion are meeting. They have the banks, the media, Hollywood -- all the tools of the global Zionist network -- at their disposal, and are trying to figure out how to keep Palestinians immiserated for as long as possible. The conclave is completely stumped until suddenly, Shmuel hits on a solution: Be nice to gays! It's to progressives like cat videos are to the rest of the world -- once they see it, they won't be able to think about anything else! Boom, problem solved -- until those meddling activists saw through the cunning plot and cried "pinkwashing."
This is a joke. For "pinkwashing" to make sense in the manner its proponents claim that it does, one basically is admitting that holding onto two thoughts is one too many. It's a claim that you are entirely incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. This doesn't happen in other contexts. If I wax lyrical about something I like about the United States -- our First Amendment right to free speech, for example -- I have yet to be accused of "washing away" the plight of the homeless. Our political discourse patterns regularly manage to hold multiple thoughts about the United States at the same time -- things we like, and things we dislike, and things we're ambivalent about. Amazing, I know. And I can do the same thing about Israel too -- I can like some of its characteristics, be ambivalent towards others, and outright oppose some more. It's really not that difficult.
Unsurprisingly, there is something more going on here, and that something is the "delegitimization" debate. Pinkwashing activists, I have to believe, aren't so delusional as to seriously believe that celebrating Israel's gay rights record actually prevents us from thinking critical thoughts about Israel's treatment of Palestinians. What they do think -- accurately -- is that viewing Israel positively in even a single dimension prevents us from holding onto the viewpoint of Israel as an inherently evil and fundamentally irredeemable state. Israel is fundamentally different from other states in that it is a paragon of wrongdoing -- it is rotten to the bone and must therefore be eradicated. Remember how the Church of Scotland viewed the liberal elements of Israel's declaration of independence? Seemingly proof that Zionism can encompass positive liberal elements, the Church instead dismissed them as external to and in tension with the Zionist project. Pinkwashing is the same thing. If Israel seems to be doing good, it's a trick or a distraction.
If one views Israel as of the same class as other countries -- a mixture of right and wrong, good and bad, then Israel's positive gay rights record poses no threat (what a strange reaction, incidentally, to instinctively recoil when a country does good!). Normal politics is not like a PGA Tour event where countries try to move up the leaderboard in the search for "best". In normal politics, we try to encourage the good and fix the bad, and recognize that no matter what field we work in we will invariably see a mix of both.
But the anti-pinkwashers don't view Israel as normal politics. The idea that Israel can do good really is a threat, because when it comes right down to it they really do have a problem with thinking two thoughts at once. Israel only allows for one thought: "evildoer." There's no room for engagement, no room for discussion, no room to consider the angles. Israel is evil, and anything that complicates that picture must be ruthlessly suppressed until the cancer can be eradicated. Even if individual "pinkwashing" activists don't hold that as their politics, that's the tenor of their discourse.
Is it any wonder, then, that most Jews react with such hostility to the pinkwashing charge? It's hardly because they want a world in which there are no critical thoughts about Israel -- Jews are perfectly capable of criticizing Israel, and again, I can't imagine anyone is dumb enough to think that "pinkwashing" would actually succeed in this endeavor even if that was the goal. Rather, the reason this politics is rejected is because it is fundamentally eliminationist in character. They understand that the conceit of "pinkwashing" really relies on a view of Israel as a wholly and purely demonic entity that must be dismantled and destroyed.
To the extent we care about what the Jewish community thinks about Israel (and many people -- pinkwashers generally included -- really don't), that discussion isn't going to go anywhere until it's accepted that Jewish views don't stem from a place of ignorance, delusion, or mass communal psychosis. When we perceive a discourse or a politics as a threat to us, that understanding should be accorded deference. Not unlimited deference, and not unthinking deference, but deference none the less. Jews reject the pinkwashing narrative because Jews understand that the pinkwashing narrative comes from a fundamentally malignant place; one that views Jewish communal projects not as flawed but as a flaw, not as having done wrong but as simply being wrong. There's no reason for us to view it as anything other than bigotry. And that's how I see it too.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Redlines
Eric Yoffie says what I've been pleading for someone to say: Synagogues (or other Jewish communal spaces) are not open-mic nights. There is no obligation to let everyone speak. The Jewish community should welcome vigorous debate (it wouldn't be much of a Jewish community if we didn't), but it is also entirely appropriate to police the borders of that debate, and to declare that certain views are simply unwelcome. We should oppose ethnic hatred, racism, and bigotry. We should oppose those who object to Jewish self-determination or who think Jews can justifiably be murdered for having the temerity to live in their homeland. We should oppose those don't think Israel should be allowed to exist as a secure Jewish democratic state.
And to wit, Yoffie says: J Street yes, BDS no. CUFI yes, Pamela Geller no. And I agree with that. I'm no fan of CUFI, to say the least, but so long as it doesn't endorse one-stateism or other bigoted proposals, I'll disagree with them on the stage. And J Street and I also have our quibbles, but same deal. Meanwhile, I am a strong supporter of recognizing that the BDS folk and Pam Geller are more or less cut from the same cloth, in part because it causes both parties' heads to explode (both groups are also prone to calling for the other to be excluded while wailing about "censorship" or "muzzling" when they're left out).
So all in all, I consider Yoffie's typology to be pure win.
And to wit, Yoffie says: J Street yes, BDS no. CUFI yes, Pamela Geller no. And I agree with that. I'm no fan of CUFI, to say the least, but so long as it doesn't endorse one-stateism or other bigoted proposals, I'll disagree with them on the stage. And J Street and I also have our quibbles, but same deal. Meanwhile, I am a strong supporter of recognizing that the BDS folk and Pam Geller are more or less cut from the same cloth, in part because it causes both parties' heads to explode (both groups are also prone to calling for the other to be excluded while wailing about "censorship" or "muzzling" when they're left out).
So all in all, I consider Yoffie's typology to be pure win.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Scold in Chief
I am in absolute agreement with Ta-Nehisi Coates' discussion about how President Obama talks to the Black community. For all the talk about how President Obama is too solicitous to the "blahs", it is evident that he holds them up to a far higher standard than he does other communities. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is a notable thing, and sometimes it can be a counterproductive thing. As Coates points out, there's nothing intrinsically worse about dreaming to be the next LeBron James as the next Peyton Manning, or the next Kanye compared to the next David Bowie. And I've always wondered how, if at all, the whole "reading a book is acting White" is anything more than a localized instantiation of the more general truth that nerds are unpopular.
Again, perhaps this sort of "tough love" outlook is a net benefit for the Black community. It certainly tracks what White people say they want Black people to say to their own community (though it is perhaps unsurprising that Obama gets no credit for it). But I can't help but note that we are much less approving of this sort of approach when it is directed at ourselves. "Tough love" when directed toward Blacks is "blaming America first" or "politicizing a tragedy" when it comes to Whites.
Again, perhaps this sort of "tough love" outlook is a net benefit for the Black community. It certainly tracks what White people say they want Black people to say to their own community (though it is perhaps unsurprising that Obama gets no credit for it). But I can't help but note that we are much less approving of this sort of approach when it is directed at ourselves. "Tough love" when directed toward Blacks is "blaming America first" or "politicizing a tragedy" when it comes to Whites.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Chaos Muppets
Impeachment is the word of the day, as after faux-scandal after faux-scandal have failed to stick, Republicans have finally found a government act that everyone agrees was an abuse of power (the IRS audits). Now, from what we know if the IRS scandal at this stage talk of impeachment is obviously ludicrous. Nonetheless, Jon Chait argues that Republicans should let the crazy fly.
It's an interesting question, to be honest. Our constitutional system depends on norms to function, and what we've seen these past few years is what happens when these norms start to breakdown -- when it becomes acceptable to try and kneecap entire wings of government by refusing outright to confirm any agency appointees, or to hold the entire economy hostage through the debt ceiling, or, for that matter, by tossing "impeachment" around every time Obama hears a sneeze without saying "God bless you." Our political system (defined crudely as who wins and loses elections), by contrast, is zero-sum -- it doesn't matter how much the American people hate you so long as they hate the other guy more. Chaos, as Littlefinger reminds us, is a ladder, and a calculated decision to sow chaos certainly can end up redounding to one party's benefit. The system is calibrated to respond to people who stay within well-defined borders, and when a player comes along who openly flouts those rules, he can gain a distinct advantage. This is why the Joker is Batman's most dangerous foe -- his behavior defies even those norms which govern how criminals behave.
But that chaos can aid its progenitors does not mean it always will, and the truly chaotic actor is by definition incapable of ceasing setting fires just because its no longer in his interest. The problem for Republicans is that I don't think this is planned chaos. The Clinton impeachment, for example, was obviously farcically weak on its merits, but at least it could be plausibly sold as a political strategy. It turned out to be a bad gambit -- the American people reacted badly, and the GOP was tarred as a bunch of overzealous hypocritical loons -- but they at least could claim that outcome was apparent only with the benefit of hindsight.
By contrast, today it seems quite clear that all the impeachment chatter is not a calculated strategy but simply an uncontrollable reflex. Impeachment was uttered about Solyndra and Fast and Furious. A number of high-profile Republicans have contemplated it for one alleged offense or another. World Net Daily convened a panel to discuss impeaching Obama over no less than a dozen different "scandals" ranging from the Libya war to Cap and Trade. Rob Portman gets elder statesman points for not being ready to commit to impeachment yet.
Republicans were convinced in 2012 that Benghazi was their ticket to victory, and were shocked that American voters didn't seem to think the Obama administration did anything wrong. One could say they've learned nothing. But I think the problem is deeper. The impeachment talk is no longer a political strategy -- its just the raw result of the conservative id flailing about, and Republicans can no longer keep it under control.
It's an interesting question, to be honest. Our constitutional system depends on norms to function, and what we've seen these past few years is what happens when these norms start to breakdown -- when it becomes acceptable to try and kneecap entire wings of government by refusing outright to confirm any agency appointees, or to hold the entire economy hostage through the debt ceiling, or, for that matter, by tossing "impeachment" around every time Obama hears a sneeze without saying "God bless you." Our political system (defined crudely as who wins and loses elections), by contrast, is zero-sum -- it doesn't matter how much the American people hate you so long as they hate the other guy more. Chaos, as Littlefinger reminds us, is a ladder, and a calculated decision to sow chaos certainly can end up redounding to one party's benefit. The system is calibrated to respond to people who stay within well-defined borders, and when a player comes along who openly flouts those rules, he can gain a distinct advantage. This is why the Joker is Batman's most dangerous foe -- his behavior defies even those norms which govern how criminals behave.
But that chaos can aid its progenitors does not mean it always will, and the truly chaotic actor is by definition incapable of ceasing setting fires just because its no longer in his interest. The problem for Republicans is that I don't think this is planned chaos. The Clinton impeachment, for example, was obviously farcically weak on its merits, but at least it could be plausibly sold as a political strategy. It turned out to be a bad gambit -- the American people reacted badly, and the GOP was tarred as a bunch of overzealous hypocritical loons -- but they at least could claim that outcome was apparent only with the benefit of hindsight.
By contrast, today it seems quite clear that all the impeachment chatter is not a calculated strategy but simply an uncontrollable reflex. Impeachment was uttered about Solyndra and Fast and Furious. A number of high-profile Republicans have contemplated it for one alleged offense or another. World Net Daily convened a panel to discuss impeaching Obama over no less than a dozen different "scandals" ranging from the Libya war to Cap and Trade. Rob Portman gets elder statesman points for not being ready to commit to impeachment yet.
Republicans were convinced in 2012 that Benghazi was their ticket to victory, and were shocked that American voters didn't seem to think the Obama administration did anything wrong. One could say they've learned nothing. But I think the problem is deeper. The impeachment talk is no longer a political strategy -- its just the raw result of the conservative id flailing about, and Republicans can no longer keep it under control.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Our Divine Constitution
It wasn't the first academic piece I had accepted for publication (that would be "When Separation Doesn't Work: The Religion Clause as an Anti-Subordination Principle, which came out in the Dartmouth Law Journal when I was still at Carleton).
It wasn't the first piece of academic scholarship I published in a true law review (that would be my law review comment, The Price of Victory: Political Triumphs and Judicial Protection in the Gay Rights Movement). Nor was it the first piece I published as a professor (The Perils and Promise of the Holder Memo), or even the first full-length piece I had accepted for publication (Sticky Slopes, which I believe is scheduled to come out this October).
But nonetheless it is a milestone, and I am pleased to announce the publication of my first full-length law review article to actually hit the presses: Our Divine Constitution, 44 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 1201 (2013). An abstract is below (I realized that I never actually wrote an abstract for this piece, so I whipped this up in the last 20 minutes).
It's been a really hard year this year, and it did not go the way I had hoped (to put it mildly). But I can do this, and this article will be the first of many.
It wasn't the first piece of academic scholarship I published in a true law review (that would be my law review comment, The Price of Victory: Political Triumphs and Judicial Protection in the Gay Rights Movement). Nor was it the first piece I published as a professor (The Perils and Promise of the Holder Memo), or even the first full-length piece I had accepted for publication (Sticky Slopes, which I believe is scheduled to come out this October).
But nonetheless it is a milestone, and I am pleased to announce the publication of my first full-length law review article to actually hit the presses: Our Divine Constitution, 44 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 1201 (2013). An abstract is below (I realized that I never actually wrote an abstract for this piece, so I whipped this up in the last 20 minutes).
The presumption that God is omnibenevolent — inherently just, wise, kind, and merciful — is so pervasive as to be almost a tautology. Were God not just, God would not be God. And the United States Constitution, often analogized to a religious document, has regularly been spoken of in the same way. While we accept that the Constitution can tolerate injustice, we are highly resistant to the notion that it can actively command it. When that appears to occur, we are torn between our intuition that the Constitution must allow for justice, and our instinct that our sense of justice cannot deviate from the dictates of the Constitution. We reject either that the contested point is the true command of the Constitution, or the true requirement of justice. Moreover, because Western political thought predicates the legitimacy of constitutional law on its consistency with prefigured conceptions of justice, if we cannot adopt either of these apologias, the only remaining move seems to be rejection of the Constitution itself.As always, I'd love you feedback.
In this review of Robert A. Burt’s book "In the Whirlwind: God and Humanity in Conflict," I address this tension both in terms of theology and legal philosophy. Borrowing from the literature on "protest theology", I argue that neither our faith in the Constitution nor our faith in God is or can be predicated on the idea that these sovereigns are always behaving in a perfectly just manner. But I also reject the notion that injustice is an inherent part of these entities or that our relationship with them is unrelated to our desire for them to help instantiate justice. Our commitment to God and the Constitution is not dependent on their supposed perfection. It exists because it is a relationship we find meaningful even in spite of continual, mutual failings. It persists in spite of those shortcomings not because either God or the Constitution is "truly" or "essentially" just, but because we think it is a relationship worth preserving, and that each can at least be appealed to in the language in justice.
It's been a really hard year this year, and it did not go the way I had hoped (to put it mildly). But I can do this, and this article will be the first of many.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
