Sunstein Tops

I don't feel at all guilty saying that Cass Sunstein's defense of the Obama hype makes mine look positively weak. Sunstein worked with Obama at the University of Chicago (where he was a part-time lecturer in Constitutional Law), and is absolutely effusive in his praise. But he also notes the facile nature of the "if he weren't Black" line of inquiry:

I have no idea how Obama would be regarded if he were white. (He might be regarded as this generation's Jack Kennedy; the two have a similar quickness, youth, charisma, and capacity for humor.) But for any successful politician, there are many necessary conditions for their success. Would George W. Bush be president if his last name were not Bush? Would Al Gore have become vice-president if his last name had not been Gore? Would Senator McCain be a serious candidate for the presidency if he had not been held prisoner in Vietnam? Would Bush, Gore, or McCain be where they are today if they were African-American or Hispanic? (What kinds of questions are these?)

Well spoken, Professor.

Today in Jew

A couple issues of importance to the Jewish community.

Eugene Volokh reports that the NAACP is suing a Jewish-run dental and health clinc because it closes on Saturday. This, apparently, amounts to the imposition of Jewish religion on the clinic's patrons (most of whom are poor minorities). If ever there was a case of Christian normativity screaming for recognition, this was it. And of course, this certainly does not help revive the faltering Jewish/Black relationship.

***

Also over at the VC, David Bernstein reports on the mechanics of Columbia University's speech invitation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It fell through, but it is ironic that the prestigious university invited an on-the-record Holocaust denier to speak on Rosh Hashanah.

***

Via my colleagues at The Moderate Voice, another thinker (Ed Lasky) proposes that it is time for Jews to join the GOP. It follows the usual pattern--cite the Democratic anti-Israel far left for anecdotal evidence, and show that Republicans are generally more reflexively pro-Israel than Democrats are. The problems are multiple. As TDL readers know, I keep a wary eye on said left fringe, and would just as soon see them take their illiberal views to another party. But it is facile to say it is controlling. In a caucus that contains over 200 members, Lasky never cites an anti-Israel vote that broke even 50 Democrats. Democratic foreign policy elites--with a few exceptions--continue to be strong on Israel issues. And the poll data Lasky cites still shows a strong plurality of Democratic voters who support Israel over its enemies. Moreover, Lasky skates over (to say the least) the fact that many of the worst offenders on the Israel issue were defeated in Democratic primaries when Jewish voters raised their ire (Earl Hillard and Cynthia McKinney--twice). More fundamentally, while Jews trend strongly pro-Israel, that does not mean we request blind loyalty or single-minded trumpeting of "do-whatever-it-takes" tactics. Because Jews have a personal stake in this conflict, we are more likely to want to see a stable, lasting, just peace. This does not mean that we are any less pro-Israel, but it does mean that most of us would not object to a provision (called for by minority leader Nancy Pelosi and criticized by Lasky) asking that Israel do its best to limit civilian casualties. In addition to simply being the moral thing to do, every innocent who dies in this conflict adds fuel to the fire and makes it less likely that a moderate consensus will coalesce in the Arab world that respects Israel's sovereignity and security concerns. In other words, being "pro-Israel" doesn't necessarily mean what

But far and away the biggest flaw in Lasky's analysis is that he inexplicably thinks of Jews as single-issue voters. But of course, there are many issues of importance to Jews, of which Israel is but one. The Jewish community has and continues to have a broadly liberal consensus on a variety of issues, which also keeps us firmly Democratic camp. Israel isn't even the only issue that affects Jews qua Jews in America. At least as important to us is issues of Church/State separation, the abandonment of which would rapidly make us second-class citizens in our own country. The Republican record on this issue is, to say the least, abysmal. Indeed, numerical fringes not withstanding (and recall, you can find them among Republicans too--Pat Buchanan rises to mind), Jews right now have the best of both worlds--both parties reflect a broadly pro-Israel consensus, so Jews can comfortably vote on the basis of other issues of concern--like economic justice, church/state separation, civil rights, etc.. On those issues, Democrats remain clearly in command from a Jewish perspective. Republicans will never get our votes unless and until they realize we aren't single-issue Israel zombies.

***

Phoebe Maltz has a great post on Jewish neo-conservatives (and "neo-conservatives").

***

Happy Rosh Hashanah!

The Great Hope

For a while, it had been so long since there has been a White heavyweight champion in boxing, that any potential challenger (no matter how fringe) was invariably labeled "The Great White Hope." It was an odd mix of patronizing and racist, and I didn't like it (with the rise in dominance of Russian bloc heavyweights, it has become less common). On the flip side, the dearth of truly national Black political figures means that often the punditry will nominate certain Black political figures as the "Great Black Hope," at even the slightest inkling of a national following. This, too, is bad, but for very much opposite reasons--it pigeon-holes even spectacularly talented Black politicians as being there "just because they're Black," thus convienantly bracketing them off and assuring the general population that, no matter what the hype is, they aren't really all that great.

John McWhorter makes precisely this argument with respect to Barack Obama--explicitly labeling him as an example of a "Great Black Hope," who is being overpromoted and for the hype is completely unjustified. He says that if Obama was White, we still wouldn't have heard of him no matter his rhetorical brilliance or crinkly smile. To which Noam Scheiber has a devastating two word rebuttal: John Edwards. Edwards got promoted to the national stage almost as quickly as Obama--VP shortlist after two years in the Senate, Presidential material after three. And, as Scheiber notes, not only does Obama have more political experience than Edwards did going in (State Senator, community organizer, constitutional lawyer), his skills (and I agree, this is not a slap at Edwards) simply dwarfs those of the North Carolinian. Edwards is a good speaker. Obama is breath-taking. Edwards is quite sharp. Obama is jaw-droppingly brilliant. They simply aren't on the same level. When it comes to Barack Obama, the hype is for real. It isn't just because he's Black (although I think that it is an excellent sign when so many White Americans are genuinely excited about having a Black President). It's McWhorter who is being patronizing--he can't even fathom that it might be the man's skills and talents that are exciting us. It has to be his race. McWhorter needs to listen more carefully to the Junior Senator. The hype is there because he's the real deal--the type of face we haven't seen in the halls of congress in a long while.

Then and Now

Compare:

With no hope of establishing the analogy on which his thesis about public discourse rests, Nyhan resorts to attacking Power Line. We stand accused of being over-the-top partisans who worship President Bush as a visionary. Even if this were true, it would do nothing for the argument Nyhan wanted to make unless he could show (and he can't) that we viciously attack conservatives who think less of the president than we do.

--Powerline, yesterday

Christine Whitman has written a book titled It's My Party, Too, which...has the temerity to impugn the President's re-election victory...When a Democrat [sic] like Richard Clarke betrays President Bush, that's one thing; when it's done by a Republican, it's unforgivable.

--Powerline, 1/3/05

Does ranting about Whitman's "temerity" to "impugn" Bush's re-election victory and accusing her of a "betray[al]" that's "unforgivable" count as a "vicious[] attack"? I think it just might qualify.

"Voted For Torture!"

U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) said it. About himself. Proudly. A few days later, he backed off, saying that he "voted against the anti-torture bill." As The Plank notes, if you're anti-anti-torture, then you are....?

When queried on specific, Westmoreland had the following to say:

Pressed on whether that means he supports torture, he said, "What's torture? Torture is many things to many people ... people have different breaking points."

Asked whether he would support using electric shocks, he said, "Electric shocks are given to people during initiations to different clubs ... Is that torture? I don't know."

Asked about beatings, he said, "Are you talking about tying his hands behind his back and beating him in the head? No, I'm not for that."

Excuse me while I bash my head against a concrete wall.

Revelation: Jews Hate Genocide

Once again, the President of Sudan is blaming the Jews for all the nasty attention being given to his genocide in Darfur. And once again, my response is: AND PROUD. The speech was at the UN (where else?), and this time the President made the rather peculiar claim that Jews were focusing attention on Darfur to raise money for Israel. I'm sure somewhere in his twisted mind, that makes sense, but I can't decipher how it works, and have no interest in trying.

In the next issue of The New Republic (firewall), an ex-Israeli official argues that the UN is actually Israel's best friend, because by being such a parody of itself when it comes to the Jewish state, it ends up giving Israel a lot more leeway to act against terror than it would sober-minded people actually had to take the UN seriously. I actually disagree--I don't think it does Israel or anyone else favors when such an important geopolitical issue can't be discussed without immediately sounding like a revision of the Protocols. But alas, that seems to be the world we live in. And certainly, with enemies like Sudan, I'm not sure Jews really need friends.

Neighbors Unite Against Prussian Blue

Eugene Volokh reports that the new neighbors of the White supremacist pop group "Prussian Blue" (14-year old twins and their family) have posted flyers around their community notifying members of the group's radical racist agenda and declaring themselves to be in opposition to "hate."

The family is claiming harrassment. The neighbors disagree:

"This letter is not written as a means to harass the family or to begin a witch hunt," the flier said. "We wish the family no harm. Our goal is to peacefully communicate that this kind of hate and ignorance will not be accepted here in our neighborhood where we live and raise our families."

As Professor Volokh noted, since PB specifically decided to move to this town because the old one "wasn't White enough", it is perfectly fair for the neighbors to push back against being identified with that sort of racist sentiment.

What would really be great is if the neighborhood began to actively work to end the racial monotony that attracted PB to the area in the first place. But that might be too much to ask.

Neighbors Unite Against Prussian Blue

Eugene Volokh reports that the new neighbors of the White supremacist pop group "Prussian Blue" (14-year old twins and their family) have posted flyers around their community notifying members of the group's radical racist agenda and declaring themselves to be in opposition to "hate."

The family is claiming harrassment. The neighbors disagree:

"This letter is not written as a means to harass the family or to begin a witch hunt," the flier said. "We wish the family no harm. Our goal is to peacefully communicate that this kind of hate and ignorance will not be accepted here in our neighborhood where we live and raise our families."

As Professor Volokh noted, since PB specifically decided to move to this town because the old one "wasn't White enough", it is perfectly fair for the neighbors to push back against being identified with that sort of racist sentiment.

What would really be great is if the neighborhood began to actively work to end the racial monotony that attracted PB to the area in the first place. But that might be too much to ask.

The Kennedy Indication

Law.com has its preview of the upcoming term. Surprising approximately nobody, Justice Kennedy will play a crucial role in the proceedings.

However, there is some interest to be had in the eternal swing-vote watch. Specifically, there are two clusters of cases which challenge recently settled precedents in which Kennedy was on the dissent. I've predicted that Kennedy will tact to the center to fill O'Connor's role, acting as a balancer to prevent the Court from moving too far to the left or the right--even if that means staking out more liberal positions than he did when O'Connor was the chief moderator. These cases, which pit Kennedy's previously stated ideological commitments against the stability and continuity of precedent, put that theory to the test. The first set deals with school desegregation/affirmative action:

The replacement of O'Connor with Alito may also be determinative in the Court's two key affirmative action cases: Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District #1, No. 05-908, and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, No. 05-915.

Parents in both cases are challenging school integration guidelines that prevented their children from attending their school of choice because of their race or ethnicity. The Bush administration has intervened in the cases on the side of the parents, arguing that the guidelines involve "outright racial balancing" which is "patently unconstitutional."

The high court last visited the issue of affirmative action in 2003 when it upheld the affirmative-action admissions policy at the University of Michigan Law School, but struck down a differently constituted admissions policy at the undergraduate school. Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003); Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). O'Connor was the key vote and voice in the law school ruling; Kennedy was in dissent. If the school districts here lose, "It would really, in the context it is before the Court, signal the end of the Brown v. Board of Education desegregation era," said Temple's Rahdert. "What's left of school desegregation are these voluntary plans that try, at the margins, to combat the tendency of having patterns of one-race schools."

This one is less interesting, because I think it is likely that Grutter can be distinguished (not that it should be, or even that it is particularly coherent too, only that it is different enough so it seems a fairly plassible dodge) and the overarching question of affirmative action will be deferred for yet another day.

But the real intriguing one is the upcoming partial birth abortion ban case:

In Gonzales v. Carhart, No. 05-380, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, No. 05-1382, the Bush administration seeks to overturn rulings by the 8th and 9th circuits that struck down the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

Every court to review the law has found it invalid, generally because it is overbroad and because it lacks an exception to protect the health of the woman -- a requirement established by a 5-4 high court decision in 2000 in Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, which held that Nebraska's partial-birth abortion law was unconstitutional. O'Connor was the critical fifth vote to invalidate the law. Kennedy wrote a bitter dissent.

In enacting the federal ban, Congress explicitly found that a health exception was not necessary for this type of medical procedure.

There is no getting around the past precedent here. Kennedy was firmly on the dissent in Carhart. But it's still the law (for now), and Congress' response was basically to stick a middle finger in the eye of the court. It didn't even try to write a law consistent with the opinion. This type of challenge to the Court's supremacy is precisely the type of case where I can see Kennedy biting the bullet and voting for continuity even when his personal (and tabula rasa legal) beliefs dictate otherwise. While Lawrence might be an exception, in general, Justice Kennedy does not like to play fast and loose with precedent--and he definitely doesn't like it when Congress takes it upon itself to overturn precedents it finds disagreeable. Ultimately, I think Carhart II will be the biggest indicator of where Justice Kennedy's jurisprudence will point to for the years to come.

Paul Butler for Coolest

Paul Horwitz wants to know who is the "coolest" law professor in the academy. He nominates Alex Long of Oklahoma City University, but opens the floor for contestation.

My nominee is GW Law Professor Paul Butler. There are a few reasons to support this. For one, he is a blogger at BlackProf. This shows that he is hip and edgy and connected to the trends of us youthful folk. Remember, while old people can be "cool," what is cool is unquestionably defined by the young.

Drawing off that is the second and ultimately controlling reason for Butler's dominance in the field. Horwitz pitches Long on his use and analysis of musicians in law review articles. To that end, I submit that he is easily trumped by Professor Butler's article Much Respect: Toward a Hip-Hop Theory of Punishment, 56 Stan. L. Rev. 983 (2004). To open, let's start with the opening footnote:

Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School. This Article was presented as a work-in-progress at Washington University School of Law and at a Stanford Law Review Symposium. I thank the participants in those events. Special shout out to Daniel Solove. Mad props to Christopher Bracey, Kimberly Jade Norwood, and Dorothy Roberts. Big up to my research assistants Jeremy Medovoy, Michael Robinett, and Eduardo Rodriguez.

Next, let's look at the article itself. The artists it references are ones that actual have "street cred": Nas, NWA, Jay-Z. In addition, it cites to suitably obscure people--one's who the truly connected and plugged in might know, but people "on the outside" will be left scratching their head saying "what?" Here we have people like Erykah Badu and Immortal Technique. These names, in terms of coolness, clearly beat out "GBV, Lester Bangs, the Specials, Manilow, Paul Westerberg, Mike Watt, Robbie Fulks, Waylon, Hank, and Uncle Tupelo," who are cited by Long and whom even Horwitz admits are getting a bit long in the tooth. Furthermore, the article manages to be an actual important contribution to the literature on punishment. I do believe utility is cool (think iPods). And by being published in the Stanford Law Review, it has the advantage of cross-over appeal--"ghetto made good," so to speak.

Put simply, rap trumps whatever it is Mike Watt does. Professor Butler is clearly the coolest law professor, and Much Respect to anyone who can prove me wrong.

Paul Butler for Coolest

Paul Horwitz wants to know who is the "coolest" law professor in the academy. He nominates Alex Long of Oklahoma City University, but opens the floor for contestation.

My nominee is GW Law Professor Paul Butler. There are a few reasons to support this. For one, he is a blogger at BlackProf. This shows that he is hip and edgy and connected to the trends of us youthful folk. Remember, while old people can be "cool," what is cool is unquestionably defined by the young.

Drawing off that is the second and ultimately controlling reason for Butler's dominance in the field. Horwitz pitches Long on his use and analysis of musicians in law review articles. To that end, I submit that he is easily trumped by Professor Butler's article Much Respect: Toward a Hip-Hop Theory of Punishment, 56 Stan. L. Rev. 983 (2004). To open, let's start with the opening footnote:

Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School. This Article was presented as a work-in-progress at Washington University School of Law and at a Stanford Law Review Symposium. I thank the participants in those events. Special shout out to Daniel Solove. Mad props to Christopher Bracey, Kimberly Jade Norwood, and Dorothy Roberts. Big up to my research assistants Jeremy Medovoy, Michael Robinett, and Eduardo Rodriguez.

Next, let's look at the article itself. The artists it references are ones that actual have "street cred": Nas, NWA, Jay-Z. In addition, it cites to suitably obscure people--one's who the truly connected and plugged in might know, but people "on the outside" will be left scratching their head saying "what?" Here we have people like Erykah Badu and Immortal Technique. These names, in terms of coolness, clearly beat out "GBV, Lester Bangs, the Specials, Manilow, Paul Westerberg, Mike Watt, Robbie Fulks, Waylon, Hank, and Uncle Tupelo," who are cited by Long and whom even Horwitz admits are getting a bit long in the tooth. Furthermore, the article manages to be an actual important contribution to the literature on punishment. I do believe utility is cool (think iPods). And by being published in the Stanford Law Review, it has the advantage of cross-over appeal--"ghetto made good," so to speak.

Put simply, rap trumps whatever it is Mike Watt does. Professor Butler is clearly the coolest law professor, and Much Respect to anyone who can prove me wrong.

Torture Blurbs

Dahlia Lithwick (via that same post) quotes Felix Frankfurter giving a line I very much like. He discusses those who "afford brutality the cloak of law." The quote comes from Rochin v. California [342 U.S. 165, 173 (1952)]. The case there involved police officers forcibly trying to extract drug capsules from a suspect's mouth, then after he swallowed him, applying a stomach pump to force him to vomit them up. This case is also where the phrase "shocks the conscience" entered our legal lexicon. The type of techniques President Bush wants to preserve for his use are the epitome of what should shock the conscience, and I certainly hope our collective conscience has not atrophied so much so that it no longer does.

***

Andrew McCarthy calls anti-torture Senators "anarchronisms." Publius has another idea of what truly constitutes an anarchronism.

***

Representative Peter King (R-NY)--one of the few representatives who can fairly be said to have explicitly supported terror and terrorists--has had a change of heart. But so far, the progressive turn that leads him to believe that wanton depravations of human dignity (such as terrorism) are bad has yet to cause him to turn against torture as an interrogation tactic. In somewhat related news, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, sums up the extent of his inquiry on this issue: "We'll do what the President wants." That's GOP oversight.

***

Brian Tamanaha: Don't make a deal with the devil. Some temporary security is not worth sacrificing our nation's immortal soul.

***

Finally, a TPM Reader nails it: It really doesn't matter who ends up winning the torture debate. By virtue of having it, we've already lost. This isn't about censorship. This is about there being some redlines in our moral psyche which we shoul refuse to even consider, much less cross. If someone offered you a considerable sum to sell your children into slavery, the proper response isn't to deliberate over the offer, weigh the pros and cons, and come to a decision--even if that decision is "hell no!" There is a type of moral sacrifice in even debating the subject, regardless if one holds the line on the right outcome.

Two Views of the MBD

Jonathan Martin (behind a TNR firewall) and Terry Smith both comment on the election of White representatives in majority Black districts (MBDs). It's interesting to see how each frames the issue. Mr. Martin focuses on Tennessee's 9th district (vacated by Harold Ford Jr. for his Senate run). A White Jewish Democrat by the name of Steve Cohen (who pledged that, if elected, he would seek to become the first member of the Congressional Black Caucus) just won a heavily divided Democratic primary with 31% of the vote. Mr. Martin focuses on some of the tensions between Jews and Blacks that emerged here, specifically the feeling amongst many Jews that their strong civil rights background gets ignored and that they just get lumped into a generic category of "White" without any distinguishment or qualification. Sometimes, though, the problems go beyond that:

One black candidate publicly pointed out that Cohen's election would mean that "for the first time in thirty years," the city "could be without African American representation." Another paid for a push poll in which recipients were reportedly asked, "Are you more likely to vote for a born-again Christian or a Jew?" A third, just three days before the primary, went even further. Pouncing on Cohen's pledge to join the CBC, longtime Shelby County Commissioner Julian Bolton sneered, "The only reason he wants to join is that he wants to get money for Israel."

It's a mistake to overstate things--Mr. Cohen had strong showings in minority precincts, and just won the endorsement of the black mayors of both Shelby County and Memphis (which is not just a case of "anyone but the GOP." Another member of the locally dynastic Ford family has jumped into the race as an independent). Still, I think that it is important to at least recognize the Jewish cross-cuts Whiteness as an identity, so that when analyzing these races, we at least keep the issue in mind.

Professor Smith's Garvey-esque Black nationalism has always grated me, and this post is no different. He talks about both the Tennessee race, as well as the just concluded race in New York's 11th district, where a Black Democrat narrowly beat out a White Democrat in a tight four-way race. Smith comes down hard on both White politicians who seek to exploit divisions in the Black vote in MBDs, as well as overly ambitious Black politicians who put these seats at risk because they care more about their own advancement than coalescing behind one candidate and thus insuring that the seat remains in Black hands. To the former, he argues "a white candidate whose candidacy in a black district per se illustrates an indifference to black under-representation [cannot] possibly claim to be capable of representing black interests[.]" To the latter, he claims:

The struggles to obtain a black franchise, the lives that were lost, and more specifically the efforts to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965, were not endeavors to create employment opportunities for black political aspirants. In the words of the Voting Rights Act itself, the goal was to give black voters equal opportunity "to participate in the political process and to elect the representatives of their choice." I think that goal is lost on black candidates when they risk black representation for their own advancement.

I think there is a fair amount of presumption in these post, especially with regards to how much of the votes of the "splinter" Black candidates would have gone to Cohen or David Yassky (the White candidate in New York) had they dropped out. Cohen, at least, ran relatively strong in Black precincts, as noted above, and unlike Yassky, he is longtime denizen of the district and didn't move there to run. Smith also complains that even when Black candidates win in MBD, a White minority there can still act as a moderating influence that prevents them from selecting the precise candidate the community would want. I'm not a fan of "majority of my majority" politics in the first place, and the example he uses (Cynthia McKinney's "struggles") seems to buttress my point: any system that knocks her out of office (especially when it replaces her with another solid Black representative) counts as a feature in my book, not a bug.

But the worst part is at the end, where Professor Smith calls for (in so many words) the creation of Black political machines:

Black voters will ultimately have to take matters into their own hands by forming strong community-based satellite parties (often referred to as political clubs) to conduct informal caucuses among black aspirants as a means of winnowing the field. There's nothing to compel the losers in such a process to abide the results, but there is likewise nothing to prevent the satellite party from punishing the sore loser, both by concentrating resources on its preferred candidate and by visiting electoral and professional retribution on the black candidate who risks a district's loss of black representation for his own personal interests.

Forming machines like this may help keep Black faces in congress, but in it is a virtual recipe for corrupt and unrepresentative politicians who will do nothing but shame the Black community. That's the case of any machine, mind you--but it should set off alarms when you want to bring that type of trouble onto your own community. Certainly, any person who claims to appreciate history, as Smith does, should know that machines are completely antithetical to the goal of "equal opportunity 'to participate in the political process and to elect the representatives of their choice.'"

I understand the desire for diverse representation, and I support the principle--I really do. But there has to be some crossover point where color is subjugated to content. Creating a machine system in Black communities would be catastrophic for that community's interests. Albert Wynn and Sharpe James are machine politicians. Barack Obama and Cory Booker are the politicians one gets when Black voters push politicians who have genuine talent and universal appeal. Who do you think is going to do more for the Black community?

Two Views of the MBD

Jonathan Martin (behind a TNR firewall) and Terry Smith both comment on the election of White representatives in majority Black districts (MBDs). It's interesting to see how each frames the issue. Mr. Martin focuses on Tennessee's 9th district (vacated by Harold Ford Jr. for his Senate run). A White Jewish Democrat by the name of Steve Cohen (who pledged that, if elected, he would seek to become the first member of the Congressional Black Caucus) just won a heavily divided Democratic primary with 31% of the vote. Mr. Martin focuses on some of the tensions between Jews and Blacks that emerged here, specifically the feeling amongst many Jews that their strong civil rights background gets ignored and that they just get lumped into a generic category of "White" without any distinguishment or qualification. Sometimes, though, the problems go beyond that:

One black candidate publicly pointed out that Cohen's election would mean that "for the first time in thirty years," the city "could be without African American representation." Another paid for a push poll in which recipients were reportedly asked, "Are you more likely to vote for a born-again Christian or a Jew?" A third, just three days before the primary, went even further. Pouncing on Cohen's pledge to join the CBC, longtime Shelby County Commissioner Julian Bolton sneered, "The only reason he wants to join is that he wants to get money for Israel."

It's a mistake to overstate things--Mr. Cohen had strong showings in minority precincts, and just won the endorsement of the black mayors of both Shelby County and Memphis (which is not just a case of "anyone but the GOP." Another member of the locally dynastic Ford family has jumped into the race as an independent). Still, I think that it is important to at least recognize the Jewish cross-cuts Whiteness as an identity, so that when analyzing these races, we at least keep the issue in mind.

Professor Smith's Garvey-esque Black nationalism has always grated me, and this post is no different. He talks about both the Tennessee race, as well as the just concluded race in New York's 11th district, where a Black Democrat narrowly beat out a White Democrat in a tight four-way race. Smith comes down hard on both White politicians who seek to exploit divisions in the Black vote in MBDs, as well as overly ambitious Black politicians who put these seats at risk because they care more about their own advancement than coalescing behind one candidate and thus insuring that the seat remains in Black hands. To the former, he argues "a white candidate whose candidacy in a black district per se illustrates an indifference to black under-representation [cannot] possibly claim to be capable of representing black interests[.]" To the latter, he claims:

The struggles to obtain a black franchise, the lives that were lost, and more specifically the efforts to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965, were not endeavors to create employment opportunities for black political aspirants. In the words of the Voting Rights Act itself, the goal was to give black voters equal opportunity "to participate in the political process and to elect the representatives of their choice." I think that goal is lost on black candidates when they risk black representation for their own advancement.

I think there is a fair amount of presumption in these post, especially with regards to how much of the votes of the "splinter" Black candidates would have gone to Cohen or David Yassky (the White candidate in New York) had they dropped out. Cohen, at least, ran relatively strong in Black precincts, as noted above, and unlike Yassky, he is longtime denizen of the district and didn't move there to run. Smith also complains that even when Black candidates win in MBD, a White minority there can still act as a moderating influence that prevents them from selecting the precise candidate the community would want. I'm not a fan of "majority of my majority" politics in the first place, and the example he uses (Cynthia McKinney's "struggles") seems to buttress my point: any system that knocks her out of office (especially when it replaces her with another solid Black representative) counts as a feature in my book, not a bug.

But the worst part is at the end, where Professor Smith calls for (in so many words) the creation of Black political machines:

Black voters will ultimately have to take matters into their own hands by forming strong community-based satellite parties (often referred to as political clubs) to conduct informal caucuses among black aspirants as a means of winnowing the field. There's nothing to compel the losers in such a process to abide the results, but there is likewise nothing to prevent the satellite party from punishing the sore loser, both by concentrating resources on its preferred candidate and by visiting electoral and professional retribution on the black candidate who risks a district's loss of black representation for his own personal interests.

Forming machines like this may help keep Black faces in congress, but in it is a virtual recipe for corrupt and unrepresentative politicians who will do nothing but shame the Black community. That's the case of any machine, mind you--but it should set off alarms when you want to bring that type of trouble onto your own community. Certainly, any person who claims to appreciate history, as Smith does, should know that machines are completely antithetical to the goal of "equal opportunity 'to participate in the political process and to elect the representatives of their choice.'"

I understand the desire for diverse representation, and I support the principle--I really do. But there has to be some crossover point where color is subjugated to content. Creating a machine system in Black communities would be catastrophic for that community's interests. Albert Wynn and Sharpe James are machine politicians. Barack Obama and Cory Booker are the politicians one gets when Black voters push politicians who have genuine talent and universal appeal. Who do you think is going to do more for the Black community?

Euston Manifesto

I almost signed this petition, called the Euston Manifesto, sight unseen. I actually did skim it, and it is a great indicator of the type of liberalism that desparately needs to reassert itself. Unapologetic in its stance against racism and oppression, with a clear recognition that unconstrained relativism is a threat to liberal and progressive ideals. Just as importantly, it recognizes that the West has to both see itself and be seen as an ally in the struggle for universal human rights--irrational prejudice and irrational pride are both barriers to creating a more just world.

Via Obsidian Wings, I think this speech by Tory Leader David Cameron perfectly exemplifies the type of commitment embodied in the Euston Manifesto.

I fully appreciate the scale of the threat we face. I believe that the leadership of the United States, supported by Britain, is central to the struggle in which we are engaged.

I believe that the neo-conservatives are right to argue that extending freedom is an essential objective of western foreign policy.

And I agree that western powers should be prepared, in the last resort, to use military force.

We know from history that a country must be ready to defend itself and its allies.

More than that, we and others are justified in using pre-emptive force when an attack on us is being prepared, and when all means of peaceful dissuasion and deterrence have failed.

Furthermore, I believe that we should be prepared to intervene for humanitarian purposes to rescue people from genocide.

Liberal Conservatism

But I believe that in the last five years we have suffered from the absence of two crucial qualities which should always condition foreign policy-making.

Humility, and patience.

These are not warlike words.

They are not so glamorous and exciting as the easy sound-bites we have grown used to in recent years.

But these sound-bites had the failing of all foreign policy designed to fit into a headline.

They were unrealistic and simplistic.

They represented a view which sees only light and darkness in the world - and which believes that one can be turned to the other as quickly as flicking a switch.

I do not see things that way. I am a liberal conservative, rather than a neo-conservative.

Liberal - because I support the aim of spreading freedom and democracy, and support humanitarian intervention.

Conservative - because I recognise the complexities of human nature, and am sceptical of grand schemes to remake the world.

A liberal conservative approach to foreign policy today is based on five propositions.

First, that we should understand fully the threat we face.

Second, that democracy cannot quickly be imposed from outside.

Third, that our strategy needs to go far beyond military action.

Fourth, that we need a new multilateralism to tackle the new global challenges we face.

And fifth, that we must strive to act with moral authority.

Would that American politicians (of any party) could speak of those ideals (much less implement them).

Flip The Switch

Aharon Barak's legacy as a profoundly Jewish justice on the Israeli Supreme Court is explored here in the Jerusalem Post. Barak's vigorous protection of minority rights is in keeping with the best traditions of Judaism and Jewish arbiters, including Louis Brandeis, Benjamin Cardozo, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I reference one of those decisions, dealing with religious freedom in a nation where Synagogue and State are still far too intertwined for my tastes. But in general, his work on the court has been superb and a model for other judges--of all nations--to follow when navigating the difficult currents between religion and state, and liberty and terror.

Unlike Christianity or Islam, Judaism remains dominated by its liberal wing (this isn't to say there aren't committed liberal Christians or Muslims, only that the predominant manifestation of those religions in the public sphere is not particularly liberal). By itself, this is an important message--religious faith is not incompatible with the ideal of building a progressive world. Protection of minority rights is not something stands in opposition to traditional Jewish values, it is the epitome of them.

The irony, of course, is that unlike in nearly every other nation, "protection of minority rights" in Israel does not mean protecting Jews, but protecting other groups (mostly Israeli Arabs or Palestinians, but sometimes also non-Orthodox Jews) from a Jewish majority. Majority rule is always in tension with minority rights, and there is nothing intrinsic to Judaism that should make us expect that tension disappear. I chuckled to read the same accusations leveled against Justice Barak as are thrown at liberal jurists here in the states--"activist", a "dictator", far too interventionist in the affairs of a democracy. Yet Israel--already held to an absurdly high standard by an unsympathetic world community--can only survive and thrive if it always pursues its goal of becoming a "light unto nations." Justice Barak has done much to lead them down that path.

Maryland Votes

I voted in the Maryland primary (via absentee ballot) yesterday. It's a surprisingly spry primary season here, even with Martin O'Malley cruising to the gubernatorial nomination with the withdrawal of Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan (due to a diagnosis of clinical depression). The senate race pitted Ben Cardin against Kwesi Mfume, two excellent candidates that had me on the fence until the end. The comptroller race was very dramatic, as Maryland political institution Donald Schaefer--whose old age and tendancy to make racist and sexist "gaffes" (to say the least) made him vulnerable--might finally be taken down. And there was plenty of close races down ticket, as well as a surprisingly competitive primary in the 4th district (I live in the 8th district, where Chris Van Hollen is now firmly entrenched).

First, the Senate race. While I liked both candidates, I ended up voting for Ben Cardin. Why? Well, he got the Washington Post endorsement. And faced with two candidates between which I had no preference, that seemed like as good a reason as any to vote off of. I highly respect the Post, and I think both candidates can beat Lt. Gov. Michael Steele in the general.

Yet, after casting my ballot, I was filled with a lot of regret. Why? Well, one of my friends here at Carleton made a last second plea for Mfume, which shook my confidence slightly. But also, it seems rather weak for a supposed progressive, who believes that the Senate should have more Black members, faced with a choice between two candidates who I basically believe are completely equal in every sense, votes for the White male over the Black NAACP leader. I mean, isn't this a bit of a litmus test? Sure, I'd vote for Barack Obama over nearly any other politician in the country (hell, I'd vote for him over Gandhi), but all that says is that I am willing to vote for the perfect Black candidate. A Black candidate should not have to be Obama-esque to win White voters. So this was distressing to me.

However, it looks like Cardin will win (without my help--my absentee ballot probably hasn't even arrived in the mail yet) the nomination. There has been chatter that nominating Cardin could drive a large portion of Black voters (a key Democratic base) into Steele's camp, as Steele is Black and the Mfume's loss could be seen as a repudiation of a community that has already begun to murmer discontent at being taken for granted by the state party. Nevertheless, I doubt this is so. Shavar Jefferies makes a great point about politicians who "must really think Black folk are stupid." Make a few references to Jim Crow, nominate a couple token Black candidates, and they expect the Black community to come rushing to them (this isn't only a GOP problem, by the way). There is a lot of disrespect accorded to Black voters, and this is only the tip of the iceberg.

In any event, it is my experience that Maryland as a whole has an unusually politically savvy polity. Turn out was apparently massive, which is always a good sign. I have no doubt that Steele is out of line with the majority of Black voters in the Old Line State, and will receive votes accordingly. If he can attract them on the basis of his positions or values, all power to him. But I don't expect Maryland Blacks to rush blindly into his arms, and it's quite patronizing to suggest otherwise.

Meanwhile, UMD Law Professor Sherilynn Ifill reports on the severe problems in MD voting booths that delayed the polls (and now the results) for hours. The only good thing you can say about it is that the problems seemed evenly distributed across White and Black areas, which is progress of a sort (I guess). It's not all that much, because any delay can force many poor Black voters to abandon poll lines (as they have to get work). There is no good excuse to not make Election Day a federal holiday, and regular primaries a state holiday. Seriously--this is an embarassement.

Parting Shot

Aharon Barak, a giant in Israeli legal circles, is retiring from his position as Chief Justice of the Israeli Supreme Court. In his role there, he has played an intricate role in strengthening the protections for Israeli minority groups (as well as Palestinians), with key oversight of the separation barrier to attempt to minimize the damage it does to Palestinian civilian life. He will be sorely missed, but it appears his successor plans to follow in much the same direction, which is heartening news.

In one of his final decisions, Barak led the court in holding that religious courts could not annul marriages between a Jewish and non-Jewish partner. Israel's mixture of religious courts into family law stem from rules dating back to the Ottoman Empire's control over the region, inheirited by the British colonial mandate and then rolled over to Israel when it became independent. It currently stays do to joint support by religious Jews and Muslims in the Knesset, who want to maintain this institutional prerogative. Even still, this mix of Synagogue (/Mosque/Church) and State is an embarassement to a free country, and I am glad that it's grip has been weakened considerably by this ruling.

I believe in Israel as a Jewish state, but not as a theocratic state. Remember that non-Orthodox Jews (such as myself) aren't considered full religious Jews in Israel either. So I have a stake in ending this arbitrary discrimination as well. Fortunately, the trend lines appear to be moving in my direction. But pressure has to continue on this front.

Movin' On Up...

In addition to my posting duties here (and rest assured, The Debate Link remains my home blog), I have joined First Movers, a blog for future legal scholars hosted by Jim Chen of Jurisdynamics (and Minnesota law school).

You can find my introductory post here. I hope you find me and my fellow aspiring scholars to be interesting and enlightening.

The Anbar Question

So the story racing around the blogosphere is a report by the Marine Corps chief of intelligence that we've lost the Anbar province. Not that we're losing, not that the situation is dire, but we've lost, plain and simple. We were defeated. There is nothing more we can do there.

That's the central question, isn't it? I have not signed on to a troop withdrawal yet, primarily because I agree with Tom Friedman when he says that "we've got to find a way to salvage something out of Iraq." Not just for the Iraqi's sake, but for our sake too. Leaving that country in a state of anarchic civil war would be morally catastrophic, and would permanently damage America's standing in the eyes of the world (on top of the beating we've already taken on that score). Defeat in this war would do indescribable damage to any American effort to lead on any number of pressing international issues: from loose nukes, to brutal tyrants in Iran and North Korea, to the Israeli/Arab conflict.

But reality has a way of intruding on what "we've got to" do, and at some point we have to objectively assess whether or not Iraq is beyond our help. Call me a "defeat-o-crat" if you want, but eventually we've got to ask ourselves whether there is any hope for salvation. Have we reached that point yet? I don't know. But this assessment of Anbar certainly has to raise the question.