Bitter encomium from a fellow Masshole, Charles P. Pierce, at Esquire:
… The cool cats ‘n’ kittens of the elite press corps — Print and Television regiments, but especially the latter — spent the next few days praising the deceased’s ability to “get things done,” and to “reach across the aisle,” and to “practice the art of the possible.” There was much moaning and wailing and rending of upholstery in the Green Room about the current state of our politics, as though the art of governing in a democratic republic could be summed up in the ability to get along with such a consummate faker as Orrin Hatch. Lost, except in occasional euphemism, was the fact that, at the time Kennedy died, one party had determined that it was good politics that very little get done, national interest and the results of the previous two national elections be damned; that reaching across the aisle now meant extending your hand into a gibbering monkeyhouse, and that there was no art of the possible, well, possible, as long as one side determines that richly empowered nonsense is the key to political success in a country too numb to act in its own self-interest. Lost, except in occasional euphemism, was the fact that thousands of people don’t wait four hours in the soggy middle of a storm-fresh night to celebrate someone’s unique gift for compromise. What was needed at the time of Ted Kennedy’s death was not the man who got suckered by George Bush and his No Child Left Behind confidence game, but the man who stood and spoke, loudly and uncompromisingly, in order to keep a bitter Victorian yahoo like Robert Bork off the Supreme Court.
[…] __
Consider: just this year, the Senate found itself unable to act on extending unemployment insurance during a time when somewhere north of 17 percent of the country was out of work. In other words, allegedly sentient politicians found themselves unable to appreciate the political value of giving away money. And the Senate also found itself unable to act on the issue of extending health care benefits to the people who got sick working on the pile of rubble that once was the World Trade Center… Free money and helping the heroes of Ground Zero now no longer have viable enough political constituencies in the Congress to get themselves passed. And these are the politics on the verge of success.
__
… Meanwhile, nobody can seem to make a good campaign issue out of the fact that, for the first time ever, a law was passed that embraced at least in principle Ted Kennedy’s lifelong dream of universal health insurance. It was a weak and sickly stab at it, but it was a political triumph nonetheless. Why is this administration not getting credit for all it’s done, wonder the president’s most avid supporters. It’s because there’s nobody out there — including the president, apparently — who can connect these accomplishments in a coherent narrative in such a way as to command the respect of a public conditioned to believe that universal health insurance means that Stalin will rise from his grave in order to march your white-haired granny into hers. That’s what’s never been replaced since we all stood in line by the sea, under the shattered light of a moon as the clouds raced in front of it ahead of the storm.
beltane
Has it ever occurred to anyone that we won’t get better politicians until we get better people voting for these politicians? When I look at the stupidity revealed by opinion polling all I can think of is that we actually have a better government than we deserve. And yes, I am bitter about that.
cleek
that’s some purty writin
Nick
it’s because Democrats, especially liberals, think they live in a country that’s a hell of a lot more rational, intelligent, and educated than it really is.
No lefty blogger or pundit can tell me they knew death panels would take root, no one. I know because every lefty blogger or pundit mocked the idea when it first came about, acting like it was so ludicrous, it wasn’t even worth responding to.
And once again, they underestimated this country’s stupidity.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@beltane:
The prospect of a hanging concentrates the mind, or so I’ve heard. In the fall of 2008, at least a few more minds were concentrated than usual. The problem is, as Americans we are very good at losing our focus when the pressure of an acute crisis falls away, which means that we don’t do a good job of tackling problems which are episodic, endemic or systemic (or some combination thereof). And right now we have all three of those in spades.
c u n d gulag
Pierce is one of the finest writers we have who work in the English language.
He is the anti-Jonah Goldberg.
Anti-Kristol.
Anti-Broder.
Anti-Will.
Anti-Friedman.
Anti-Brooks.
Anti-anyone left at the WSJ Op Ed page.
All wrapped into one.
evinfuilt
@Nick:
I’ve heard the opposite as well. That the real problem is politicians treat us as children and rarely as intelligent adults.
Personally, I think its because a whole 50% of the nation is at or below average of intelligence! Till that’s fixed, we’re doomed.
Jager
After his messy divorce, the bullshit with his nephew in Florida, Teddy was looking vulnerable…Mitt Romney stepped up and took a shot at Ted’s Senate seat., Kennedy cleaned himself up and ripped Mitt a new ass in the debates. I was at Fanuel Hall for the debate, this Bostonian enjoyed seeing Romney destroyed by Teddy. It is too bad that he isn’t around today, we need him
spongeworthy
This is what passes for coherence here? This guy is your idea of a fine writer and this piece a gem? It’s a joke!
In the same piece, where this clown laments the current state of politics, he writes this:
the man who stood and spoke, loudly and uncompromisingly, in order to keep a bitter Victorian yahoo like Robert Bork off the Supreme Court.
Are you kidding me? Does he think NONE of his readers will remember what Ted Kennedy said about Bork? That not one of you will think, “Well, we have Teddy to thank for the current mess getting judges confirmed, so he’s hardly blameless for the current state of our political system.”
Why is this writer so skeptical of his readers capacity for critical thinking?
cleek
@spongeworthy:
what Kennedy said about Bork would be considered utterly routine by the rhetorical standards of today’s GOP.
and no, Bork wasn’t the first nominee to have a tough time.
Omnes Omnibus
@cleek: Moreover, actions that are appropriate in an extraordinary case are not necessarily appropriate in commonplace situations. That is, one nominee may be so objectionable that going to the wall to prevent his/her confirmation is justified. Going to the wall over every nominee, on the other hand, smacks of obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism. See also, filibusters.
spongeworthy
what Kennedy said about Bork would be considered utterly routine by the rhetorical standards of today’s GOP.
About Supreme Court nominees? You could not be more wrong here–it is simply impossible. But you have answered my previous question:
Why is this writer so skeptical of his readers capacity for critical thinking?
Thanks for that, anyway. Do yourself a favor and read the following so that next time you bring an informed opinion:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/weekend-opinionator-kennedy-bork-and-the-politics-of-judicial-destruction/
Comrade Colette Collaboratrice
@spongeworthy:
I remember what Kennedy said. I remember that I and a whole lot of my fellow gyno-Americans stood and cheered. That sexist, benighted, authoritarian asshole could have set civil rights – MY rights – back a hundred years, and Teddy’s truthtelling was instrumental in slowing the right-wing rush back to the Confederacy for once. “Robert Bork’s America” may not have been entirely Bork’s vision, but it sure as hell was Reagan’s.
I place far more blame on the Republican determination over the last 30 years to nominate judges and justices based only on a combination of ideological purity and a puerile desire to stick it to their opponents in the most ostentatiously, maliciously hostile manner possible.
cleek
@spongeworthy:
the GOP has limited its criticism of Kagan and Sotomayor to calling them variously racist, socialist, pro-Sharia, anti-military, bigoted, etc.. very noble of them. quite reasonable.
a collection of blog articles ?
timb
Pierce’s book on American kranks is must reading for any thinking person
cleek
@spongeworthy:
the GOP has limited its criticism of Kagan and Sotomayor to calling them variously racist, soshulist, pro-Sharia, anti-military, bigoted, etc.. very noble of them. quite reasonable.
a collection of blog articles ? including entries from Powerline and NRO ? spare me.
Zifnab
@beltane:
We’re kind of in a chicken-egg situation then. The politicians (and their proxies) provide a lot of education to the public. And the public, in turn, elects the politicians whose vision they most support.
So if you’ve got a public electing ignorant politicians who, in turn, feed the public bad information which said public uses to elect still more ignorant politicians… It’s a damning cycling.
spongeworthy
It’s fine you guys all agree that Kennedy was doing the proper thing there, but the fact remains that Pierce has written a shoddy piece. Whatever you think of Kennedy and Bork, it is the height of stupid to complain about broken politics in the same breath as lauding Kennedy.
It almost seems like, as long as some writer is telling you the things you like to hear, you are rendered incapable of examining his reasoning. It’s along the same lines as refusing to read a Times Opinion column because some of the balancing quotes are from NRO, and might trigger a fit of some sort!
timb
Spongeworthy,
As someone forced to study the rules this Republic abides by so I could get a license to work, I will say this judiciously: you and Toby Harshaw are wrong.
Harshaw’s lament on a lack of civility spends three seconds on Bork’s opposition to the exclusionary rule! He gives it one subjunctive clause! Ridiculous. The exclusionary rule prevents cops from turning this place into a banana republic.
You can combine that with Bork’s refusal to yield on Grisdwold v Connecticut (let alone Roe) and he is simply the worst justice nominated to the Court in the latter half of the 20th century. I can’t imagine what he would do about Hamdan and the rest (oh, sure, I could, I could just ask John Yoo since their opinions on the subject are largely the same)
Jeff Toobin said this about Chief Justice Roberts:
and Roberts is a piker compared to the evil that Bork was and would continue to be. Bork would serve the interests and values of the Tea Party.
Don’t hold Kennedy’s relative rhetorical elegance against him just because people like Newt Gingrich call Sonia Sotomayor a racist or Rush Limaugh says Elena Kagan wants Sharia law AND is a lesbian. These are differences in kind, not degree, in that the latter are lies, whereas Kennedy extrapolated a very dangerous (from a legal standpoint) man into a putative future. Bork would make Taney look competent.
timb
@spongeworthy: You’re missing the forest for trees. The piece is about the loss of a principled opposition and it uses Kennedy’s public career as a comparison point.
spongeworthy
Oh for crying out loud, timb. Limbaugh and Gingrich blowing off on the radio are in no way comparable to what Kennedy did ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE.
Ruth Ginsberg was confirmed 96-3. Do you think all but 3 conservatives were pleased with her appointment? Buy a clue.
It doesn’t matter a whit how poor a nominee Bork was–it is perfectly adequate to vote against him and encourage others to do the same. What Kennedy did was well beyond what any Senator had done before in hearings–look no further than the Times if you think otherwise.
I can’t believe you people are defending this writer on the basis that Kennedy was actually this tremendous asset to politics because he only vilified people when they really deserved it. Pathetic.
spongeworthy
Well, I did go and read the piece and I see what you mean, timb. So is the point of the piece that we need more vociferous advocacy in order to break the logjam in DC?
I agree that upon reading the whole thing this does appear to be what he’s getting at. But my criticism of the piece still stands–you cannot lament broken politics by lionizing one of the breakers. Simply saying “we need better breakers than they have” would be an entirely different piece.
timb
well, you’re sure winning people over by telling them to buy a clue. I get that Republicans were offended, after all they’ve been bitching about it since the day after it happened, but, if you somehow think that was the worst thing done on the floor of the Senate in the history of the Republic, then you should ask Preston Brooks what he thinks of Charles Sumner.
Or, maybe you could ask McCarthy (to whom Harshaw links, thus selling whatever credibility he hoped to possess) if destroying people ont he floor of the senate was worth it.
See, dispute it as you might (and for some weird reason it sure animates you…..in your Kennedy hatred, I can only imagine Tricky Dick surpassed you), Kennedy based his allegations on Bork’s stated and actual beliefs and, if, for some reason, you think that’s worse than a future Presidential candidate calling a nominee a racist, then you and I really have nothing else to discuss on the matter.
Somehow, I think I bought a clue long before Toby Harshaw and the rest of the righties convinced you that Senator Kennedy hurt their little feelings when he called Bork a reactionary tool. I was then, and now, unmoved, since everything that asshole Bork has said or written since then proves Kennedy was right.
Josh
Oh geez, timb, don’t you know that Ted Kennedy and Renata Adler forced Bork literally at gunpoint to write Slouching Towards Gomorrah? The problem really was Bork’s detractors, not his extremism; and he could well say, like Charles Graner, “Look what you made me do!”
Plus, what was the name of the dude who ended up on the Court after Bork was Borked? Kennedy! It’s tribalism, I tell you.
spongeworthy
You guys sure put a lot of words in my mouth. I didn’t waste a single pixel defending Bork.
Kennedy hit a new low for confirmation hearings–it isn’t really in doubt. The fact that Bork deserved it in the eyes of many doesn’t change that. Ginsburg deserved it in the eyes of many but she was spared such a diatribe, wasn’t she?
So, to me, to raise the suggestion that Kennedy could lead us out of the political morass we’re in is ludicrous, and I criticized Pierce’s piece on that basis. I haven’t seen much here to convince me otherwise.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@spongeworthy:
My take away from Pierce’s piece is that in his view our problem today is that Dems aren’t nearly as violently and frankly partisan in their rhetoric as the times and issues of today, and the open and unapologetic obstruction of the GOP call for, and thus what we need to “fix” (I think “unstick” would be a better term for it) our politics is less chumming around with pals on the other side of the aisle (what the MSM praised TK for) and more of what TK brought to the Senate at the time of the Bork nomination, hence it is ridiculous to lionize Teddy as some sort of secular saint of reasonable bipartisanship and comity in the Senate. He was reasonable and bipartisan at times during his career, but he could also be a bomb thrower. And Pierce thinks we need more bomb throwing.
To put the shoe on the other foot, imagine for a moment that the press was writing misty, hagiographic articles lionizing Newt Gingrich for his comity and ability to work with Dems, and a right wing partisan said in effect: “hey, wait a f-ing minute. Insofar as Newt got anything done worth praising from my point of view, it was by doing the opposite of what you say he did”. That is what Pierce is up to here.
IMHO, YMMV, etc.