A recent post briefly addressed the travesty that is our Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. the FEC. In the case, the Court, overruling well established precedent, decided that as money is not only a form of absolute speech — and thus those with more money have more absolute free speech rights — corporations were entitled to the same set of “free speech” protections as individuals. And they were entitled to these “protections” even in so far as to override Congress’ ability — that, by the way, is OUR ability (through our duly elected representatives) — to put reasonable restrictions on corporate expended political advertising and propaganda in the days shortly before a Federal Election.
Thus, the Court ruled, the “inherent right,” not of individuals, but of non living, non breathing, theoretical “legal entities,” not only exists — but outweighs our democracy’s interest in protecting what is not “vested, pecuniary interest or pecuniarily derived” speech from the excesses of money rather than substance just before an election; when it comes, once again, not just to individuals, but corporations.
Our Founding Fathers would likely find this argument quite intriguing. And also disturbingly misplaced.
It is a profound decision. And it is also what happens when non moderate political figures get elected, and fill their cabinets with even more influential ideologues, and Congress does not duly exercise it’s check upon Executive judicial appointment indiscretion.[i]
Indeed, no less than famed democratic columnist and scholar EJ Dionne once pejoratively wrote of the very few weak efforts that Democrats did put up to block just a few of the large number of radical Bush Administration appointments, that it was democratic “obstructionism” in retaliation for Republican obstructionism on judicial appointments in the 90s (never mind that Clinton’s appointments on balance had been far far more moderate, and less ideological, than Bush’s):
Democrats are dug in on judges precisely because they do not want to reward Republican obstruction in the 1990s. The theory is that one wave of obstruction deserves — even demands — another.
But then Democrats know how to shoot themselves in the foot better than anybody. It’s hard to know what world Dionne actually lived in. Democrats tried to filibuster a minute fraction of Bush’s judicial appointees, many if not most of whom were ideologues; with some staunchly and uncompromisingly so (one of the last traits one needs in a Jurist).
Today, as one looks at the decisions at the higher levels of our judicial system, one sees increasing evidence of an ideological mark; and many decisions that are remarkably troubling in their ramifications have come down the pike. Indeed, even Dionne, who once criticized the minimal efforts that Democrats did make in response to radical Bush judicial appointments as simple, overdone politically motivated “obstructionism,” has come to rue both many of these decisions himself, as well as the stark ideological make up of a some of our most important Federal Courts.
And Dionne, who himself just a few years ago referred to an almost radically tilted Supreme Court in the popular media lingo of the day “four liberals on one side, four conservatives on the other, with a centrist” — Kennedy — in the middle, now refers to the Supreme Court himself in different, and more accurate, terms.
Kennedy is the center of the Court. The problem is Kennedy is not a “centrist.” Though sometimes called a “moderate” by today’s standards, he is a staunch, classical, “true” conservative. Our Court needs staunch, classic conservatives, just as it needs staunch, classic, “true” Liberals. It just doesn’t need a decided conservative as its judicial-political center.
In Citizens United vs. the FEC, a truly radical Supreme Court decision, we see the ramifations of such a lopsided Court.
And though it won’t be clearly marked — such is the nature of monied influences peddling propaganda unfettered, with the most financially well off industries and organizations able to control and frame the battle of influence — our democracy will see, and suffer, the ramifications in perpetuity, until and unless this decision is reversed.
Meanwhile, over at the often liberal and exceedingly popular Daily Kos website, a recommended front page “diary piece” today takes the cue from their unofficially appointed media ringleader, the estimable Rachel Maddow, and has determined that this decidedly undemocratic decision by our radical Supreme Court, is good for Democrats:
Until I watched the above TRMS segment on it, the decision had me terrified. Now I almost want to say ‘bwahaha’ to it. We can effectively run and win on this issue in 2010. It may also help in the HCR battle.
The misplaced hubris itself — from supporters for the same party that has allowed their opponents to completely control and frame the debate, and, from a minority position legislation itself, on an issue as basic, and as much in need of at least some type of sensible reform, as health care itself – is a bit stunning.
But it’s not the end to it:
Guys – we can’t lose with this. The crazy thing is that they did it to themselves. Hoisted by their own unbridled greed. Thank you, Rachel Maddow, for this fan-freaking-tastic bit of political insight and winning way forward. Cheers.
Actually, a Supreme Court decision that gives unfettered political propaganda power to monied interests in the waning days of an election, is not only likely to be bad for Democrats, it is likely to only further this country’s slow movement to the right, as the Republican Party continues to get hijacked by its own right wing; and Democrats, politically, rather than properly defining it, continue to simply adjust to it, while much of the “left wing” of the Democratic Party, in trying to otherwise properly prevent this, continues to nevertheless exude contempt for everything else while continuing to impugn the very voters that need to be reached.
The abysmal Citizens United decision can be used as a rallying cry for those who want sensible government, a decrease in the influence of monied interests upon our already seemingly tainted election processes, and a check upon an increasingly ideological court system and increasingly ideological politicians willing to put firmly entrenched ideology ahead of broad based judicial temperance and jurisprudence in their judicial selections and approvals.
It can be used to give further evidence for the idea that this country needs to return to its roots of individual liberty– not government or corporate power over the hands of the individual — and true political discussion and debate underlying our democratic processes; rather than an open battle of dollars for ultimate control of our laws, and our land.
And it can be used to make the point that, so far unchecked by a rather timid, stenographic, and increasingly oligopolistic and corporate “Fourth Estate” media, and a Democratic Party that has ceded control of the framing to its opponents, the Republican Party itself has lost its roots, and is being increasingly led by an overly influential but small group of far right wing ideologues whose influence now clearly extends firmly all the way to our Supreme Court itself.
But it can only be used for these things, among other positive (and perhaps much better articulated) political formulations, if Democrats first recognize the need — something that they have not heretofore done — to more properly define themselves, their opponents, and the issues, stop taking for granted what they think people “know” or should know, and start selling and showing, rather than presuming, arguing, telling, or dismissing as “obvious” their ideas, the “facts,” or what are to them, their opponents flaws.
And of course, Democrats, the party of non organization, and often irrelevant but self destructive incidental infighting, arguing and mis-focus, would also need to become far better organized. Even the wildly popular but halcyon diary piece on the Daily Kos took the time to at least note (emphasis added):
…if we organize properly.
However, given the apparent lack of recognition of these other key factors briefly suggested above, this is hard to fathom, particularly as Democrats themselves are apparently still taking notes on how to lose control of Congress when they have a substantial majority in both Houses, along with the support of the White House.
Little, apparently, was said with respect to the even more important idea of political messaging, and focus.
But in a world where all that is “bad” is so blindingly self obvious to all voters, who nevertheless continue to vote in seemingly troubling ways despite its odd coincidence to rhetoric and political propaganda that is similarly so “obvious” that it can largely be ignored or simply derided (as opposed to being successfully used to correctly define its promulgators), messaging and focus seem to be given rather short shrift by the Democratic Party, as well.
We will see what happens.
Hopefully my repeated points to EJ Dionne years ago, that opposition to ideological and extreme judicial appointments to our highest Courts by the minority party in power (call it the classically American principle of the power of the minority against the unfettered will of a misguided majority when circumstances warrant) is imperative in a free and robust democracy, not “obstructionism,” and that our Supreme Court was no more “balanced” than a McDonald’s happy meal, will start to take root. Perhaps not.
But either way, it is time to take a really good long hard look at where America is going, and how we got to where we are right now.
A lot of it has to do with simple framing, loss of true Fourth Estate media functions (for which the naturally self selecting, insular,and on political matters overly polarizing Internet is no substitute) and the continued taking for granted by the Democratic Party of what is “obvious” to people or the way that those who most need to be reached, must be seeing things.
And a lot of it has to do with “Fox” news. And, in keeping with the Democratic dismissive-ness and presumptuousness lightly referred to above, the Democratic Party’s underestimation of its role in our Democracy and public discussions, and in shaping and influencing our broader media itself.
But those are separate topics; just simply noted, here, for now.
Endnote:
[i] Some may incorrectly suggest that since Justice Kennedy, who served as a “swing” vote between two rather stark factions of the Court, is not necessarily an ideologue, that this analysis is incorrect. What is being missed here is the reason we have 9 Justices in the first place. With an ideologically extreme end of the Court, in many instances, rendered This does not mean that a properly made up Court will not have 5-4 decisions. Of course it will on occasion. Again, that is why we have nine Justices, not one. It is just that under the correct scenario, those decisions will be close ones. This was not a close one. In this case the Court was effectively reduced to a single Justice, the conservative, but not necessarily radical ideologue, Anthony Kennedy. And Kennedy made a mistake, that happens to go in the direction, as is almost always going to be more likely than not when Kennedy does make a mistake, in the direction of his own political philosopy. Thus in some instances not only have we rendered the Court down to one effective Jurist; we have, in those instances, rendered the Court, effectively down to one, conservative Jurist. This is not to say that a centrist Jurist would not also make mistakes; it is to say that the original error is even further compounded by the fact that our at times one person de facto Supreme Court Justice, is clearly on one side of the political equation.
How did this come about? President Ronald Reagan appointed Antonin Scalia, a respected Jurist, who has proven to be a witty ideologue. George H.W. Bush appointed Clarence Thomas, a firm ideologue who opposed affirmative action (rightly or wrongly, no opinion is expressed here), but whose opportunities in life were quite clearly crafted by a lifetime of affirmative action opportunities for him, and who received the lowest American Bar Association Rating for a Supreme Court nominee in the history of the United States. Then, with the Court already heavily stacking to the right, and in some ways the far right, George W. Bush, son of the first President Bush, appointed otherwise seemingly competent, but far right ideologues in Samuel Alito and in the eminently charming and polished John Roberts, who charmed the pants off of the Democratic contingent in Congress (who later went out as a group and bought some ocean front investment property in Utah).
Neither of these last two appointments, despite the clear and almost extreme radical ideological tilt of the nominees, and the heavy imbalance on the Court already, were blocked by Democrats in Congress, who apparently went to the Hendrik Helzburg school of filibustering (and listened to the almost always non useful Washington Post) – noting it as a power that only legitimately extends to one’s opponents, who can either use it themselves, or threaten Democrats and basic Senate procedure itself when they even contemplate the idea. (The infamous “Gang of Fourteen” — by which Senate Democrats gave up their inherent rights under a threat by Republicans to scutle 200 years of precedent by adhering to the Rules of the Senate as established by the Senate — then agreed upon a “plan” to avert the so called “nuclear option” whereby Democrats would agree to let Bush’s appointments go through unscathed, along with most of the previously filibustered non Supreme Court nominees themselves. Then of course there is the amazing “no spin” spin of the far right itself, where 90% control rather than 50/50 is not enough, which the media eats up hook line and sinker.)
