By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Like many of us, I’ve read the back-and-forth exchanges between our host, Professor Turley, and Wisconsin law professor, Ann Althouse, about Prf. Turley’s Washington Post (WaPo) article proposing an expansion of the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to nineteen members. It’s been a fascinating glimpse into what passes for dialog among American intelligentsia. Professor Turley reiterates a proposal he’s made years before, suggesting SCOTUS needs to keep up with the times and expand to reduce the power of a lone swing voter. Prf. Althouse responds that the reasons for the proposal cited by Prf. Turley are pure BS and that she knows better what’s in JT’s heart. Prf. Turley responds by saying her research into his position and attitude is deficient and laments the loss of civility among colleagues. Althouse replies that she’s just “plain talking” and that her real point was the manipulation of the timing of Turley’s article by the newspaper even as it drives its own pro-Obama agenda.
Well, that was illuminating. After about 3000 words from both professors, we are left feeling a little cheated. Professor Althouse has completely dismissed the merits of JT’s proposal, calling into question his motives and contending he’s simply court-packing when the opinions from the court won’t suit him. JT meanwhile doesn’t address the only salient point of Althouse that perhaps the WaPo has an agenda of its own in timing the story when it did. It seems reasonable to question WaPo’s timing only days before the pre-scheduled release of a controversial ruling by the Court. It’s part of a pattern of talking past each other, and one that is all too prevalent in public discourse today.
Let me say at the outset that much of my own commentary has been guilty of that about which I complain. And after watching this exchange among genuinely gifted scholars, I ‘m sorry for my approach. Honestly, it’s easier (and more fun) to respond in kind to pointed criticism than to deal with the merits of the opponent’s argument. There is a feeling of personal power in conquering the other guy with a pithy reply, or crushing your opponent with the foible of his mistaken — but likely inconsequential — fact. It’s human nature, I suppose, to return insult for insult no matter how elegantly phrased or deftly postured or principle-based the reply might seem. Behind it is that old demon, ego.
The problem is that this cheapens the dialogue. When I was young, there was a corny old song based on a Max Ehrmann poem called the Desiderata. There was one poignant line, however, that I remember, “Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.” And maybe that’s the point of this little musing: Even those considered in our personal arrogance “dull and ignorant” and insulting get a place at the table. Maybe they will surprise us with some unimaginable perspective that our ill-perceived ideological blinders haven’t permitted us to see. Perhaps we can look past the vitriol and find that there is merit to a diametrically opposed point of view even when we doubt the motives, good faith, and even the integrity of the speaker.
I’ve always liked George Bernard Shaw’s observation about apples and ideas:
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.
The great Irish playwright and founder of the London School of Economics who was honored with both a Nobel prize and an Oscar, makes the point that no one is diminished by considering the differing view of another. In fact, the recipient is enriched. In my own life, I cannot tell you the number of times a firmly held position gave way to new circumstances that I never expected. Of course, civility in presentation makes that process easier, but should the idea be dismissed simply because of it was coarsely presented?
Maybe if we stepped back a moment from the battle and looked at the reason for the war, we’d do ourselves a service. The point of the recent debate about SCOTUS was to see if we needed a serious structural change for one of the three most important governmental institutions we have. Has the exchange of posts added to the debate or simply assuaged the egos of the writers? Like Shaw, can we now say that we have two ideas to mull instead of one?
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Lotta,
“Benefits as part of employee compensation are stabilizing factors in the employer/employee relationship and works to the benefit of both.”
————————
Just as wages are a “stabilizing” factor. Only it is now popular to desire that assured health care follows me the person, not me the employee. At one time it was economic advantageous for the employer, as a stabilizing factor, in that cheaper rates were offered to groups. I have the impression now that this does not hold as well as before, ie the savings factor.
In Sweden, The idea of a citizen salary has been discussed in Sweden, just because you exist.
BarkinDog, No Federal employee has to accept that part of their compensation package. You err when you call it socialized medicine for Federal employees. It is part of the ‘pay’ just as any health insurance by a private sector employer is part of employee ‘pay’. Do you not think that if a private corporation provides health care as part of the employee compensation package you as a consumer ultimately pay the cost since all cost is passed on to the customer?
The money doesn’t come magically from another dimension in the private sector, it comes from somewhere on the ‘cost’ side of the ledger and that cost is passed on to the buyer. Benefits as part of employee compensation are stabilizing factors in the employer/employee relationship and works to the benefit of both.
ing civil inPete,
Pithy and to the point as usual. Where does one start when the entire system needs revisio? The idea of North Dakota having an equal number of votes in the Senate to states like NY, California and Texas assure a skewed system to begin with. Nine Judges appointed for life with partisanship determining who gets the job, also represents a skewed system. Finally a distinguished Law Professor dedicated to his perception of Constitutional adherence vs. a polemicist with an agenda, represents a similar skewing of perspectives if given equal weight. Civility is certainly to be desired, but sometimes acting civilly in a debate with partisans is like the proverbial bringing a knife to a gunfight.
Do you mean that Scalia can refuse his ScaliaCare and not pay his share? It is an employee benefit. Why not make him just go buy his own health insurance instead of being on this socialized medicine for federal employees on my dime? Santorum– not in Congress any more but he has free socialized medical care for self and daughter, for life. Share and share alike Scalia.
Right, Pete. Reforms needed all around.
if we’re going to have an electoral system where a few hundred people in a swing state can decide an election, why not have a judicial system decided by one swing vote.
Maybe some people are more bonobo than chimpanzee?
Dredd,
I musta missed something upstream which you wrote. Will read this and look for the red thread. It seems all so clear, but it feels like being reminded of your ABCs, ie what’s the point or where does it lead for Dredd.
You’re agin a drive in mankind to be beastly, whatever that is, unless elaborate Republican safeguards are enforced. The latter is in half a joke.
(Sound of gears turning)
idealist707 1, June 30, 2012 at 2:09 pm
Dredd,
SAID:
“Given this view, it is a common assumption that if you strip away the veneer of civilization, the restraints of society and culture, you reveal the primeval state of humanity characterized by aggression and violence.”
———————————————
Calling again on the Bushman culture (one of many) as example, it is strongly taboo to utter and use violence.
Although, it does happen and the Bushmen regard it so seriously, that if repeated, it can result in expulsion. And like in most African tribes, no one survives alone in the wilds of Africa.
But this myth is but one of many. Supposedly from the colonial period, or???? Particularly the educated are inclined to hold to myths of society controlling magnitude, ie cultivated ideas.
Followers of Aristotle did so for centuries and that did not help progress.
===========================================
To refresh my recollection, I read a bit further into my link for you.
The expert I quoted (Agustin Fuentes, Professor of Anthropology, University of Notre Dame) quoted other experts, as is the norm:
(link up-thread). Some of the scientists here who claim the authority from Einstein to Galileo subvert the mutual education we can give ourselves.
So that we can be free, first of personal mythology, the eventually the uncivil discourse that mythology instigates, and finally even more than that.
Just sayin’ …
BarkinDog, Scalia doesn’t get free health insurance. Federal employees get health insurance as part of their compensation package. There are various plans to choose from. The employee pays part of it and the employer pays part of it up to a maximum dollar amount.
“know” at the end is “no” as in I no longer remember.
Mespo:
I am sort of curious as to why you would want to compromise with bad ideas? If there is one good idea and one bad idea, what is the point in entertaining the bad idea? The only person who gains is the one with the bad idea.
——————————–
If you assume the “other” idea is bad because yours is good and you don’t even consider the idea, you lose. I’ve had two examples in two days, absolutely amazing because all my ideas and preconceived notions are absolutely the best, without argument ; ). (That last is my attempt at humor, don’t take it seriously)
On another thread was the question re AVA: what’s being taxed – the mandate or the penalty. Well, obviously the penalty. But wait. That was my initial take on it. But the tea party folks are claiming AVA is the greatest tax ever. So, is it the penalty that’s the tax or is the mandate the tax that’s paid by buying insurance or paying the IRS. I don’t have the answer but my perception, awaiting facts, is, due to another’s questions, I don’t know something that I thought I knew.
The other instance is someone who wants to reform the electoral college by having all states apportion their delegates according to the votes within the state. I’ve long been in favor of IRV a method whereby each voter ranks her/his vote among the candidates and the ballot being redistributed to next choice if first choice candidate is eliminated. I’ve also leaned favorably toward a popular vote for president. So my initial take is, this person was beating a dead horse by wanting to reform the electoral college. His rhetoric was hard to understand. Well, in trying to figure out the rhetoric (thank goodness it was written!), I was forced to see his argument. He’s right, imo. IRV works for single district, single seat elections, e.g. mayor, but not for President. Popular vote not only dilutes all minority points of view, the election is effectively held in only the most populous places. He changed my mind and clarified my pov on IRV. I’d tell you what the I, R and V stand for but I know longer remember.
Dredd,
SAID:
“Given this view, it is a common assumption that if you strip away the veneer of civilization, the restraints of society and culture, you reveal the primeval state of humanity characterized by aggression and violence.”
===========================
Calling again on the Bushman culture (one of many) as example, it is strongly taboo to utter and use violence.
Although, it does happen and the Bushmen regard it so seriously, that if repeated, it can result in expulsion. And like in most African tribes, no one survives alone in the wilds of Africa.
But this myth is but one of many. Supposedly from the colonial period, or???? Particularly the educated are inclined to hold to myths of society controlling magnitude, ie cultivated ideas.
Followers of Aristotle did so for centuries and that did not help progress.
Anonymously Yours 1, June 30, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Dredd,
Respond to your email…
=======================
AY now I will be busy for the rest of the day doing that. Carry on here. 😉
Dredd,
Respond to your email…..
Bron 1, June 30, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Mespo:
I am sort of curious as to why you would want to compromise with bad ideas? If there is one good idea and one bad idea, what is the point in entertaining the bad idea? The only person who gains is the one with the bad idea.
George Bernard Shaw was an idiot and one of his “ideas” was to kill people who didnt do enough, in his view, to earn their life. What in the name of humanity can I learn from an idea like that? And more to the point the mind which would come up with an idea like that has nothing to say that good people could or should entertain.
==================================
The problem is who decides which is the bad idea and which is the good idea.
In our society we have developed the GOP brain and the DEM brain in this 21st Century, and as Dr. Lakoff says “you can’t analyze 21st Century politics with an 18th Century brain.”
There are actually different brains looking at things through very different amydala structures.
So, the solution to the problem is more than meets the eye.
“George Bernard Shaw was an idiot”, for example, will not work.
Mespo:
I am sort of curious as to why you would want to compromise with bad ideas? If there is one good idea and one bad idea, what is the point in entertaining the bad idea? The only person who gains is the one with the bad idea.
George Bernard Shaw was an idiot and one of his “ideas” was to kill people who didnt do enough, in his view, to earn their life. What in the name of humanity can I learn from an idea like that? And more to the point the mind which would come up with an idea like that has nothing to say that good people could or should entertain.
Previously, before the health care decision came down, I had advocated taking ScaliaCare away from all of the Supreme Court Justices. I modify that and say that the free as a bee healthcare that they get should be taken away from the hypocrites like Scalia who dissented. They could take some of their salary and go buy medical insurance just like the rest of private society. They dont need socialized medical care on my dime. Whats good for General Motors is good for the USA. Scalia is such a hypocrite. Kennedy too. While we are at it–meaning health care reform– take it away from Santorum. He has life healthcare even though he is out of office. He has some sick kid sucking off the system. My dime again. He was on TV last night railing about ObamaCare. Sainted Rum was reall good at criticising Romney for his RomneyCare but he never quite explains how he is stealing our money on the CongressCare or Sainted Rum Care.
Now if Sainted Rum and Willard would just focus on the real problem in the health care industry– price fixing. If you or your aunt doe doe has been in the hospital for a few days and you have a copy of the itemized bill, look to see what they charge for something you know the price of in the drug store. Such as aspirin. Or a bandaid. Or a oxycotton. Its oxymoronic.