Tagged: conservatism

Gleanings: November 11, 2012

Migrations : The Last Word On Nothing

How fragile they are. How amazing that they know the way home, that some of them make it, and that then they do it all over again.

Read the full story …

For Pieter ten Hoopen, Following Footsteps Into Japan’s ‘Suicide Forest’ – NYTimes.com

Pieter ten Hoopen grabbed onto a rope and made his way down an incline with a sense of foreboding. He was uncertain what he would find at the end of the 300-meter blue rope. He knew there might be clothing, empty pill containers and a diary, a scene suggesting that a suicide had taken place. Reaching the end of the rope, he was relieved there wasn’t a body or human remains.

Read the full story …

Eleanor Arnason’s Web Log: Genre Fiction

What he describes as “literary” sounds like the classic bourgeois novel of character and psychology. These can certainly be good. But they have were done in the 19th century and early 20th century, and I see no reason to do them again. If I want to read one, I will get out James or Proust.

Read the full story …

Our Local Correspondents: Up and Then Down : The New Yorker

While anthems have been written to jet travel, locomotives, and the lure of the open road, the poetry of vertical transportation is scant. What is there to say, besides that it goes up and down?

Read the full story …

twin city sidewalks: Nine Ways the US Democratic System Screws its Cities

he game is rigged against urban life, against the very places where the most people live. Jeffersonian agoraphobia lies at the very heart of our constitutions and procedures.

Read the full story …

Dear Young Conservative – DC Pierson

The war in which they’ve enlisted you is one in which, if your side triumphs, you will need to hold two low-paying full-time jobs just to make ends meet, and neither job gives you health benefits because it’s hard for either company’s CEO to give you those benefits and also be as ultra-rich as they’d like to be, and if you get hurt or sick, nothing and no one will be there to help you, your only solution will be to work harder and harder for less and less until you die

Read the full story …

The American Scholar: Master of the Examined Life – Paula Marantz Cohen

Why not call this program the MEL: the Master of the Examined Life. The degree would not require writing, though it would encourage it. It would involve reading about deep, far-reaching subjects, and discussing them.

Read the full story …

Robert Ben Rhoades: The Truck Stop Killer by Vanessa Veselka

It seems our profound fascination with serial killers is matched by an equally profound lack of interest in their victims.

Read the full story …

Jonah Lehrer, Scientists, and the Nature of Truth – Virginia Hughes

Here is Lehrer, one of the best science writers I ever read, publishing in the most elite magazine with the help of the smartest editors and most rigorous fact-checkers. And still, still, the story isn’t true.

Read the full story …

‘Lunch Atop a Skyscraper’ Uncovered – NYTimes.com

The popularity of the picture, which has been colorized, satirized, burlesqued with the Muppets and turned into a life-size sculpture by Sergio Furnari, is partly about the casual recklessness of its subjects: The beam on which they sit seems suspended over an urban abyss, with the vastness of Central Park spread out behind them and nothing, seemingly below.

Read the full story …

Fantasyland – Frank Rich

At the policy level, this is the GOP that denies climate change, that rejects Keynesian economics, and that identifies voter fraud where there is none. At the loony-tunes level, this is the GOP that has given us the birthers, websites purporting that Obama was lying about Osama bin Laden’s death, and not one but two (failed) senatorial candidates who redefined rape in defiance of medical science and simple common sense. It’s the GOP that demands the rewriting of history (and history textbooks), still denying that Barry Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy” transformed the party of Lincoln into a haven for racists.

Read the full story …

fair, but not neutral

Supreme Court (Library of Congress)The “strict constructionist” trope on the Right is an odd and disingenuous position. Like “Biblical literalism,” it implies a simple unity to a complex body of writing; I can’t say whether it’s bad jurisprudence, but it’s certainly bad history.

The U.S. Constitution, its amendments, and the thousands of laws emanating from Congress are hardly a disinterested, neutral clockwork. It’s a mishmash of contradictory goals, high-minded sentiment, and bald self-interest. The 1787 Constitution was shaped by the conflicting interests of agrarian, mercantile, and working classes (cf. Charles Beard and Forrest McDonald), by ideological conflicts between radicals and conservatives, by the sectional conflicts (not only between North and South, but between East and West, coastal and inland) that shaped American history for its first hundred years. The founders’ “original intent” was in the main to strike uneasy compromises and gain advantage for their own positions; all those white-wigged gentleman look the same in the hazy engravings of history, but they were different as can be from each other.

Given the conflict at the heart of our political and legal system, it is unreasonable to expect a Supreme Court justice to be nothing more than a provider of learned exegesis on clear rules. If the Court’s job were simply to say what the Constitution clearly says, there would be no need for nine justices; indeed, in the digital age, a single computer program could handle the job if the Constitution and laws passed by Congress were really so clear.

A Justice should be expected to be fair–should be able to weigh arguments and evidence without prejudice–but a Justice should hardly be expected to be neutral. The Court’s decisions need to be made in the context of not only what the law states, but also the larger society; trying to apply an imagined 18th century rationalism to modern laws and conditions would not be especially useful. A Justice who doesn’t bring her personal experience to the role is not doing her job.

I have a lot of sympathy for the cautious conservatism expressed by Edmund Burke and Michael Oakeshott. Skepticism of radical change is a healthy sentiment; the unintended consequences of change need to be considered, not only on the court but in Congress. This is reflected in the Court’s reliance on precedence; precedence is not, though, a straitjacket: the law evolves with society, and needs to reflect social changes that happen outside the control of law and politics.

The Republican “strict constructionism” is not a version of skeptical conservatism, though. It is a power strategy, pure and simple, to ensure that particular kinds of laws are reviewed favorably by the Courts. The Right on the Supreme Court can be just as “activist” as the Left, but avoids the Republicans’ criticism. I would much rather have an “active” court that wrestles with the implications of their decisions, than a “passive” rubber stamp on an odd literalist reading of law.

Blog Widget by LinkWithin