Jonathan Rauch asks: If Janice Rogers Brown's ideas are perfectly defensible, why wouldn't Republicans defend them?
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
metalgrid | July 7, 2005, 10:23am | #
Rather than confronting the tension between Big Government conservatism and small-government nominee, the Republicans pretended there was no tension.
That's basically it in a nutshell. The cognitive dissonance is striking. As much as Republicans claim to stand for small government and fiscal restraint, they cannot pursue a socially conservative agenda in that manner. Teaching creationism in schools require state control of schools and continued taxation. Funding faith-based initiatives also requires more of the same. War on Drugs, War on Terror, yup, more spending, more taxes or borrowing.
At that point, there really ceases to be a difference in spending and finances between the two parties. The only choice becomes whether to support the socially conservative agenda or the socially liberal agenda, since they will both be spending similarly (although historically the Republicans have always spent more than Democrats), and putting judges into place that will allow the government to continue to do so.
The defense of JRB, or rather the lack thereof of her opinions, is a clear example of how great the divide is between libertarians and conservatives. JRB is a token in more ways than her race alone. Apparently she's also the token thick libertarian.
Daniel | July 7, 2005, 10:32am | #
The Republican Congressional majority's profligate spending and forays into big government notwithstanding, while the article mentions it briefly, the issue could very well be that while Republicans might generally approve of the ideas espoused in Brown's rhetoric - although you wouldn't notice it by their deeds - it is not her place as a judge to make them law.The Constitution does not enshrine in law what the writers and commenters at Reason think might be good ideas.
R C Dean | July 7, 2005, 10:45am | #
why wouldn't Republicans defend themBecause the Republican Senators are tools?
The Constitution does not enshrine in law what the writers and commenters at Reason think might be good ideas.
Actually, the Constitution does establish as the supreme law of the land a number of ideas, such as limited government of enumerated powers, free speech, etc., that writers and commenters at Reason tend to think are good ideas.
Just because we like them doesn't invalidate them, Daniel.
Julian Sanchez | July 7, 2005, 10:55am | #
Aw, Dan, next thing you're going to tell me it doesn't enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's "Social Statics" either.Daze | July 7, 2005, 11:31am | #
Seems like property rights and guns are the only relevant issues for some libertarians. This is a very narrow-minded approach to "freedom".Brown's views on personal privacy, gay rights, abortion and separation of church & state are all in line with the most reactionary, authoritarian Christian conservatives. And she's been aggressive in injecting her social & cultural views into rulings.
All her quippy rhetoric about "liberty" shouldn't blind us to the fact that she's extremely hostile to many fundamental freedoms.
steve | July 7, 2005, 11:33am | #
"Actually, the Constitution does establish as the supreme law of the land a number of ideas, such as limited government of enumerated powers, free speech, etc..."As I understand it, JRB has said that the
doctrine of incorporation is incorrect, though
that she later backpedalled a bit. Still, it
strikes me that denying the doctrine of
incorporation's validity is not very
libertarian.
Daniel | July 7, 2005, 12:05pm | #
Julian-It was intended as a thinly veiled reference to J. Holmes's quote.
RC Dean and drf-
For effect, the statement is somewhat broad. In particular though, I had in mind things like the expansive regulatory state at both the federal and local level, drug prohibition, massive federal spending on things like education, public broadcasting and stuff that helps Robert Byrd get reelected, to name a few.
From what I can gather, it's Brown's views on some of these things that makes her controversial, and not her views on the First Amendment, the takings clause - things that expressly limit government's (both state and federal) powers.
There's a strong case to be made, and one that I generally agree with, that judge's should stay out of the former and stick to the latter.
Yep, metalgrid pretty much summed it up. A Goldwater Republican might have strongly defended her views, but not today's Republicans. Brown says "Big government is not just the opiate of the masses" and more and more these days the Dems and Reps differ on only where to focus big government. Republicans have given up the fight for smaller government.
On the subject of Lochner, I have always felt that Holmes' dissent has unduly eclipsed the first Justice Harlan's. The majority said that this was not a measure to protect the public; Harlan, instead of going into the broad propositions Holmes does about the Fourteenth Amendment not enacting Spencer, etc., actually tries to meet the majority on its own ground, and points out that excessive hours for the bakers might indeed lead to unsafe bread...
Jason Ligon | July 7, 2005, 1:32pm | #
It is obvious why Republicans won't defend many of her statements. It is the same reason Republicans offer prescription drug benefits. Once bribery is on the table, the guy who endorses a Constitutional interpretation that prevents people from getting their 'fair share' of the spoils is the bad guy. Again, it concerns me when fellow libertarians think that a libertarian defense of Brown on principle will be remotely compelling to the guy whose free goodies are on the line.FDR launched an attack that the right has never been able to respond to, only incorporate.
William | July 7, 2005, 1:44pm | #
I have to side with Daze on this one. While brown talks a great fight about liberty, her actual decisions, dissents, and even many of her public statements, make her a very questionable candidate. While she has generally stood behind property rights, and I understand how fresh those right are in our minds because of Kelo, Brown has consistantly come down against other personal liberties. She has openly engaged in victim blaming in rape cases, she has often made comments supporting the community "right" to set standards for behavior, she has been hostile towards abortion, and she has generally placed herself squarely in the camp of the theocrats.I agree, her views on property rights are heart-warming, but lets not sell our soul here. Once we start trading one right for another, once we start arranging liberty by what is more "important" we might as well hang it up and embrace Leviathan. Freedom is not an area in which you can compromise.
the point of the article wasn't so much "brown is the chosen one", but simply that, whether or not she acts according to her rhetoric, the rhetoric itself wasn't defended by republicans.
I think some of you are confusing her role as a judge with her personel views. For example someone mentioned that not believing the incorporation theory is un-libertarian. That is nonsense. I reject incorporation as a matter of Constitutional interpretation, but I am as libertarian as they come. There is no conflict with the two beliefs. One can believe that a state (but not the Federal Government) has the right to regulate guns (unless their own Constitution permits it) without supporting the actual state regulation of guns. Just as one can be against Roe v. Wade and still be opposed to abortion regulation.
MayDay72 | July 7, 2005, 4:01pm | #
Most people in this country spend much of their time driving on land owned by the state. Most people are educated in schools run by the state. Most people only see firearms in the hands of criminals or employees of the state. Most retirees get a substantail percentage of their income from the state.Of course these people have a difficult time trying to imagine a world where the role of the state is greatly lessened. Who will own/build/maintain roads? Who will educate the children? Who will protect them from terrorists or criminals? Who take care of them when they get old?
Conversations of reducing the size of the state usually deteriorate into fears of "starving children on the streets", "old people in tar paper shacks" and "roving bands of gangs".
The Lockean concept of civil society preceding the state is a completely alien concept to most people. Why would the Republicans want to defend such rhetoric? Why would anyone? If you want to get elected, not piss people off and raise lots of money then you should tell the voters that your job is to make sure they get the most "free" stuff...Especially from those rich people who have lots of stuff already and never seem to pay their "fair share".
You shouldn't blame someone for trying to peddle such a product (politicians)...You should blame the consumers of the product (voters).
Brilliantly put, MayDay. If you think about it, politics is a sort of market. Politicians will survive by satisfying their customers. Of course, it is a very weird market because, while I can buy only those things from Walmart that I want, and leave all the rest, I get "package deals" from politics. Still, I can't really blame politicians for pandering. They're in the business of sales, and salesmanship is all about pandering....
Daniel | July 7, 2005, 5:18pm | #
Mayday-If you don't like it move to Somalia or Haiti - or are you already there?
Scott dealt with the subject perfectly. The Constitution does not make law all things libertarian, though I wish more such limitations were present.
Whoever said we can't start trading our liberties (in talking about a Judge) is crazy. Of course we can, and must. We aren't going to find a perfect Judge who rules all things libertarian. In fact, we wouldn't want one, b/c as I said above, they would be wrong. The government has the power to regulate where I think it shouldn't.
Would I trade a judge that would give up abortion righs (as a matter of constitutional law) for more protection of property rights (again, as a matter of constitutional law)? Hell yes. In a heartbeat (heh). Because one is protected by the constitution (property rights), one isn't (abortion). And because property rights are much more important to a free society than the right to kill a viable fetus, smoke crack or bugger someone. If you can't have it all, you have to prioritize.
In a Federalist system, you can always travel for a legal abortion. Many states recognize it as a state constitutional right. You can't get your house back once it is taken and turned into a Wal-mart.
Whoever said we can't start trading our liberties (in talking about a Judge) is crazy. Of course we can, and must. We aren't going to find a perfect Judge who rules all things libertarian. In fact, we wouldn't want one, b/c as I said above, they would be wrong. The government has the power to regulate where I think it shouldn't.
Would I trade a judge that would give up abortion righs (as a matter of constitutional law) for more protection of property rights (again, as a matter of constitutional law)? Hell yes. In a heartbeat (heh). Because one is protected by the constitution (property rights), one isn't (abortion). And because property rights are much more important to a free society than the right to kill a viable fetus, smoke crack or bugger someone. If you can't have it all, you have to prioritize.
In a Federalist system, you can always travel for a legal abortion. Many states recognize it as a state constitutional right. You can't get your house back once it is taken and turned into a Wal-mart.
b-psycho | July 8, 2005, 5:26pm | #
I recall once having that observation about politics being like a market that MayDay & JMoore had, and realized something in that which would probably seem peculiar outside of this site:If you continue w/ that metaphor, in a way us liberty-lovers are arguing for the political "market" to be....more tightly regulated.
Now, I personally don't think that is hypocritical in the slightest -- the political market is the only one where people compete for the power to harm you or your livelihood -- but I'd guess a lot of people on the outside of the libertarian movement looking in would. Something to chew on...
Dynamist | July 10, 2005, 2:09am | #
If I was the puppetmaster who wanted to get JRB's libertarian-friendly views promoted to higher benches, I would have the Republicans act just as they have. To defend liberty, as several pointed out, is not popular enough and would create extra opposition. But to promote the personal story and integrity still sells, and her story pretty much trumps most of the Dems major rhetorical points about opportunity, empowerment, etc.I'm not saying that the R's are that smart, but sometimes they bumble their way onto a useful path.