OPINION & EDITORIAL
Identity politics stereotypes groups
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Darryn Beckstrom:
- Ignorance, irresponsibility doom broken segregated fee system (November 15, 2005)
- State should endorse monotheism (November 22, 2005)
- Neutrality violations rampant in SSFC (December 14, 2005)
- Acidic justice (June 30, 2005)
- New course for Madison in 2006 (January 15, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Judging Judge Roberts (August 8, 2005)
- Right-wing judicial activism fault of liberal tactics (August 31, 2007)
- Appealing Southworth (November 27, 2001)
- Senators' grandstanding plagues Alito confirmation (January 15, 2006)
- Recall ends, but CRG continues fight (December 13, 2005)
by Darryn Beckstrom
Tuesday, November 8, 2005
When should identity politics — which have the objective of advancing the interests of particular groups in society — play a role in the Supreme Court nomination process?
The answer should be a resounding “never.”
Last week, in an editorial that has garnered national attention, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel stated in response to the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the high court: “In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.”
Now how is that for political incorrectness?
Given the board’s position on Justice Thomas, it seems that Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and Alan Keyes — among other intelligent conservative blacks — deserve asterisks behind their names as well.
But even more staggering about the editorial is that it engages in the stereotyping this country seeks to avoid. The Sentinel wants a “black” seat on the Court. But what they really desire is a seat held by a racial minority who will hold the same ideology as Rep. Gwen Moore — a liberal African—American who represents the residents of Milwaukee.
By the Sentinel’s standards, Mr. Thomas must favor affirmative action policies, neglect states’ rights, support gun control, and prevent restrictions on the ability to obtain an abortion. These are supposedly “black” issues, right? Not quite. These are issues held dearly by the Sentinel and those who support the ideological slant of the board.
This isn’t the first time Wisconsin’s media has resorted to racial stereotyping when blacks don’t agree with their liberal ideology. Morning talk show host John Sylvester of WTDY—AM in Madison recently referred to Ms. Rice as an “Aunt Jemima” and Mr. Powell as an “Uncle Tom” — noting they served nothing more than “subservient roles” in the Bush Administration.
Fortunately, Mayor Cieslewicz and Sen. Feingold condemned the remarks.
Unlike the Sentinel’s remarks, though, Mr. Sylvester took the racial stereotyping a step further. Not only do conservative blacks deserve an asterisk at the end of their name, they should also be considered “incompetent.” As such, when their accomplishments merit high positions in a more conservative environment, they are demoted to “black trophy” status.
The Left’s negative attitudes towards conservative blacks only fuel the racial tensions present in society. But these attitudes also force identity politics to be played out in an institution that should be insulated from such action.
Justice Thomas’s replacement of Justice Thurgood Marshall — the Court’s first African—American who also interpreted the Constitution liberally — does not necessitate that he must abide by the same judicial philosophy as his predecessor.
But then again, the Sentinel would prefer that Mr. Thomas occupy the proverbial “black seat” — complete with the supposed trademark “liberal” ideology that goes with it.
The Sentinel speaks of diversity in dichotomous terms: white and non—white, female and male, conservative and liberal. Viewing diversity through this lens, they believe Judge Alito’s nomination “lessens the extent to which the court mirrors the nation’s rich diversity.”
Something tells me the Sentinel selectively applies the word “diversity” though. President Bush could have nominated Judge Janice Rogers Brown — a black woman currently sitting on the second most powerful court in the nation — to the Supreme Court. But the Sentinel would have a problem with her — she is more conservative than Mr. Alito.
I guess she deserves an asterisk behind her name too.
President Bush nominated who he believed to be the best person for the job — someone with strong credentials, who could interpret the law and not legislate from the bench.
The Supreme Court is held in high esteem because most expect politics to be left outside on the courthouse steps with the protesters. Unfortunately, the Sentinel doesn’t seem to get this point.
We select our elected representatives — not our judicial nominees — based on the issues they support. On the contrary, Supreme Court nominees are selected for their legal minds. For an editorial board to suggest that a justice represent the interests of a certain ideological or racial group while serving on our nation’s highest court is beyond absurdity.
The Sentinel may have remembered the Democratic Party talking points when crafting their editorial. But they seemingly forgot that it is not Judge Alito’s nomination that will — in the words of the Sentinel — “divide America rather than unite it,” but rather it’s the paper’s remarks that are more likely to breed such a result.
Darryn Beckstrom (beckstrom@badgerherald.com) is a doctoral student in the department of political science and a second—year MPA candidate in the La Follette School of Public Affairs.
Anonymous (November 8, 2005 @ 6:18am):
OK.
Remember this column the next time a Republican says that when Democrats oppose a judicial candidate because of the debate over _Roe_, they are demonstrating "anti-Catholic" bias (ignoring the other four Catholics on the bench, I suppose), or when we recall that the refusal to let Estrada on the DC Court was seen as the result of "anti-Hispanic" bias.
Playing the race card (or religious card, or whatver) is no less disgusting when Republicans do it. Both parties have soiled themselves in the evolution of our confirmation hearings.
I should note that the vast majority of "the Left" is opposed to Thomas not because he is black, or "not a real black", but because his judicial theories, if actually implemented, would invalidate most of post-New Deal politics.
Anonymous (November 8, 2005 @ 8:03am):
"Given the board's position on Justice Thomas, it seems that Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and Alan Keyes -- among other intelligent conservative blacks -- deserve asterisks behind their names as well."
Insofar as their views tend to conflict with the best interests of the vast majority of African Americans, yes, they do. But for the record, Colin Powell disapproves of your dirty, immoral, illegal war in Iraq.
Michael Malcolm (November 8, 2005 @ 8:29am):
Condoleeza Rice's approval rating among black Americans is 2 percent; much lower than Bush's. You go figure it out. As usual, your editorial is a childish straw man argument, but the MJS' comments aren't as outrageous as you make them seem. See below for an outstanding and well-reasoned column on the subject (in contrast to yours) by African American columnist Eugene Robinson:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401370.html
Anonymous (November 8, 2005 @ 8:43am):
I wouldn't hit the JS so hard, Darryn. After all, the editorial in question was written by the editorial board. The news department has been very GOP-friendly for years - witness their endless "voter fraud" coverage, treating Scott Walker with kid gloves, and relegating news about Iraq to page A18. Not to mention that there is no such paper as the Milwaukee Sentinel anymore, and hasn't been for years.
Anonymous (November 8, 2005 @ 8:51am):
>When should identity politics -- which have the objective of advancing the interests of particular groups in society -- play a role in the Supreme Court nomination process?
>The answer should be a resounding "never."
First of all, this is not what identity politics means. It has an actual definition, which clearly you do not care to understand. "Politics," not "identity politics," has "the objective of advancing the interests of particular groups in society." As a political science student, you might want to remember that one. "Who gets what, when, and how" - ring a bell?
But let's take your position at face value. The objective of advancing the interests of particular groups in society should "never" play a role in the Supreme Court nomination process. That is, of course, why Harriet Miers currently sits on the Supreme Court. Oh, wait. She doesn't, because she was hounded out by the right wing of the Republican Party (which is, by the way, "a particular group in society").
>Given the board's position on Justice Thomas, it seems that Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and Alan Keyes -- among other intelligent conservative blacks -- deserve asterisks behind their names as well.
You did not just put Alan Keyes in that list. My god, Condolleezza Rice and Colin Powell would probably vomit right now if they saw that. Alan Keyes attacked his last (black) opponent, Senator Barack Obama, by saying he held the "slaveowner's position" on abortion. Oh, those wacky liberals!
>The Left's negative attitudes towards conservative blacks only fuel the racial tensions present in society.
This comes after you spend several paragraphs going off on some morning radio talk show host. This is what you often do. Find some random person or group on "the left" and make the leap that they represent "The Left." Again, not only patently ridiculous, but logically unsound. What do they teach over there in the political science department? Maybe someone should write a column about, say, Fred Phelps (http://www.godhatesfags.com/). He votes Republican, so therefore he represents what Republicans think!
>President Bush nominated who he believed to be the best person for the job -- someone with strong credentials, who could interpret the law and not legislate from the bench.
Indeed he did. Samuel Alito was the best person for the job - well, second best, after Harriet Miers, of course. What was it he said, again? Oh, yes: "I picked the best person I could find." And that's why she sits on the bench today. Arrgh! I keep getting that wrong. That's why she was pilloried by the social conservatives and forced to withdraw. Because Republicans don't play politics with judicial nominations.
Oh, also, "not legislate from the bench." Hmm. Who is it that has cast the most votes to overturn acts of Congress (thus almost literally legislating from the bench)? The liberals?? Oh, no, wait. Clarence Thomas. Then Kennedy, Scalia, Rehnquist, and O'Connor. Then the liberals. So, the exact opposite of what you said.
>We select our elected representatives -- not our judicial nominees -- based on the issues they support. On the contrary, Supreme Court nominees are selected for their legal minds.
This really is why I love Tuesdays. You know at some point the Beckstrom column is going to turn into a laugh riot. Harriet Miers truly did have a first-rate legal mind, didn't she? ("You and Laura are the greatest!" You're so "cool," "Texas is blessed!" And my personal fave, "You are the best Governor ever deserving of great respect!") Indeed, her penetrating insight into constitutional law boggles the mind.
The fact that you completely ignore the Miers nomination puts your whole column to the lie, Darryn. You have to get beyond reciting the Republican talking points like an Ann Coulter pull-string doll and actually think about what you are saying. The very first sentence of your column is just obviously disingenuous - the evidence from the Miers/Alito nomination(s) makes it abundantly clear that the very people you so transparently defend do the exact thing you attempt to rail against.
Anonymous (November 8, 2005 @ 9:32am):
There are a LOT of people with below average intelligence (By some accounts half of all the people in the USA are below average!!).
Shouldn't the below average people be represented? Definitely someone with no law school, probably no college, maybe not even a HS graduate should be picked instead of these pointy headed intellectuals that keep getting selected!
Anonymous (November 8, 2005 @ 10:35am):
"The Supreme Court is held in high esteem because most expect politics to be left outside on the courthouse steps with the protesters." Is that really true? When President Bush assured the right that Harriet Miers was a born-again Christian, was it because Jesus was a strict constructionist or because it meant that she would bring their political beliefs into the Supreme Court chambers? We can argue about whether or not the Supreme Court can or should be apolitical, but let's not for a moment pretend that it's worse for a newspaper to play the identity-politics game than the President who nominates the justices.
"For an editorial board to suggest that a justice represent the interests of a certain ideological or racial group while serving on our nation's highest court is beyond absurdity." Again, are Christians not an ideological group? Why does the President get a free pass while the Journal-Sentinel merits the attention of your entire piece. Who cares what the Journal-Sentinel thinks? I disagree with them, but, unlike the president, they have no political power. If you really cared about identity politics in the Supreme Court and not just bashing liberals, you would acknowledge that both sides play politics with the court and that asking for an African American justice who represents mainstream blacks is far less bad than promising a Christian nominee.
Ken (November 8, 2005 @ 2:05pm):
Comment?
Why bother, day's over before it's posted.
Anonymous (November 8, 2005 @ 3:06pm):
They're just still angry that John Kerry wasn't elected, because he would have been the "second black President."
Anonymous (November 8, 2005 @ 3:38pm):
Don't all politics have the objective of advancing the interests of particular groups in society? What a terribly inane statement to lead off an editorial. For a long time I assumed you were an undergrad, sophmore, maybe junior. I just noticed you are in grad school. Sad statement about the University.
Anonymous (November 8, 2005 @ 6:00pm):
"Shouldn't the below average people be represented?"
So what are you saying? Are you seriously nominating Darryn for the Supreme Court?
