Parallel lost (Signifying Nothing: how does saying nothing at all become so loud?)

Monday, 11 October 2004

Parallel lost

Apparently I’m the only smart person who was completely lost when George W. Bush started talking about Dred Scott v. Sanford during Friday night’s debate. The Baseball Crank writes:

[A]nyone who pays attention to constitutional law debates understood the parallel Bush was trying to draw, however inartfully.

My constitutional law class discussed Dred Scott on Wednesday, and I’d be surprised if any of them had figured out any meaningful parallel to Roe; I certainly hadn’t, in part because Bush’s discussion of the case butchered the basis of the key holding beyond recognition, and in part because Dred Scott was essentially a textualist decision (albeit an “activist” one that struck down a federal law for only the second time in American history).

Meanwhile, Eric Muller elaborates on the “it’s all code” theory, in the process demonstrating Lawrence’s Cardinal Rule:

Surely Karl Rove had scripted some sort of moderately articulate point about the perils of judicial activism on hotly contested matters of personal freedom—something comprehensible and calculated to win over a few voters on the fence—that Bush just totally mangled.

My gut feeling is that—if this was a coded message—anyone who could have figured out the coded message already knew that Bush was committed to appointing justices who believe Roe was wrongly decided on the merits; the “code” theory assumes a remarkable level of political knowledge by the average pro-life voter to be effective, which flies in the face of everything we know about voters in general and (in particular) what Democrats think the general level of intelligence is of pro-lifers.

5 comments:

Any views expressed in these comments are solely those of their authors; they do not reflect the views of the authors of Signifying Nothing, unless attributed to one of us.

1. Brock Sides wrote @ Mon, 11 Oct 2004, 8:46 am CDT:

I think you underestimate, as does Muller, the suspicion in the single-issue anti-abortion crowd that Bush will betray them when it comes time to appoint the next Supreme Court justice.

the “code” theory assumes a remarkable level of political knowledge by the average pro-life voter to be effective, which flies in the face of everything we know about voters in general

The message doesn’t have to reach the average anti-abotion voter. It just has to reach the leaders, who will then (or so Rove hopes) work hard to get out the vote.

and (in particular) what Democrats think the general level of intelligence is of pro-lifers.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with what Democrats think of the anti-abortion voters, and everything to do with what the Bush campaign thinks of them.

2. Chris Lawrence wrote @ Mon, 11 Oct 2004, 9:05 am CDT:

It just has to reach the leaders, who will then (or so Rove hopes) work hard to get out the vote.

Why not just call the leaders on the phone, rather than making incomprehensible statements in a political debate?

In any event, if the pro-lifers actually think Bush is going to betray them when it comes to a Supreme Court pick, no bizarre coded message is going to be useful for holding him accountable on that point; the only thing that will placate them is an actual appointment who doesn’t turn out to be a Souter (whose lack of allegiance to the “anti-abortion” party line I generally consider to have been anticipated and expected by Bush I).

3. Brock Sides wrote @ Mon, 11 Oct 2004, 9:24 am CDT:

Why not just call the leaders on the phone, rather than making incomprehensible statements in a political debate?

By “leaders,” I don’t mean specific people, such as Randall Terry, known to the Bush campaign. (Though I’m sure they’ve been called on the phone as well.) I mean that single-digit percentage of any constituency that (a) follows things like the debates closely, and (b) is highly influential with the rest of the constituency: who they vote for, and in this case, whether they vote.

4. Chris Lawrence wrote @ Mon, 11 Oct 2004, 9:31 am CDT:

Ah, ok, that makes more sense—opinion leaders and the like. Gotcha.

Apparently this Dred Scott analogy to Roe is some longstanding thing; how I remained blissfully unaware of it is beyond me. Must be that liberal education I got… more here for those interested.

5. BTD Greg wrote @ Mon, 11 Oct 2004, 8:46 pm CDT:

I agree, I suppose, with Brock’s theory that it’s most important to reach the anti-abortion leaders. It’s also important for Bush to make public statements that appear to verify whatever statements he may have made in private.

Comments are now closed on this post.