Let’s look at the use of the labels "conservative" and "liberal" in today's New York Times online story of the Alito confirmation vote.
Reporter David Stout begins:
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., who has been widely praised for his intellect and integrity but both admired and assailed for his conservative judicial philosophy, was confirmed today as the 110th justice in the history of the Supreme Court.A few paragraphs down we read:
The vote is also a triumph for the conservative movement, whose adherents have longed to tilt the balance of the court to the right.The Times continues to use the “conservative” label throughout the story. Examples:
Legal scholars have described (Alito’s) jurisprudence as … solidly conservative. …While generous with the “conservative” label, The Times doesn’t apply the “liberal” label to any current political figure. Instead we get this:
He’s the second relatively young conservative to ascend to the court in recent months. …
As an undergraduate at Princeton and a student at Yale Law School, he garnered … notice for his conservative views. …
His involvement with a conservative Princeton alumni group became something of an issue. ….
Among two Republican supporters of abortion rights, Senators Olympia J. Snowe of Maine voted for Judge Alito, while Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted no, the only Republican to do so.Snowe and Chafee are staunch Senate liberals.
Why doesn't The Times call them that? And why doesn't The Times describe Alito's confirmation as a defeat suffered by the liberal movement, whose adherents have longed to keep the court tilted to the left?
We know why: The Times wants to convince people that conservatives have an agenda while the liberals who follow its editorial line don't.
And speaking of that, are you finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between Times' news reporting and its editorials?
If you want to check The Times' story one more time, it's here.
4 comments:
Alito is obviously conservative. His record on the bench bears that out. There can be no mistake about it. He is conservative, in the political sense. I submit that nobody knows what he is in the societal sense, because he doesn't say. He hasn't said, nor, I expect, will he.
The problem with the labels liberal and conservative is that the can be applied politically and socially and the meaning does not necessarily remain the same through the transition from one milieu to the other.
Political conservative in our nation merely means that the wearer of that appellation believes the constitution means what it says and that a political conservative is beholden to adhere to the original meaning. While it is not mandatory that a political conservative be a social liberal, it is most often the case. A political conservative if he lives by the tenets of the constitution is busy enough minding his own business, that minding yours is anathema to him. He truly believes that is as it should be. Nowhere in the constitution are groups favored. Our entire constitution is about the rights of the individual and/or the power he allows the state.
On the other hand a social conservative is often a political liberal. A political liberal believes that the constitution may be interpreted to mean anything that expedites what he considers the overriding issue of the day. Hence it has meaning only in that it serves his temporal concerns. These people are most easily identified by their superior attitudes about knowing what is best for everybody and insisting that they be given the power to enforce their vision.
They often call the constitution a "living document". They are correct, but for all the wrong reasons. They believe it to be a bonsai tree to be perverted and shaped and formed to their whim and sense of aesthetics by twisting interpretations from it that do not exist.
Political conservatives on the other hand believe it to be a "living document" because it has potential for amendment and growth if certain conditions are met. But only then, and under very stringent protocols that assure the validity of that growth.
(An aside, strictly my opinion, is that when you hear someone advocate a position as the "for greater good for the greater number" you are in the presence of a would be tyrant. The document is about INDIVIDUAL rights, when that is sacrificed, the rights of the greater number are not far behind.)
So, I submit that Alito is a conservative. He believes the constitution means what it says, not what one would like it to say. He further believes that to change the meaning of what it says is provided for by amendment, not creative judicial interpretation. The record he has amassed shows his fealty to the constitution, whatever his personal preferences.
That the MSM would use conservative in this context as a perjorative is reprehensible in that they are relying on the ignorance of the reader to further their agenda,rather than doing their job of informing the reader.
Straigt A,
Re: "That the MSM would use conservative in this context as a perjorative is reprehensible in that they are relying on the ignorance of the reader to further their agenda,rather than doing their job of informing the reader."
IMHO you nailed it.
Ever think of being a blogger?
I'd link.
John
Yes, John, I have. However, I haven't a clue how to go about it.
I don't find myself all that interesting and I fear others would not either.
I am a virtual moron. I can type, but that is about the extent of my computer ability. It seems like just days ago that I was communicating with smoke signals, hand signs, and pony express. Ok, that was hyperbole,but not much.
I am afraid I am an analog guy in a digital world. I am smart enough (no false modesty here), but I have been hopelessly outrun by technology. Just as I am slowing down, the world is going into hyperdrive.
Also, I must husband my resources as I am terminally ill. It hasn't been a great hardship for me, but I still have people counting on me and I am loath to commit resources that they may need when I am gone. Please do not take the preceding as a sympathy ploy. I am just about the luckiest sonofabitch the world has ever seen. I have been truly blessed, in every way imaginable (except financially, and not terrible there). I intend to live a lot longer than predicted. And.....and ......and...wait for it............I have a pretty good record of beating bad odds. Told you I was lucky.
Come to think of it, I have been vehemently cursed also, however I do not share their opinion of me. They just don't understand how wonderful I think I am. (that's a joke, son, a joke, I say) Loses something when you can't do the Foghorn Leghorn voice, doesn't it?
If I thought I could afford to do it and I thought I might have something of interest to say on a regular basis, I would try it. However, I can't imagine I have the talent to keep people interested daily.
BTW, I love your Churchill series. I am something of a history buff myself.
I would have preferred to send this privately but couldn't find a way to email you. Since you have paid me such a nice compliment,though, I didn't feel I could fail to respond. If I have told more than anyone wanted to know, I offer apology.
Dear Straight A,
Thanks for your most recent comment.
Your mentioning your terminal illness didn't seem at all like a play for sympathy.
It was dignified and well-stated. In similar circumstances, I hope I could do as well.
When I read your comment, I had the same reaction I had when I read President Reagan's letter disclosing he had Alzheimer's: That man is honest and caring.
Please keep me posted on your health. I pray you'll be commenting here for a long time.
About your need to save energy, I respect whatever you do.
You surely know your thoughts are valued here. You've added a lot to this blog.
Many thanks for your nice comment on the Churchill Series.
John
Post a Comment