The Plaid Adder's CRITIQUE OF THE WEEK

This Week's Target: The Supreme Court.

There's just so much about this presidential fiasco that one could critique, it's hard to know where to start. Tempting as it is to blame Florida, the reality is that this process has revealed serious and frightening problems infecting just about every political institution we currently possess. A smattering:

The actual machinery of democracy. Suddenly we are discovering that in fact, every vote does not count--and not just in Florida. To put all this in perspective, in Cook County, Illinois--the county which includes Chicago-- 120,000 ballots were discarded as unreadable this election cycle, and this is not at all unusual. If we can blow millions of taxpayer dollars on the Osprey aircraft, why can't we spend some dough designing readable ballots and more reliable machines? Or at least address the fact that the older and more fickle machines tend to be found in poorer counties, which once again helps our country disenfranchise the poor (and, as a consequence, ethnic minorities)?

The primary system. To me, it was clear the day after the election that what the people said, when they spoke, was "we don't want either of these bozos." One reason Americans have been so tolerant of this prolonged state of epistemological uncertainty, I think, is that it postponed a result that nobody would really be happy with. As Liza said, "We don't want either Bush or Gore to be president--and right now, neither one is!" So how do we get to a point where the two major parties are offering us two total dipshits? Well, one must go back to the primary season, when both Bill Bradley and John McCain were pushed out after Super Tuesday. While we spend the next four years reviling Dubya, let's also go back and figure out how it was that the Democratic party ended up fielding a candidate who could not defeat a ham sandwich--and how it was that the Republican party ended up fielding a candidate who--intellecutally and ethically speaking--is a ham sandwich.

The debates. Basically all three debates consisted of the candidates standing up there and delivering canned 2-minute summaries of whatever policies they felt would get them elected. Oh, sure, there was the excitement of wondering what colossal blunders Dubya would commit, or how often Al would say the word "lockbox," but basically the whole thing was an embarrassing and infuriating sham. If I were running the debates, I would fit the candidates with electrodes and administer a mild shock whenever a candidate refused to answer the question that had actually been asked. That's the only way to make the debates into what they're supposed to be--a chance for us to find out which of these guys can actually think, reason, develop an argument, and defend it. All of these qualities are actually useful in a political leader. The ability to string together catchphrases and smirk winningly into the camera is not.

The media. Is it me? Am I the only person who gets tired of having the presidential campaign covered as if it's a horse race? The only thing most mainstream journalists seem to care about is who's winning and how--there is almost no attention paid to the actual policies they advocate and whether any of them might be likely to work. Would it be too much to ask for them to do a little digging--into something other than the candidate's personal life?

The voters. The fact that half the people in this country think that Dubya is competent to run the free world makes one weep for humanity. But I will move on, lest I become apoplectic.

The courts.

And now we get to it. The Supreme Court has finally ruled, and the main substance of the majority opinion is, "We can't recount those Florida ballots because that would violate the equal protection clause."

Let me explain why this exacerbates my hypertension.

All along, the most disturbing thing to me about this post-election battle was the utter hypocrisy manifested by both sides. It was crystal clear from the beginning that neither side is interested in finding out what actually happened. Both campaigns have been animated solely and transparently by a desire to win, and have clearly decided to suppress, by any means necessary, any evidence that might damage their chances. This is evident, for instance, in the fact that the Gore campaign only requested hand recounts in districts that they thought were Democratic strongholds, and in the fact that the Bush campaign has strenously fought any effort to change results that were already in their favor. But what bothers me even more than, say, the fact that Dubya has been unabashedly manipulating his connections in Florida--after all, what else can you expect from Republicans, or indeed the Bush family--is the fact that both parties have completely cut themselves loose from their traditional ideological moorings, and are now adopting whatever political position will get them the desired result.

The most obvious example of this is the states' rights issue. We all know that Republicans dislike and distrust the federal government, and are very excited about making sure individual states have as much autonomy as possible, while the Democratic party is more interested in helping a strong federal government enforce its will on the country as a whole. Now, suddenly, we have the Republican party arguing that Florida's own election boards and even its own Supreme Court--or for that matter, its own voters--do not have the right to sort out their own presidential election. Similarly, we have the Democrats suddenly discovering a newfound zeal for states' rights, and defending Florida's right to conduct its own business unmolested by the federal government or constitutional deadlines.

When you consider that ever since the days of the Civil War--or really, ever since the establishment of the Constitution-- "states' rights" has been mainly used to justify the perpetuation of slavery and related forms of oppression, it strikes me as a little unfortunate that the Democrats are willing to embrace this principle to their bosoms simply because at this moment it has become politically expedient. But this piece of hypocrisy pales in comparison to what the conservative majority on the Supreme Court has just done with the principle of equal protection.

The Supreme Court's decision, which is the final nail in the Gore campaign's coffin, was based on their acceptance of the argument made by the Bush campaign that the recount ordered by the Florida supreme court was a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of fundamental rights. The argument was that because each county had a different standard for determining which ballots to count, or what the intent of the voter was, the right to vote was being unequally protected, and that therefore the Florida supreme court's ruling was unconstitutional.

Suddenly the Republicans are very concerned about equal protection. Suddenly the conservative majority on the Supreme Court agrees. They can all BITE ME.

Where was this tender concern for equal protection when the reports emerged about voter intimidation in minority districts in Florida? For that matter, where has it been for the past 30 years while the Republicans have fought not only any kind of civil rights legislation designed to secure equal protection for ethnic minorities or women, but any attempt to secure equal protection for gays and lesbians? Oh, that's right--when we want legislation that would protect us from discrimination and violence, we're asking for "special rights." When Dubya wants to preserve his 150-vote lead, it's "equal protection."

This is even worse than the stay that was granted before the decision, in which the court found that Dubya would probably sustain "irreparable harm" if the count went ahead. Think about this for a minute. By making that finding, the court was basically admitting that if the count went ahead, there was a good chance Dubya would lose his lead. So in essence, the court stopped the recount because they thought that it might take the presidency away from the guy who had probably lost the election. If someone steals your car, and you take it back from them, does that also count as "irreparable harm"?

The kind of behavior we've seen from the Bush and Gore campaigns so far is, while deeply depressing, to be expected. If either of these guys had a shred of personal integrity or a sincere commitment to the country's welfare, we wouldn't be in this position. But to see it on the Supreme Court is worse. The structure of our government as set forth in the constitution presumes a judiciary branch that can in some measure detach itself from the political concerns that will necessarily infest the legislative and executive branches. It's one of the first things we learn about in American history--the principle of checks and balances. And what can we say, looking at this decision, but "Check my ass! Balance your mother!" It's clear now that our Supreme Court judges are unable to consider the issues before them independent of their own partisan concerns, and that their interpretation of law is as tendentious, biased, and self-serving as the arguments made by Bush and Gore's lawyers.

The rot has now spread through the entire system. Either the revolution comes, or we're pretty much screwn. At least for the next four years--and, depending on who dies or retires during Dubya's now inevitable presidency, perhaps for much longer.

The Plaid Adder

Wanna see last week's critique? Go here.

Back to the Adder's Lair