Reflections on Justice Sunday II
By Leon H Wolf Posted in Elections — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Well, I've completed my liveblogging of the Justice Sunday II event, driven home, and had a little time to reflect on the event. Let me say first of all that the event was a great opportunity to meet several other great bloggers who covered the event, and I'd encourage you to check out their sites for further coverage. Present at the event were: Captain Ed Morrisey, Lance from Red State Rant, Joe from Evangelical Outpost, Jackson Miller (the lone lefty in attendance, despite the fact that others were invited), Bill Hobbs, Beth Woodfin, Trey Jackson, RedState contributor and AlarmingNews blogger Karol Sheinin, and Charmaine Yoest, who in addition to being a great blogger and FRC powerhouse, also lent me her laptop so that I could liveblog.
WIthout further adieu, the good, the bad, and the point of this event.
First, the good. The event was really well organized, given the amount of people involved in making it happen. Everything went smoothly and roughly according to schedule. Further, the folks at the FRC really bent over backwards to make sure that the bloggers, in particular, were well-accomodated. Afterwards, many of the folks who were featured speakers were made available indefinitely for one-on-one interviews. I personally got to interview Phyllis Schlafly and Charmaine Yoest, and I'll transcribe those interviews in another post.
Second, the event relentlessly pounded home two necessary messages that have appeal to folks in the center: that the fight over the judiciary is not about imposing a set of religious values on everyone - it is about the right to be involved in the political process. This is a message that can appeal to folks who are ambivalent about one message or another that might have been mentioned tonight (abortion, gay marriage, etc.). While folks in the center may not have strong feelings one way or another, they can certainly relate to a message that calls for those issues to be resolved democratically, and not by the courts. This point was pounded home eloquently in numerous ways by numerous speakers.
Cathy Cleaver Ruse, one of the speakers of the event, had the most powerful line of the night in the presser, when she said, "This is a fight for the right to govern ourselves on the issues we hold most dear." That is the message that will hopefully go forth from this event.
The second point that was pounded home over and over again is that people of faith are free to allow their Christian worldview to inform their political view as well. I more or less took that away as the second major message of the night.
Now, for the bad. While the message of democracy through legislation is one that appeals to the center, it was presented in a format that almost certainly missed the center entirely. The program was kicked off by a Baptist Pastor, closed by the same Baptist Pastor, followed by a prayer and a performance by Christian singer Rebecca St. James. The featured lineup of guests reads like a who's who of liberal boogeypersons: Dr. James Dobson, Phyllis Schlafly, Tom DeLay, Chuck Colson, etc. Frankly, the only people who are going to actively tune in to that lineup are people like, well, me. And I don't need convincing. Surprisingly, the two best speakers of the night were folks I'd never heard of before tonight (Cathy Cleaver Ruse and Bishop Harry Jackson). DeLay made some excellent points, but seemed poorly prepared to deliver his speech, constantly moving away from the podium, forgetting where he was and going back to consult his notes.
Second, I came away from this event puzzled a little by the point of it all. It certainly was a grand production, and the lineup of speakers was impressive from a social conservative standpoint, but they were all allotted about a measly four minutes (except for Dobson, who got eight despite not being there). That's just not really enough to get into a point of any substance. So, in consequence, it kind of ended up being a long series of soundbites that more or less sounded the same. The only real color of the night came from Bill Donohue, who was actually so colorful that I he would have caused anyone even moderately centrist to switch the channels about 45 seconds into his (admittedly hilarious) diatribe against everything even remotely liberal. Zell Miller had to follow him, and was by comparison tame, if you can believe it.
I guess if I had to pin down a point to this event, it would be motivation, rather than persuasion. And, I suppose there's a place for some good political theater to rouse up the grassroots and get them out there working the phones to harass their Congresspersons and President to do the right thing. What I don't know is how effective this kind of event will be at affecting long-term policy. I also don't know about the wisdom of tying our majority leaders in both chambers of Congress (Frist in JS1, DeLay in JS2) to folks that I generally agree with, politically. I'm happy that they are comfortable being on stage with these folks, ideologically speaking, but I'm frankly not sure that for coalition-building and election-winning purposes, this represents good strategy.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | The President's Weekly Radio Address (and the Dem response) — Comments (36) »
Reflections on Justice Sunday II 5 Comments (0 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The Constitution already grants the Congress the power to do whatever it wants to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Plus, it has the power to do as it pleases to the lower courts.
We don't need a Constitutional amendment to reform the Judiciary. We just need a Congress and a President with the will to do it.
the debate isn't so much-should there be an admendment, but should congress change how the appeallate courts work, and if so, in what way.
From someone who generally disagrees with the "Justice Sunday" crowd, I think your write-up and discussion of the event is excellent. As you suggest, several of the points made would appeal to people in the center ... but bookended as they were between the hostile rhetoric and over-the-top attacks, those ideas will get little coverage and even less credence.
On the second point to be taken away, that people of faith should allow their religion to influence their politics, that's a fair point. But I would have to say in response, the problem that many have with the "Justice Sunday" bunch is that they seem to want their religious worldview to influence everyone's politics. And that is what gives centrists and non-evangelicals - including me - serious pause.
The "fire up the base" motivation rationale for the event is clear ... this was in no way a "reach out" event, just an "our way or the highway" cheerleading session. So in that regard, in terms of building support for their position, I think the organizers probably didn't make any headway whatsoever.
More importantly, to your last point about having the GOP's leadership involved with events like this, I'm quite sure that when it comes to building (and holding) coalitions within and without the GOP, having our leadership up there doesn't help in the slightest, and hurts more than anything. Again, for firing up those who already agree, it's fine - but it just adds to the discontent of those who already feel unwelcome in a GOP overtaken by the harsh views expressed by these "Justice Sunday" speakers, and makes reachout to others all the more difficult.
"How is it that the government thinks we need a no smoking sign by gas pumps to remind us that danger, but not think we need a reminder of the danger of a sinful lifestyle."
So Zell Miller thinks that religious instruction is a proper role of government? Personally, I prefer my reminders of the dangers of sin to come from the pulpit and my friends.
I was appalled by Bill Donahue's call for a constitutional amendment to reduce the power of the Supreme Court. Don't mess with the constitution!
John Locke and Thomas Jefferson had a pragmatic and wisely cynical attitude about power and government. They understood that in the quest for power, clever people are always trying to use or subvert the system for self-serving reasons.
The Supreme Court is meant to be isolated. It is not a third house of congress. It is designed to check the power of the majority when the majority does something stupid.
They did this because pure democracy can go badly wrong sometimes, when it is swayed by demagogues like the ones who destroyed Athenian democracy centuries ago.
I'm reconsidering my stand on cloning Barry Goldwater. We have the technology.