Ah, how I miss the more logical writings of past conservative editorialists. George occasionally nails one but too often I see him miss the mark because of his bent towards a sorta royal effete snobbism.
That article brings up some valid points, digests them, and spins them out to fit his fears, which has foundations quite unlike those that the country stands on.
Some point-by-point responses:
"The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 47
For starters, George began with that excellent point but failed to establish that this has occurred. Then:
>>Al Gore's assault on the rule of law, crowned with success by Florida's lawless Supreme Court, has now become a crisis of the American regime.<<
Al Gore has hired lawyers trained in the law to explore before a sitting court whether the law has room for broader interpretations that would permit a recount that will establish who won. Sure, his motivation is to seek a win, but such win, if available, depends on:
-- the definition of what is a legal vote;
-- the setting of a deadline of a final date such legal votes can be counted.
While many can agree or disagree on the interpretations of those specifics, using lawyers and courts to establish them can hardly be construed as an "assault on the rule of law". And calling the Florida court "lawless" when they, in fact, used an Illinois precedent to indicate that a broader interpretation has merit, seems to be unwarranted.
I think "a crisis of the American regime" is shrill, as well. A portion of the American system of government is being tested before lawful judicial bodies. A crisis only arises if the outcome causes damage to the system, a point open to conjecture at this early stage.
Additionally, as the next few paragraphs define it, much rests on the courts choice to define "the will of the people".... and this, too, demonstrates where reasonable and learned people might disagree. Rather than debating this point, let's consider the rest of his article.
>>In Federalist 81 Alexander Hamilton said the "supposed" danger of judicial "encroachments on the legislative authority" is a "phantom." In Federalist 78 he pronounced the judicial branch the "least dangerous" because it neither wields "the sword" nor controls "the purse," and hence "can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."
No, a lawless court, using the force of its willfulness to impose its judgment, also depends on the deference of both political branches. Will Florida's legislature defer to the Supreme Court's usurpation of legislative powers in the service of Gore's attempted usurpation of the presidency?<<
This really is a misuse of Hamilton. He said the court depends on "the aid of the executive arm" and Will says it depends on "the deference of both political branches." I say, in either case, I've seen nothing to conclude that either the executive or legislative has aided or deferred to the court decision as yet.
So Madison's "same hands" concern has not yet come to pass.
>>By legislating--by airily rewriting Florida's election law and applying it retroactively to this election--the court has thrown down a gauntlet to the state's legislature. Responding in the climate of cynicism and trickery Gore has created, legislators could decide that deference now would betoken decadence; they could exercise their legal right to select Florida's presidential electors.<<
The point of Will's argument comes clear in this. Not only has he asserted that Gore and the Florida court are wrong, but all subsequent events..... the actions of the Florida legislature and possibly the US Supreme Court, which have not happened yet, mind you.... are also going to be all Gore's fault. In other words, the whole group of adults are now completely free of blame for any error that they might make; it's all Al's fault.
To which I'd ask first: what if they all get it right? Is that Al's fault too? Can a just outcome, if we get one, be credited to Gore? As Will has defined it one way, it leads to this illogical conclusion.
I think he's wrong. If the election of George Bush occurs, which I've anticipated since one day post-election, that's not Gore's responsibility. If a legal recount occurs, is certified and stands up to every lawful test, and Gore is declared the winner, the credit is to our system of laws and those who created and utilized that system properly.
There are several solid conservative editorialists of the day who get it right a high percentage of the time, like Safire. An old favorite of mine, James Kilpatrick, would likely be a refreshing voice of reason midst the lightweight editorialists like Will, who apply the same unsupportable spin as all the political front men of both political parties.
No matter what the outcome is, there will always be disagreement about whether Gore was 'right' or 'wrong' to pursue the matter.... and I would remind all that the initial recount was a mandate of existing state law.
In my mind, this nation has been strong enough to withstand the impact of past questionable presidential outcomes and will do so again. The over-riding concern I have, after reviewing how many invalid ballots occurred, is the legitimacy of numerous smaller elections, where a few dozen or a few hundred votes decide those races.
I think, in Florida and in many states, there ought to be a hue and cry for a review of existing balloting systems with appropriate upgrades to systems that grant us the most accurate tabulations available. To do less diminishes the strength of and the point of voting altogether.
And a further point that falls outside my response to Will: rightly or wrongly, the Florida court decision (and the Secretart of State's) will be attributed to partisanship, just as some will direct the same charge toward the Florida legislature, if it interjects to cause a different outcome.
But I've worked as a pollworker before, midst Republicans and Democrats both. I can't recall seeing or hearing of a single pollworker who let their partisanship interfere with their capacity to maintain objectivity and impartiality during the voting and counting processes.
The legitimacy of and strength of our nation rests less on Madison, Hamilton, Will or any members of our tricameral government than it does on the efforts of the common citizenry to be right and just in all but the rarest of instances.... and that can't be better exemplified than in the longstanding credibility of our pollworkers, who come from both parties and others.
Will concludes that >>We are a sadder but wiser nation now.<<
I see a fair amount of anger and partisanship but little sadness. I leave it to future historians whether greater wisdom has been or will be demonstrable in coming days.
Admittedly, I have a bias against Will, because I often find his arguments lacking and they neither meet the definition of strict constructionist thinking nor pure conservative thinking. Sucking up to one side or the other is merely the work of a sycophant and were he alive at the outset of our country, Will woul fit the mold of a Tory... conservative only because he is not comfortable with change, not because of the merits that conservativist theory upholds.
I am not thrilled with the visions and ideals either major party candidate holds; McCain would have been preferable to both. But he got ousted by party loyalists bent on the coronation of the prince, and not by popular will.
I suspect the future holds some unpleasant surprises for both parties if they continue to let party games prevail over the popular will.
I truly wish more media pundits would examine matters like these, rather than enmeshing themselves in the spin games of party hacks. Will's error is that he mistakes intellectual source research (a form of name-dropping) for constructive, supportable argument.
And that's the only sad thing I see. |
