|
The Principle of the ThingBy Rick Horowitz principle:
a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption; a rule
or code of conduct... When they say it's not about the money? It's about the money. You already figured that out for yourself -- good for you! Here's another one: When they say it's about the principle? It's not about the principle. It's almost never about the principle. Not that there's anything wrong with principle -- in principle. In practice? Well, that's a horse of a different color. Or should I say an elephant? A donkey? Welcome to the Wonderful World of Judicial Warfare. But first, a little quiz: How often do you see a politician stand up for a "principle" that -- what a coincidence! -- doesn't also just happen to be to that politician's own advantage? Tactical advantage, electoral advantage, something. The answer is -- but you already figured this one out, too: hardly ever. It's simply amazing, isn't it, how frequently "principle" lines up with self-interest? You'd assume -- just luck of the draw -- that every now and again Principle A would be applied to Situation B even if it was likely to lead to Result Uh-Oh. You'd assume it -- but you'll never go broke betting the other way. ("How about the Terri Schiavo case?" you wonder. "Haven't the Republicans have taken a beating for jumping into the middle of that one on the "principle" of "valuing every human life"?" You betcha. Nobody's saying a politician, or even a whole political party, can't miscalculate which position is most advantageous -- but Republican strategists certainly thought it was a winner when they made their move. Or maybe all they cared about was keeping their activist base stirred up, which they certainly did, in which case it was still a winner.) "A fair up-or-down vote." That's the principle at stake in the latest fight over the president's judicial nominations -- or so certain people on one side of the Senate chamber keep saying. It's "a 214-year-old principle," they insist: "The president deserves a fair up-or-down vote on his judicial nominees." As principles go, it's a goodie. Who could be against a "fair" vote? (Who could be against a "fair" anything?) And when the pollsters ask the question that way, it racks up terrific numbers -- which is why the Republicans keep trying to say it that way. But great poll numbers aren't the only good thing about this particular principle. It's not even the best thing about this particular principle. You want to know the best thing about this particular principle? It's not worn out from overuse. Not at all. In fact, this wonderful principle -- this "comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption" -- was kept pretty much under lock and key for years! Those would be Clinton years, when the idea -- the principle -- that a president deserves to have his judicial nominees voted up or down by the Senate somehow didn't apply. Dozens of Clinton judicial nominees were left dangling without their up-or-down Senate votes; they never made it out of Republican-controlled committee rooms. Some were never even given the courtesy of a hearing. Their nominations were buried alive. Imagine that. The Democrats, cranky and ill-mannered as always, keep pointing this out to their friends across the aisle. And have the Republicans fessed up to their double standard, conceded their sudden, recent embrace of a "principle" they once treated with such scorn? (For that matter, have the Democrats explained their new appreciation for the virtues of the filibuster?) Bite your tongue. We're talking about Washington. The Republicans simply regrouped and rephrased. Now it's "the 214-year-old principle that every judicial nominee with majority support deserves an up-or-down vote." Raising the interesting question of exactly how you know whether or not a nominee has "majority support" unless you have a vote. Well... So will they fess up now? Dream on. If they have to, Bill Frist and his GOPals are perfectly capable of coming up with yet another revision -- how about "the 214-year-old principle that every judicial nominee of a president whose middle initial is 'W' deserves an up-or-down vote." The truth is, politicians do stand for principle. The principle is: "Whatever it takes." Posted 5/21/05. Keep
ahead of it -- click to "Rick's"!
|
  |
Rick Horowitz
