SCOTUS: public sector unions on trial

The New Neo Posted on by

This had gone under my radar till now. But it could be a big, big case:

William Messenger of the National Right to Work Committee asked the Supreme Court today to hold that public employee unions are unconstitutional.

“This is””I’m just going to use the word here, it is a radical argument. It would radically restructure the way workplaces across this country are””are run,” Justice Elena Kagan said from the bench. Since 1948, she pointed out, states have had the power to enact “right-to-work” laws that limit union power. Was Messenger arguing that “a right-to-work law is constitutionally compelled?”

Messenger didn’t back off. “In the public sector, yes,” he replied.

The NRTWC wants the Court to rule that “permitting the unions to collect fees for representing non-members””the so-called ‘agency fee’””violates the First Amendment.” This would be a decision that went against the precedent of at least the last 35 years, and Justice Scalia (of all people) seems to be the swing vote.

My reading of this—for what it’s worth, which is not all that much, since I don’t exactly have my finger on the pulse of the Court—is that there is a great reluctance to take such a huge step to reverse precedent, and that it is unlikely to happen. SCOTUSBLOG, one of the better reporters on such things, doesn’t seem to considers it all that likely either, but still a distinct possibility, at least according to the justices’ demeanors:

…[T]he atmospherics of Tuesday’s argument suggested strongly that this case has very large potential. The mood of the Court’s more liberal members was one of obvious trepidation, and that of its more conservative members ”” except for Justice Scalia ”” was of apparent eagerness to reach anew the core constitutionality of compulsory union support among public workers.

Ann Althouse reminds us of the way public unions actually work—at least according to Scott Walker, who has had a fair amount of experience fighting them in Wisconsin:

…[George Will wrote that] public sector unions are nothing more than “government organized as a special interest to lobby itself to expand itself.”

Collective bargaining gives the union bosses the keys to the statehouse, city hall, and school. It allows them to effectively sit on both sides of the bargaining table when contracts are negotiated, while no one represents the interests of the taxpayers (whose money is at stake) or the children (whose education hangs in the balance). It is cronyism, plain and simple.

It’s always risky to predict what the Supreme Court will do. But if the current Court takes a step as big as limiting public union power in this way on a national level, I will be surprised—and pleased.

Home movie

The New Neo Posted on by

This speaks for itself, I think. Just a bunch of Marxists in Mexico:

Have you ever noticed how people in old home movies never know quite what to do with themselves?

[NOTE: I said it spoke for itself, but in case you don’t know the background, take a look.]

Wendy Davis: “empowerment” and the poor little woman; “struggle” and the man

The New Neo Posted on by

There’s a lot in the Wendy Davis story besides Davis and her constructed and false “narrative.” Here is one of Davis’ most recent official statements on the matter, a little masterpiece of accusing the accusers:

We’re not surprised by Greg Abbott’s [her Texas governorship opponent] campaign attacks on the personal story of my life as a single mother who worked hard to get ahead. But they won’t work, because my story is the story of millions of Texas women who know the strength it takes when you’re young, alone and a mother. I’ve always been open about my life not because my story is unique, but because it isn’t.

The truth is that at age 19, I was a teenage mother living alone with my daughter in a trailer and struggling to keep us afloat on my way to a divorce. And I knew then that I was going to have to work my way up and out of that life if I was going to give my daughter a better life and a better future and that’s what I’ve done. I am proud of where I came from and I am proud of what I’ve been able to achieve through hard work and perseverance. And I guarantee you that anyone who tries to say otherwise hasn’t walked a day in my shoes.”

Poor dear, being attacked by that big bad man who doesn’t understand the travails of single women everywhere! Like all Republicans.

That’s the ticket, as Annie’s List Executive Director Grace Garcia writes [Annie’s List is a group “dedicated to changing the face of power in Texas politics ”“ and thereby combating the assault on issues of most importance to women and their families ”“ by recruiting, training and supporting women candidates across the state”]:

We’re not surprised Republicans have attempted to undermine Wendy Davis’ campaign by calling her past into question ”“ we have seen similar attacks launched against women candidates before. The recent personal attacks on Wendy Davis and her family are blatant attempts to thwart her campaign and undermine her success…Greg Abbott is running scared and for good reason. Senator Davis’ personal story is a compelling narrative of perseverance and hard work that millions of Texans have responded to. It is appalling that Republicans would attack the details of that story rather than focus on the issues affecting Texas families.

Disputing the details of Wendy Davis’ life is especially offensive to the many Texas women who can relate to her story. In trying to tear down Senator Davis’ campaign and her personal story, Republicans are also tearing down all Texans who have overcome difficult circumstances. It’s clear Greg Abbott doesn’t understand Wendy Davis’ struggles and the struggles of millions of Texans, nor does he want to.

“Appalling” to question her story. She must not be questioned! To question her is to question the story of all downtrodden women. And Greg Abbott, Man (Republican Man, that is), does not understand or want to understand anything about the struggles of women. The irony that this is supposedly a feminist approach that will empower women only points out the blatant hypocrisy of Davis and her supporters, and way too much of feminism as well.

When I first wrote a draft of this post, the title was shorter, and it ended with the paragraph right above this. But before publishing, I decided to take a look at the history of Greg Abbott, about whom I knew practically nothing except that he was a man, a Republican, and white. I wondered whether there was any “narrative” of strife overcome that could be compared to Davis’s, of struggle against odds or difficulties, or if he’d had smooth sailing.

I didn’t expect to find much trouble in his background; perhaps a bit of financial difficulty while growing up, at the most. I was therefore surprised to discover the following:

Greg Abbott was elected attorney general in 2002. But his political trek began decades earlier – in agony.

At age 26, Abbott was partially paralyzed in a freak accident and bedridden for a month. His dream to practice law withered. But he tilled new ambitions, reading about politics during his recovery and internalizing a credo from his mother: Never say I can’t.

“That is one of the more guiding principals that got me through,” said Abbott, now 52. “Just because this happened doesn’t mean I can’t do whatever it is I wanted to do. It picked me up off of the hospital bed and got me going.”

The accident – an oak tree fell and struck his back as he jogged by – kept him hospitalized and in rehabilitation for more than three months. The recovery was often excruciating. He has used a wheelchair ever since.

It also hardened his resolve and propelled him on a path toward politics. He passed the bar exam a year after the accident, excelled as a Houston lawyer and eventually was elected a judge. Abbott, a Republican, has won two terms as attorney general and is running again against retired Houston lawyer Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Democrat.

He has used his tenure to combat child predators and human trafficking and to chime in on highly charged topics from climate change to health care.

Please read the whole thing.

This is the guy, remember, about whom Davis says:

I am proud of where I came from and I am proud of what I’ve been able to achieve through hard work and perseverance. And I guarantee you that anyone who tries to say otherwise hasn’t walked a day in my shoes.”

Since Abbott doesn’t walk at all, it’s a rather infelicitous figure of speech, don’t you think?

And then there’s Davis’s parrot Garcia, who writes:

In trying to tear down Senator Davis’ campaign and her personal story, Republicans are also tearing down all Texans who have overcome difficult circumstances. It’s clear Greg Abbott doesn’t understand Wendy Davis’ struggles and the struggles of millions of Texans, nor does he want to.

It turns out that “hypocrites” is way too mild a word to describe Davis and Garcia.

How many euphemisms can you think of for the word “lie”?

The New Neo Posted on by

However many you can think of, the MSM can probably think of more—if they’re talking about the lies of a Democrat.

When it first emerged that Obama’s “if you like your [fill in the blank] you can keep your [fill in the blank]” Obamacare promises were exactly that—boldfaced lies—it was almost amusing in a sick, bitter, tragic way to listen to the excuses made by not only Obama, his aides, and his supporters, but pundits of the liberal/left persuasion.

I really can’t remember them all, but they were exceptionally creative and varied. The first was that he didn’t really say that, he said something else. They had to revise that one fairly quickly, because they’d somehow forgotten the existence of videotape, which proved their revisionism was merely a new lie. Another was that he wasn’t lying because he didn’t know what the effects of his own policies would be. Or, he wasn’t lying because it really only hurt such a small percentage of people (which was itself a lie, because it’s not as though all the people it will ultimately hurt are yet known). He wasn’t lying because Obamacare has good intentions and the people with the canceled policies had “junk” policies anyway. He wasn’t lying because that was the only way he could get Obamacare passed.

Many of the excuses for Obama’s lies came more under the heading of rephrasing—or, as they say in the therapy biz, “reframing.” He wasn’t lying, he just wasn’t accurate enough or thorough enough. Or he “misspoke” (love that nearly-meaningless word, which is only really appropriate when someone has a slip of the tongue). The plans weren’t cancelled, they were “transitioned.” And on and on and on.

Now we have another case of a favored Democrat flat-out lying through her teeth, although she’s not running for national office. The culprit is Wendy Davis, the telegenic Texas state senator now running for Texas governor, who gained nationwide fame when she filibustered against a Texas abortion restriction. She has a compelling life story involving early marriage and single motherhood and divorce, financial struggle, and proud graduation from Harvard Law School via student loans and bootstraps—oh, and a little bitty part she left out, involving a supportive second husband who took care of the kids while she was away, and who ended up cashing in his 401K in order to help finance her education (last two years in college and her entire time at law school). They stayed together for ten years after her law school graduation, but she then moved out (allegedly cheating on him, although the divorce was not granted on those grounds), and he got custody of the children in the divorce, which occurred right after he had finished paying off those school loans for her.

Davis describes it all this way:

My language should be tighter,” she said. “I’m learning about using broader, looser language. I need to be more focused on the detail.”

Sometimes errors are about language. But this is most definitely not one of those times. This doesn’t turn on a word or two; this is a false narrative. Plus, Davis is a Harvard-educated lawyer. Accuracy of language is one thing she already knew a great deal about.

But even the language of the headline of the story where these facts emerged reported the story in a gentle way: “Key Facts Blurred.” No, the key facts were not “blurred,” they were omitted. They were covered up, hidden. And no, this wasn’t a “gaffe,” as WaPo columnist Nia-Malika Henderson’s column calls it in its headline. This was no inadvertent error, no etiquette slip.

Davis made other misstatements, such as saying she was a bit younger than she actually was when she got her first divorce, or lengthening the amount of time she actually lived in a trailer. These are the garden-variety lies typical of a politician, and although not laudable, they’re not all that important. If that was all she lied about, I wouldn’t be writing this post about her. But her leaving out her second husband’s role in her rags-to-riches story is what one might call a material lie, and a large one at that.

It also was a gratuitous lie. Her story was good enough before that, and involved a certain amount of hardship overcome. Why did she bother to lie? I submit that public tolerance for lies (from Democrats, anyway) has become greater during the last couple of decades and most especially over the Obama years. It probably has not escaped her notice that the penalty is vanishingly small, the benefits potentially large, and that the best defense if caught is reframing, minimization, and counter-attack.

Thoughts on Martin Luther King Day

The New Neo Posted on by

{NOTE: This is a slightly-edited reprint of a previous post.]

I have some trouble with the hagiography of Martin Luther King. I agree that he was a great man who did a great thing for which he should be duly honored: he was an inspirational figure in the non-violent civil rights movement in this country, as well as a remarkable speaker.

The two, of course, are related. It was his personal quality of leadership, and what George H.W. Bush might rightly call “the vision thing,” that enabled King to bring together so many people to peacefully demonstrate in furtherance of a lofty and necessary goal, that of ending discrimination against blacks in this country.

As for the rest of it—well, I think it can be summed up by saying that King was a flawed human being—that is, a human being. Perhaps MLK himself would be the first to agree; he was a preacher, after all, and he knew a lot about human sin and error. It’s pretty much certain he was a philanderer as well as a plagiarist, and in later life he seemed to veer ever more leftward (some think that’s a feature, not a bug).

Does that diminish his achievements? I don’t think so, if we keep it in perspective. I’ve always been more interested in real human beings who accomplish great things despite their own weaknesses than I am in a pretended (and mostly unachievable) perfection.

[NOTE: One thing that’s long amazed me is that King was so young when he was assassinated. At the time I thought him a man in his 50s, but he was actually a mere 39 years old. If he were alive today, he would only have just turned 85 yesterday.

There’s a lot of speculation on what King would have thought of current trends had he lived. I’m no expert on everything the man wrote and said, but it’s my impression that although he seemed to be in favor of some sort of reparations—which he did not limit to blacks, by the way—he would not have backed affirmative action or gay marriage. However, people do change—as I know only too well.]

Obama and those racist “folks”

The New Neo Posted on by

Actually, compared to a lot of ways that Obama and his supporters have used the race card, this is relatively mild and balanced:

There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black president,” Obama said in the article by David Remnick, appearing in [The New Yorker’s] Jan. 27 edition.

“Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black president,” Obama said in his most direct comments on how race has affected his political standing since he’s been in office.

If you just look at the literal meaning of what Obama said, it’s certainly true. As a writer, I’ve often noticed people’s word choices, and that word “some” is especially useful. It means anything from one or two to many, and is almost always true, although not especially informative about numbers. As such, it’s a dodgy, safe word.

In other words, I have no doubt that there are some people (Obama likes to use “folks” when he’s feeling especially proletarian and wants to sound—folksy) who “really dislike” him “because they don’t like the idea of a black president.” I happen not to think they are especially numerous in terms of percentages of the populace, but to deny that “some” exist would be absurd. And although it’s rare for him to acknowledge the other side, which is that there are “some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black president,” that statement is also undeniably true. In the latter case, the “some” is probably “many,”—more than the number who dislike him because he’s black.

Most of the anti-Obama racists probably don’t dislike him only because he’s black, of course. There are plenty of other reasons to dislike him. And most of the people who “dislike” him don’t care if he’s black, yellow, white, pink, brown, or green, but “dislike” him because they are against his policies and his power grabs, as well as his divisive rhetoric and his lies. There are even “some” people (and I believe they are very numerous) who detest him and his policies but were originally predisposed to like him and give him the benefit of the doubt because he’s black, but over time he’s worn down their goodwill and now they have no doubt and therefore no benefit to give him anymore.

So, what’s Obama doing in the above statement? Well, it’s a version of something he likes to do quite a bit, which is to bring up a topic such as race in a way that sounds reasonable on the face of it but is actually a call to his supporters to use what he says in a different way: i.e. to continue with their incessant charges that dislike of Obama’s policies is grounded in anti-black racism. He has never to my knowledge spoken out against those who make that charge, and he’s been encouraging them to do so in ways both subtle and un- ever since his campaign in 2008.

I described the phenomenon in some detail in this post from July of 2008. But perhaps the best quote to show you how early Obama was doing this and how basic it was to his campaign is from this post written in June of 2008, which I believe is the first time I remarked on it. It’s not a very long post, so I’ll just repeat it here in its entirety:

Barack Obama, the candidate who wants to end divisiveness, and who wants to run a clean and honorable campaign without negativity, said the following in a recent campaign speech at a Florida fund-raising reception:

“It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”

We have here a truly masterful attempt to flames of paranoia on the part of his followers and adopt the mantle of victimization for himself, thus raising rather than lowering the amount of divisiveness and vitriol in the campaign. Pretty good for just a couple of sentences.

Obama is correct in saying that there have been racist remarks against him. These have originated from fringe elements and/or commenters in the blogosphere and/or anonymous email campaigns. They focus on his “funny name,” for example, or the fact that he’s black.

But in this speech he appears to attribute””or to encourage his supporters to attribute””these charges to the entire Republican Party, couched as a threatening “they.” At the same time, he fails to differentiate these attacks””and actually connects them as part of an undifferentiated list””from extremely legitimate concerns that people have voiced about other characteristics of his, such as his inexperience.

In the final sentence of the paragraph he slyly encourages a phenomenon I’ve noticed happening more and more: the charge that any criticism of Obama emanates from racism. If the racism isn’t overt and clear, as in the emails, then it’s covert; “inexperience” (a valid concern based on the objective facts of his history) becomes a code word (wink wink) for hidden racism and fearmongering.

This is dangerous demagoguery.

Because one so seldom hears overt expressions of racism any more, and certainly not from mainstream candidates, there has been a tendency to imagine it is everywhere, but hidden. Here Obama cynically fosters that belief and encourages the definition of his entire opposition as energized by this impossible-to-prove””or, more importantly, impossible-to-disprove””motive.

No, it turns out that most of them haven’t mentioned he’s black, except in approving terms. But they don’t have to nowadays to be racists; Obama has taken care of that.

Speaking of giving Obama the benefit of the doubt—I continue to be astounded, looking back at 2008, that more people didn’t see the perniciousness of what he was doing at the time regarding race. Compared to what Obama was saying in 2008, his remarks to Remnick were mild. He can afford to be mild now because the damage has been done. The meme he planted so firmly in 2008 has borne tremendous fruit in terms of helping him get re-elected, and helping to further racial tensions in this country rather than dampen them down.

[NOTE: By the way, I’m tired of people writing that the fact that Obama’s support from black people is 90+ percent is evidence of blacks’ pro-Obama racism because he’s a black man. Although it is almost certainly the case that blacks are extra-reluctant to abandon Obama, and that being black only enhances his support from blacks, the percentages of black people supporting Obama are not so very much higher than the percentages of black people supporting other recent Democratic presidents (or presidential candidates) such as Clinton or Gore or even Kerry. In fact, if you look at the following chart, you’ll see that ever since the New Deal blacks have been quite solid in their support of Democratic presidential candidates, a support that went even higher after the passage of the Civil Rights Act during the 60s:

BlackVotePres

What’s more, in recent years, even white Democrat candidates such as Clinton, Gore,and Kerry all lost the white vote, just as Obama did. If you want some mind-blowing statistics, take a look:

Add Obama’s name to a long list of white Democrats who lost that demographic: Humphrey in 1968; McGovern in 1972; Carter in 1976 and 1980; Mondale in 1984; Dukakis in 1988; Clinton in 1992 and 1996; Gore in 2000.

In fact, white voters preferred Obama to Sen. John Kerry ”” who lost the white vote by 17 points in 2004, while Obama lost it in 2008 by “only” 12 points. Obama improved on Kerry’s share of the white vote in every age demographic, including the 18- to 29-year-olds (which Kerry lost).

The truth is that minorities such as blacks constitute the margin of victory for Democratic candidates, black or white, on the national level, and this has been true for quite some time. The racial divide is not mostly about the race of the candidate, although it has a role. It is about the party affiliation of the candidate and the party affiliation of the members of the different races, and how differently the parties are perceived in terms of philosophy and action, including how each party affects each race. The irony, of course, is that black people have done poorly under Obama’s watch, and under the welfare state as a whole.

Thomas Sowell wrote the book (literally) on this. Here’s a small snippet of his thoughts.]

Republicans: why can’t we all get along?

The New Neo Posted on by

Trying to get Republicans to agree on something is like herding cats. Democrats tend to hang together for the good of the Party and the larger vision, as well as the promise of more specific rewards for cooperation (jobs, pork, etc.) or threats for non-cooperation. But Republican seem a lot more disorganized—or is it ornery or individualistic or uncompromising or principled or stupid or what?

I was thinking about that yesterday, and I thought the issue might deserve highlighting in a thread of its own:

I was watching some commentator on some TV news show on Fox (forget who) saying that Republicans had a lot of Obamacare-alternative proposals but needed to get together and settle on one to get behind…What is up with this stupid inability to come together? I think it’s the lack of the ability to compromise with each other that I was talking about the other day.

Note that here I’m not talking about, nor suggesting, compromise with the Democrats. I’m talking about presenting a united face to the public so that the message of the right is clear and understandable, and something people can relate to. And then to drive it home with repetition and memorable phrases.

Scott Walker had some good things to say in his interview with John Hawkins, which I quoted yesterday:

…the Left, they want you under their thumb. They want to control you. They want to control your lives. They want you to be dependent on the government. We should say we’re the ones, not only for the poor, but for young people coming out of college, for working class families, for immigrants, for others out there. We should say we are the ones who empower the American Dream. We’re the ones who say you can do and be anything you want, but it’s because we empower you with the ability and the platform to do that.

Now, is that so hard to say? Apparently.

In the years I’ve been on the right, I’ve been impressed by how much infighting there is compared to the left. Not that the left doesn’t have disagreements, but they pull together for the sake of the all-important prize: winning. Conservatives seems to take pride in their dissent from each other, as though it shows their integrity and their devotion to principle.

And I suppose in a way it does. But as a strategy (or is that a tactic?) it stinks.

Impeaching Obama

The New Neo Posted on by

On a Hot Air thread about the desirability of impeaching Obama I saw this comment:

Impeachment would be like a child throwing a temper tantrum ”” lots of sound and fury signifying extreme frustration. But in the end Obama would still be there. I know futile gestures that antagonize the unengaged electorate are satisfying to the Kamikaze brigade but a bound to fail impeachment attempt would all but destroy the Republican chances to take the Senate and make gains in the House. If you want to do something to reign in Obama then I suggest if you are dissatisfied by your current Republican member of Congress vote for his opponent in the primary but if you lose show up November to vote (R). Failure to do so provides aid and comfort to Obama’s socialist agenda.

And this:

George Will wrote about “gesture liberalism” last week. There is such a thing as “gesture conservatism” too, and proponents of impeachment are its chief practitioners. They tend to share with liberals the notion that the main goal of politics is to make them feel good, and righteous. It isn’t.

I would not say impeachment is an absolute impossibility before Obama’s second term is through. But impeachment would be a very bad idea at this point, even though the GOP controls the House, and even though there’s plenty of fodder for impeachment.

For the sake of argument let’s say the Republicans in the House have the guts and the votes to do it. But the effort can go nowhere in the Senate—they will not get the requisite two-thirds for conviction—and would only anger the public, the great majority of whom would find it to be vindictive overkill (as well as something that gets in the way of whatever it is that they think Congress is supposed to be doing instead). Such an action would increase Obama’s approval rating, and perhaps even lead to the Democrats holding the Senate or even making advances in both bodies of Congress.

However, if Obamacare goes forward and things get worse, and the Republicans win the Senate in 2014 (even if they don’t get over 2/3 of the seats there, which they almost certainly won’t), and Obama’s approval ratings drop into the cellar (low 30s or less), then there’s a chance. The public might get behind impeachment/conviction, and it’s theoretically possible (although unlikely) that even a few Democrats might come along.

That’s the only way it could happen, and I give it an infinitesimally small chance of coming about. But one thing is certain: now is most definitely not the time for impeachment. Ralph Waldo Emerson is reputed to have said, “When you strike at a king, you must kill him.” He was supposed to have been responding to a student “who had told Emerson that he was writing an essay about, and presumably critical of, Plato.” Emerson wasn’t talking about literally killing Plato, who had been dead for quite some time. He was talking about knowing how to chose the right time and way to undermine a person regarded as a great and powerful man.

The same is true of impeaching Obama: don’t start unless you have the votes in the Senate to convict, and the support of the American people, or you will end up hurting yourself. Impeachment has legal trappings, but its essence is political. So whether Obama has committed an impeachable offense—and I submit that he has committed several—is not the final determination of whether impeachment would be a good idea.