Today I read yet another account of a politician telling me what the American people want or, in this case, don't want. The "don't want" du jour is a Supreme Court justice who believes that the Constitution is subject to judicial interpretation. A couple of weeks ago, the American people did not want health care reform. Last year, they didn't want a public option. I'm sure if I had time to research the issue, I could come up with a long list of public programs and policies that the American people don't want, and maybe even some that they do want. And this I know, for politicians tell me so.
In fairness, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama worded his diatribe about constitutional interpretation, quoted in the Huffington Post, more carefully than I have presented it here. In fact, the exact quote is:
But more troubling than his assault on mainstream judicial philosophy is Sessions' presumptuousness in speaking for the American people. On what authority does he base his conclusions about what the American people think? And who are these American people for whom he presumes to speak? Are they only members of the political right wing? Do they include both Rush Limbaugh's listeners and Al Franken's supporters? Do they include women? Do they include blacks and hispanics? Do they include Catholics and Jews, Hindus and Muslims? Do they include gays and lesbians? Do they include legal immigrants? Do they include both rich and poor, the powerful and the oppressed, the healthy and the sick, the sheltered and the homeless? Somehow I suspect that Sessions' "America" is smaller and more monolithic than mine, although I am certainly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But still, I want to know who these American people are that he is referring to before I'm willing to accept that he knows what they want. And then I want to know how he knows it.
I don't mean to pick only on the Senator from Alabama. He is simply the latest example in a string of examples of politicians from both parties purporting to divine the will of the American people. John Boehner did it with healthcare reform. I even recall cringing recently when either President Obama or Vice President Biden let the phrase "the American people don't want . . . " slip into a television interview. (I'm sorry, I don't recall the specifics, I just remember my disappointment.) What they are really saying is not that the American people want or don't want the thing that is being discussed, whatever it happens to be at the time. What they are saying is "I don't want it, my party doesn't want it, anyone who is right thinking doesn't want it, and anyone who wants it isn't a true American and doesn't count anyway." And even more invidiously, they are saying "you had better agree with me or you are not fit to be counted among your countrymen." (I use the word "countrymen" here as inclusive of women, and because I can't think of a synonym that has the same poetic ring to it.) In the end, the phrase not only misleads the listener, but worse, is offensive and exclusionary.
So here is my plea to our leaders in government and those who would join them. Please don't tell me what "the American people" want or don't want. If you do, you had better be prepared to define your terms, and to back up your statement with evidence.
Wouldn't it be nice if the media started challenging politicians who so cavalierly throw this phrase around, and began holding them to this higher standard?
In fairness, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama worded his diatribe about constitutional interpretation, quoted in the Huffington Post, more carefully than I have presented it here. In fact, the exact quote is:
Put this way, it's hard to disagree. But I don't think anyone who subscribes to the belief that it is the province of the judiciary to interpret the Constitution, embedded in our jurisprudence for more than 200 years (thanks to a little decision rendered by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803 known as "Marbury v. Madison"), would put it this way. Sessions was demonizing a legitimate philosophy of judicial interpretation by characterizing it in the most extreme and unacceptable terms, and then telling us what few would argue with: that we, or at least most of us, don't want judges who would manipulate the Constitution in order to advance a political agenda.
"If we have a nominee that evidences a philosophy of judges know best, that they can amend the Constitution by saying it has evolved, and effectuate agendas, then we're going to have a big fight about that because the American people don't want that," Sessions said.
But more troubling than his assault on mainstream judicial philosophy is Sessions' presumptuousness in speaking for the American people. On what authority does he base his conclusions about what the American people think? And who are these American people for whom he presumes to speak? Are they only members of the political right wing? Do they include both Rush Limbaugh's listeners and Al Franken's supporters? Do they include women? Do they include blacks and hispanics? Do they include Catholics and Jews, Hindus and Muslims? Do they include gays and lesbians? Do they include legal immigrants? Do they include both rich and poor, the powerful and the oppressed, the healthy and the sick, the sheltered and the homeless? Somehow I suspect that Sessions' "America" is smaller and more monolithic than mine, although I am certainly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But still, I want to know who these American people are that he is referring to before I'm willing to accept that he knows what they want. And then I want to know how he knows it.
I don't mean to pick only on the Senator from Alabama. He is simply the latest example in a string of examples of politicians from both parties purporting to divine the will of the American people. John Boehner did it with healthcare reform. I even recall cringing recently when either President Obama or Vice President Biden let the phrase "the American people don't want . . . " slip into a television interview. (I'm sorry, I don't recall the specifics, I just remember my disappointment.) What they are really saying is not that the American people want or don't want the thing that is being discussed, whatever it happens to be at the time. What they are saying is "I don't want it, my party doesn't want it, anyone who is right thinking doesn't want it, and anyone who wants it isn't a true American and doesn't count anyway." And even more invidiously, they are saying "you had better agree with me or you are not fit to be counted among your countrymen." (I use the word "countrymen" here as inclusive of women, and because I can't think of a synonym that has the same poetic ring to it.) In the end, the phrase not only misleads the listener, but worse, is offensive and exclusionary.
So here is my plea to our leaders in government and those who would join them. Please don't tell me what "the American people" want or don't want. If you do, you had better be prepared to define your terms, and to back up your statement with evidence.
Wouldn't it be nice if the media started challenging politicians who so cavalierly throw this phrase around, and began holding them to this higher standard?
Comments
Post a Comment