Orwell and the Gutting of Brown v. Board

Yesterday in a feat of rhetorical prowess, a majority of the Supreme Court decided to gut Brown v. Board of Education. Normally, when a court overturns a precedent, it carefully explains why circumstances have changed. The power of precedent (the Latin term is stare decisis) normally controls how courts may rule - even new justices Roberts and Alito vowed to maintain precedent during their recent Senate confirmation hearings. Yet . . . a little rhetorical criticism reveals just how quickly Roberts and Alito broke their vows. Two sentences should suffice:

Chief Justice Roberts, writing the Court's opinion in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al. (June 28, 2007), "argued" that: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." While repetition has been an extraordinarily effective weapon in the arsenal of conservative speak since the 1980s (a trick they may have learned from George Orwell's 1984), this one is so much a tautology that it not only reveals the absence of an argument, but also the conservative rhetorical strategy of repetition. Roberts may have thought himself clever, but a quick look halves his too cleverness.

My favorite rhetorical trick appears as well in this opinion - redefinition. Roberts argued, "Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin." This is the most powerful of Orwellian exercises: the re-writing of history. An accurate rendering of history would read, "Before Brown, BLACK schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school." As Justice Stevens in his dissent noted, "The Chief Justice fails to note that it was only black schoolchildren who were so ordered; indeed, the history books do not tell stories of white children struggling to attend black schools." Roberts and the Supremes redefined "schoolchildren before Brown" in a manner that conflates the Black and White experience in America. Stevens called them on their lie, let us hope the press informs Americans about the Court's Orwellian rhetoric.

Insecurity in words

President Bush and most of his administration have a marvelous way of revealing their insecurities in words, particularly when they are lying. Bush, for example, has a penchant for using the terms "certainly" and "obviously" when things are most uncertain. For example, in a speech before general contractors on May 2, 2007, Bush argued that: "A retreat in Iraq would say to a lot of people around the world, particularly in the Middle East, America can't keep its word. It would certainly confirmn al Qaeda's belief that we're weak and soft as a society. It would embolden them to be able to recruit. It would more likely enable them to find safe haven and sanctuary." Ignoring his own State Department's Country Reports on Terrorism, 2006 (released April 30, 2007) indicating that al Qaeda's recruitment has increased because we are in Iraq, Bush argues that withdrawal will "certainly" confirm the belief of an enemy we don't talk to or know much about (how else could its leader have remained free for almost six years after 9/11?). Hmm. The timing on this one is a little suspicious.

Today, Chief Counsel Fred Fielding revealed insecurity. In response to Congressional subpoenas that would reveal just how political the Bush administration's meddling in the Department of Justice has been, Fielding rejected oversight: "The doctrine of executive privilege exists, at least in part, to protect such communications from compelled disclosure to Congress, especially where, as here, the president's interests in maintaining confidentiality far outweigh Congress's interests in obtaining deliberative White House communications." Can you spot the giveaway adjective? It's close by, or rather, "far." The President's interests in maintaining confidentiality FAR outweigh the constitutionally mandated role of the U.S. Congress? Hmm. Could this statement be timed to coincide with a second set of Congressional subpoenas that arrived today? And could FAR be masking insecurities about that receipt?

Hypocrisy: Strict Construction

Tricky Dick II (i.e. Dick Cheney) is in the news again for his interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. It seems that Cheney has declared the Vice Presidency to be part of the legislative branch when laws are applied to the executive branch. Conversely, he is part of the executive branch when laws applied to the legislative branch might interfere with his business. Thus he doesn't have to obey the laws that the President and Congress must obey.

What is amazing here is that Cheney's interpretation is hypocritical in light of his application of the doctrine of strict construction which posits that one read the U.S. Constitution with an eye for literal interpretation. Given that the Constitution does not provide for the right to privacy, for example, it does not exist (never mind Amendments 9 and 10 which explicitly state that there are plenty of unenumerated rights and that these are retained by individuals and states). But an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution using the doctrine of strict construction makes the Vice Presidency an office of the executive branch of government.

So what's a poor, strict constructionist to do? Change his defense. Now Cheney has a new argument. His chief of staff and chief counsel, David S. Addington retreated yesterday: "Given that the executive order treats the Vice President like the President rather than like an 'agency,' it is not necessary in these circumstances to address the subject of any alternative reasoning, based on the law and the legislative functions of the vice presidency." Cheney's new defense is that he need not rely on his legislative functions to prove that he's not in the executive, rather he is the executive. The Vice President and the President are the same. That would explain why the founders created two positions.

Of course, Cheney is just a pragmatist who employs strict construction when it's useful (for getting anti-abortion votes) and dumps it when it's not (gay marriage). Academics figured out long ago that strictly constructing Shakespeare, Jefferson, Marx or anyone else was a vapid exercise in automatism. Three branches of government: the executive, legislative, and judicial branches also figured this out long ago. When will the fourth estate to find out? Given that critical thinking (which automatically dispells strict construction) is out of fashion, it may be a long time.

EARMARK Hypocrisy

Definition: A legislative practice of designating a certain amount of money for a specific project that would normally be undertaken by bureaucracies yet claiming to oppose pork-barrel spending. Earmarks are pork barrel spending.

History 1 (lexical): The term ear mark was originally a synechdochal reference to pages folded down at a corner within budget proposals. Ear marked pages tended to be pages where individual Members of Congress had pencilled in proposals to set aside money for a specific project. "Pork Barrel," on the other hand, was a metaphorical reference to barrels of salted pork from which slaves (usually) drew their rations during the nineteenth-century. Congressmen dipping into the pork barrel, took from the slaves (and metaphorically, the public). Thus if you are a member of Congress, you say "earmark." If you are a knowledgeable member of the public, you say "pork barrel."

History 2 (contextual): Given that A) Republicans poisoned the well against bureaucrats, thus making them less trustworthy than Members of Congress (whose approval is at 25% in the most recent polls); and B) that Americans have been taught not to critically think about what it is their elected officials say and do, earmarks have become an increasingly common practice under a Republican dominated Congress and a Republican presidency. This hypocrisy has enraged traditional, small-government republicans . . . or at least those who don't get their news from Fox.

Example: In a June 16, 2007 radio address, President Bush announced: "In January, I proposed reforms that would make the earmark process more transparent, end the practice of concealing earmarks in so-called report language that is never included in legislation, and cut the number and cost of earmarks by at least half." On June 21, the House Committee on Appropriations issued a Report to Accompany Legislation Funding the Department of Interior, Environment and Related Agencies for 2008. In it, earmarks are broken down by agency and include dollar amounts and who requested the set aside. There are 321 earmarks in that report, 94 of which were requested by President Bush.

Back

Definer is back. Others may rejoin as they re-discover time (though two are in their final year of dissertating).