Al Franken ended his radio show, and started a Senate run to regain his friend's (RIP) MN seat. The below entry, pre-blog, was something I wrote soon after he started in early 2004. I called it "my complexity principle."
The whole point of Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment is that Congress can by legislation protect more than the "Supreme Court's own interpretations" of what the Constitution standing alone means to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. ...
And, in fact, those who are worried about both judicial overreaching and excesses of congressional power should understand the power limiting nature of this interpretation. The alternate view not only limits the power of Congress in select cases, but encourages the courts to find certain rights as constitutionally obligated -- after all, it is the only way they would be protected, if Congress didn't have the option to voluntarily protect them. An option that could be limited or expanded as need be, not written in stone, and determined by more democratic means.
-- from "The Benefits of Congressional Discretion"
A basic principle of mine is that though there are some basic principles we should honor, few things are truly as clear-cut as many make them out to be. This leads me to have strong views on various matters, but somewhat complex ones, and respect for those who I feel have thoughtful opposing views. I try to retain courtesy to all, but if I feel the opposition is promoting their views in a shoddy matter, it bothers me. This to some degree also applies when I actually agree with those who use this method. Its negative aspects are ultimately to some degree counterproductive.
Take the above excerpt of broader remarks of mine that I cited yesterday. I would use it, for instance, to argue the Supreme Court was wrong to strike down federal legislation that allows individuals to sue state employers for allegations of discrimination based on disability. This does not mean I support a particular law on policy grounds (I think the disability law in general to be too vague and broad) or that Congress should have overreaching powers. All the same, I understand how someone can take the argument to its logical conclusion and so argue. For instance, to argue abortion rights should be left up to the legislatures. Thus, it turns on a number of factors that are open to debate.
[Justice Clark once remarked that the argument "that deprival of liberty may be less onerous than deprival of life [is] a value judgment not universally accepted." He did so to promote liberty, to extend the right of counsel that once was only given to defendants in death penalty cases.
I myself generally rank "life, liberty, and property" in that order. This is part of the reason why even if I'm sympathetic of some criticisms of Democratic tax policy, I cannot support their opponents as long as they threaten our liberty in general -- freedom over money, say I.* All the same, I cannot ignore (1) money is sometimes important to freedom and (2) my ranking is not a "self evident truth."]
It's useful to remember this, and the opposite view (a dangerously simplistic assurance of truth) is what is partly so troubling with the administration in office. Or rather, and this is important, the ethos that guides it. It is this spirit that truly has to be targeted, not just one man or even one set of individuals. This is partly why targeting the President alone is wrongheaded. He and those around him have their own problems, surely, but they ultimately serve as but means to an end. Sometimes they are even right, for as it is true that we all make mistakes, we also all do things right.
It is the overall worldview that is a problem, and targeting an individual alone is wrongheaded. We need to set our sights higher while making sure to defend our own worldview with reasoned argument with at least a touch of humility to our own limitations.
---
* Election races, including this year's presidential race, often center on economic policies. This does not really appeal to me for this very reason -- not only do they tend to be exaggerated and/or flawed (in part because the government only has so much control over the economy), but often because other things are more important to me.