Jewish World Review July 13, 2005 / 6 Taamuz 5765

Paul Greenberg

Paul Greenberg
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Fasten your seat belts . . . | "Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride!"

That's the classic line, slightly misquoted, uttered by Bette Davis as the imperious Margo Channing in "All About Eve." She's ascending a staircase at the time and looking down at the milling crowd below in evening attire. It's supposed to be a civilized gathering. But she knows better; all the tensions down there are about to spill over.

The actual line predicts only "a bumpy night," but anyone aware of how human beings behave when power is at stake knows the bumpy ride is going to last longer than a single night. Which may explain why it's been altered in the repetition over the years. The not-so-fictive Ms. Channing understood what vicious games can be played in genteel surroundings.

Genteel surroundings like the U.S. Senate, which is about to see the best debate over a judicial nomination that money can buy. All the interest groups on both sides are lining up, and getting their fund-raising letters in the mail.

An opportunity like this doesn't come up all that often. Any vacancy on the Supreme Court lets all the combatants hyperventilate. One group's Champion of the Constitution may be another's Right-Wing Nutcase. And even if the president chooses a "non-controversial" nominee (some chance!), one side's Mush-Brained Wimp will be painted as the other's Thoughtful Moderate.

Each side will view the other with alarm, if not hysteria. There's no greater spur to political fund-raising than a good dose of fear and loathing. Professional propagandists left and right are busy whipping up the givers great and small, and the money is already rolling in.

A poli-sci prof at Syracuse University whose specialty is the lobbying industry estimated that all the pressure groups combined would spend $100 million in this lollapalooza of a fight. And that was just when one seat was open on the court. Now two may soon be at stake. Everybody's getting those press releases ready.

For example: In the far corner in white trunks you'll find Progress for America, which is funded by some of the president's biggest money-raisers. It has pledged to put up $18 million for this summer's blockbuster.

In the other, equally far corner, also in white trunks, is, and its Mr. Moneybags, the free-spending George Soros. already has spent $280,000 on scare ads. (Sample: "Will George Bush choose an extremist who will threaten our rights?")

You can almost hear the dossiers being compiled on every possible nominee. But, hey, it's a free country, which means everybody can get in on the act, aka the vortex of public opinion.

And maybe everybody should. A nominee to the high court should receive the closest scrutiny; these anticipated appointments could be the most important ones George W. Bush ever makes. For what decision was more important, or better, than John Adams' midnight appointment of John Marshall to the court? And who proved a worse disaster than Roger Taney when he cobbled together the Dred Scott decision?

Alexander Hamilton once called the judiciary the least dangerous branch of government; it was one of the few mistaken judgments he ever made. The judicial branch may now be the most dangerous, restrained only by its own sense of limits. Which is why the most important quality in the next justice of the Supreme Court may be a judicial temperament.

It's not the most blatant or opinionated in this coming fight who will bear watching the most. At least they're open about their opinions. It's those who pretend to be above the fray while pursuing the most partisan agenda. For example, a senator like New York's Charles Schumer, who claims to be taking a moderate line even while preparing to wage an immoderate, all-out political war.

Donate to JWR

Then there's Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln, who may claim she's not conducting a filibuster (against a John Bolton or Miguel Estrada, for example) but only innocently seeking more information from the nominee. She's the personification of the immoderate moderate in this debate.

Who's going to win this fight? The side that appears most reasonable. Which is why an all-out filibuster in the Senate might succeed in stopping a nominee but lose a more important battle, the one for public opinion.

The one description the Democrats don't want attached to them is Obstructionist. The one adjective the Republicans want to avoid is Radical. Or, just as bad, Extremist. Barry Goldwater's candor may have won him a lot of praise in retrospect, but only six states in 1964 and an anemic 36 percent of the popular vote. This is a consensus country.

And so the great game of more-moderate-than-thou begins. But even if everyone appears oh-so-civil as this glittering party gets under way, appearances can be deceptive.

Take your cue from Margo Channing: Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Every weekday publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor Paul Greenberg, editorial page editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, has won the Pulitzer Prize for editorial writing. Send your comments by clicking here.

Paul Greenberg Archives


© 2005, TMS