Miscellania

I want to direct you to a few articles in the last few days that are worthy of attention.

First, Ed Kilgore of New Donkey has yet more evidence that the Republican party wants to corrupt the re-districting process. This time they're at it in Georgia. Given what appears to be a plan to end the norm of once-a-decade re-districting, can we please drop all this stuff about "working" with them to reform the process? The only thing they understand is power. We won't get them to pay attention and cut it out until we stick it to their incumbents in some place like Illinois.

Second, please go read this post from a few days ago on Daily Kos by "mcjoan." She encapsulates what I have been trying to say about the abortion issue in a very direct and eloquent fashion. The gist is that we are in danger of losing sight of the women in our present focus on the foetus. To do so is to concede the debate to the anti-choice advocates before it even gets started.

Which brings me to Bull Moose, who is still yammering about Democrats and "cultural elitism." Apparently some liberal groups are mad that Chuck Schumer is supporting some anti-choice candidates for Senate races (in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania). Now I agree with the main thrust of the article, namely that Democrats shouldn't read anti-choice candidates out of the party. If those candidates are good on the other issues and are our best chance of winning, then so be it. I'm all for the big tent. And it is certainly absurd for pro-choice advocates to call Schumer "conservative." For the love of God, he's a Democrat from New York City! How conservative could he be? But what I want to criticize is Bull Moose's suggestion that the pro-choice position is "elitist." The fact that he is using the phrase "cultural elitism" really tips his hand and makes me very suspicious of his argument.

Simply because affluent Americans tend to be more pro-choice does NOT make the pro-choice persuasion elitist. It just means that even rich people can be right about some things. What is at stake is whether one group can impose its moral (and essentially religious) perspective on another group. Abortion really has very little to do with class.

Third, David Brooks is back in my cross-hairs. Today the issue is the decline in commitment to marriage. Brooks' proof? Separate checking accounts! Now I certainly agree that marriage is about sharing things, and has something to do with mutual dependence. Too much separation can undermine a marriage. But autonomy needs a place as well. Keeping some financial independence is scarcely an example of the market mechanism invading the household. It has more to do with convenience, and with preserving some sphere of autonomy in one's relationship. How different are separate checking accounts from giving each other an "allowance" from joint income? Not at all. And frankly I am a little insulted by Mr. Brooks' implication that my wife and I are not committed to our marriage just because we have separate accounts. What really undermines a marriage is having sex in different beds, not using different banks.

Now of course Brooks has a hidden agenda here. No surprise, since he usually does. It occurs to me that joint checking accounts "issue" could be a vehicle for the subordination of women. Take away her separate account and she would have to consult with her husband before making even the most trivial purchases. Brooks might even be going further with his "markets out of marriage" theme. Couldn't his next step be to say that women who don't take their husband's last name, or who work, are not committed to their marriage? I smell a rat.

Finally, there is an op-ed in the New York Times today about the appointment of judges. I am frankly conflicted on this issue. On balance, I think that the election of judges is a mistake. Popular opinion really shouldn't be a criteria when making judicial decisions, since the underlying purpose of the courts is to protect minority rights. Having elections for judges inevitably corrupts that function by making them subject to direct popular will. But I am not nearly so sanguine about the system of executive appointment as Mr. Olin is. He glosses over what he describes as "old" problems of political patronage, without paying any attention to the role that patronage plays in judicial selection today! Even more incomprehensible, he never mentions the contemporary effort of the radical right to stack the courts with their ideological allies. You'd think it would at least merit a mention. So I don't think that judicial election is a panacea, but I have far less confidence in the federal system than he does.