RSS Feed MenuIt was as if she’d come straight out of casting call. Approximately two seconds after President Obama’s announcement of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s appointment, her past statements torrented out, immediately reflecting upon her as a down-the-line judicial activist. The most bombastic statement is being repeated all across the conservative media: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.“
The bait was cast. All over, commentators became victims. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh immediately decried her as a “racist.” Sean Hannity complained about “reverse discrimination.”
And then comes the switch. All of a sudden, an argument that should be a golden opportunity for conservatives becomes completely unwinnable: Is Sonia Sotomayor a racist? Do white men face discrimination from the courts? Who exactly is going to buy that? As much as Sotomayor’s statements are objectionable — and her judicial philosophy is obviously utter anathema to originalism — could there possibly be a stupider way to rally Americans against her nomination than on the grounds of anti-white racism? (Clarence Thomas himself, in fact, once noted that his experiences gave him a unique perspective worthy of bringing to the court.)
Sotomayor’s nomination is a unique opportunity for the conservative movement to rally all of its factions together — including centrists who are wary of the court overstepping its constitutional authority. It would be shamefully regretful for us to squander this moment by ignoring the real issue at hand. We have a clear choice: we can use this nomination to rally Americans to the Republican Party — or we can use it to cast white men as a grievance lobby.
If conservatives believe in racial equality on all levels, we should let her statements speak for themselves, rather than take the victimer-than-thou route. The fight is not over race — it is over the Constitution. Let’s keep our eye on the ball.
CJJ // May 27, 2009 at 10:38 am
I strongly disagree.Putting aside the usual targets (Rush, Hannity), what this post is arguing is that the GOP should avoid the issue of race, at all costs, even when the Right is clearly right. You offer a false choice: Rally people to the GOP or play the white man grievance card. How about the canyon-sized space in between? The space where most Americans of all colors still residethe one still believes we should be a color-blind society. This isnt the 1970s. Today, only one of the two major parties champion the cause of judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. The GOP. Hard to believe, buthere we are.A strategy that advocates running from one of the most persistent, emotional issues of our day race relations is as dumb as would be a strategy of conceding any other persistent, emotional issue. Democrats are all alone on the field while we fret on the sidelines. Their brand of racial politics is overt and raw. But we have to be silent, even when We. Are. Right.No sir. Sotomayers collection of statements (and in the case of racial preferences, her silence), go well beyond what Clarence Thomas ever uttered. Check out the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal for more. La Raza means The Race by the way. Yes, Democrats are quite open about championing racial politics.
AlexK // May 27, 2009 at 10:47 am
It’s not that we should run away from her racialism. It’s that we should avoid being victims. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck seem to have a very hard time addressing the issue without making it about…themselves. “This is anti-white male racism! Reverse discrimination!” Boo hoo hoo, everyone’s a victim.Just address it on the merits of the arguments. Don’t use bombastic, loaded terms. It’s not how you win. We should champion OURSELVES as people of equality, in CONTRAST to her racial preferences, rather than shrilly calling her a racist, saying that she’ll discriminate against white men. Nobody’s going to buy that she’s a racist. All that does is polarize. Issue framing, issue framing, issue framing…
24AheadDotCom // May 27, 2009 at 10:56 am
What AlexK said.Also, *citizen journalists* who are in the NYC area should visit local libraries and try to see if there’s something interesting she did in the past, such as something she said or did when she was with the PRLDEF. Citizen journalists need to do that because neither the MSM nor GOP hacks such as those posting articles at this site are going to do it.
CJJ // May 27, 2009 at 11:23 am
Alex,OK, address it on the merits. I didnt get that from your original post, which said let her statements speak for themselves. To address it well have to actually ‘mention’ it. I agree that the white male grievance is the wrong way to go. Issue framing, issue framing, issue framing…YES. Thats my mantra. And what we see here is the result of the GOP failing to frame the issue of race relations: A nominee whose racialism (better word than racism) would have destroyed her if she were a white Republican is seen as a strong pick. This is a direct result of ducking the race issue for so long. (As was the lack of fallout from Obamas 20-year relationship with the racist lunatic Jeremiah Wright. The middle of a campaign is the wrong time to give American voters a crash course on liberal hate speech.)Heres a test: Would the Dems be so timid in raising the issue of race? No. Then why are we? Well, because well be painted as. Issue framing. Frame the issue of race properly and we can win because we are right.
CJJ // May 27, 2009 at 11:40 am
Alex,OK, address it on the merits. I didnt get that from your original post, which said let her statements speak for themselves. To address it well have to actually ‘mention’ it. I agree that the white male grievance is the wrong way to go. Issue framing, issue framing, issue framing…YES. Thats my mantra. And what we see here is the result of the GOP failing to frame the issue of race relations: A nominee whose racialism (better word than racism) would have destroyed her if she were a white Republican is seen as a strong pick. This is a direct result of ducking the race issue for so long. (As was the lack of fallout from Obamas 20-year relationship with the racist lunatic Jeremiah Wright. The middle of a campaign is the wrong time to give American voters a crash course on liberal hate speech.)Heres a test: Would the Dems be so timid in raising the issue of race? No. Then why are we? Well, because well be painted as. Issue framing. Frame the issue of race properly and we can win because we are right.
sinz54 // May 28, 2009 at 7:29 am
CJJ: I agree with you, but I would add one more point:In these Senate hearings, the issue is NOT Sotomayor’s racialist philosophy–it’s also Obama’s racialist philosophy. It’s the philosophy of all Leftist Hispanics and Leftist blacks–that they are OWED for what happened long ago.Senate Republicans don’t have the votes to stop Sotomayor. And after she gets onto the Court, the public will yawn and forget about her.But if we can define OBAMA in these hearings, we will score because the public can’t forget about him–he’s POTUS.