Dec. 4, 2013
Dec. 2, 2013
Rabbi Moshe Grylak: Attack on Chanukah's scholar-warriors an affront to all people of faith
U.S. boxes in Israel, not Iran: Surrender in Geneva
Jewz in the Newz by Nate Bloom
: Vanessa Bayer & Jacob, the Bar Mitzvah Boy; Adam Levine, nickname "the Bear Jew," is People's Sexiest; Eastwoods Need to Say "Kinehora!"
The Kosher Gourmet by Kim Ode:
Fried and gone to heaven: Dense, fried Slovenian doughnut-like rolls, krofi, on Chanukah is a treat you'll want to eat all year long
: Tracking babies' eyes, scientists find signs of autism in 2-month-olds
Jewz in the Newz by Nate Bloom
: Hunger Games: Jewish Connections; A 'Minyan'of Jewish Celebs Recite the Gettysburg Address On-line; Walter Matthau's Reaction to JFK's Death
Nancy A. Youssef :
Christians too afraid to complain as treatment in new 'democracy' worsens
Jewz in the Newz by Nate Bloom
: Jewish MLB managers; Past and Present; Movie News and Dancing W/the Stars Shocker; Paula Abdul's Israeli bat mitzvah and bio facts rarely reported
Jewish World Review
Nov. 15, 2012/ 1 Kislev, 5773
Cue the hysterics. Reports of Democracy's Death Greatly Exaggerated
A. Barton Hinkle
"There is something supremely cynical about the notion among Republican conservatives," wrote The New York Times on Sunday, "that they could use their ability to make unlimited contributions to 'super PACs' and shadowy social-welfare groups to buy an election. It views voters as a flock of sheep, easily hypnotized by misleading ads, willing to believe whatever wealthy industrialists tell them about taxes, jobs and health care."
Gosh, wherever could conservative Republicans have gotten such an idea?
Maybe from The Times itself.
New York's paper of record was writing about the colossal failure of deep-pocket donors to swing any weight in last week's election: "American Crossroads, the super PAC founded by Karl Rove, spent $104 million in the general election, but none of its candidates won. The United States Chamber of Commerce spent $24 million backing Republicans in 15 Senate races; only two of them won. Sheldon Adelson, the casino mogul, spent $53 million on nine Republican candidates, eight of whom lost." It was indeed, as the editorial noted, "A Landslide Loss for Big Money."
This certainly is not the outcome the newspaper foresaw two years ago, when the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Citizens United.
The case that prompted that ruling was a simple First Amendment matter: Could the government ban the distribution of a movie advocating the defeat of Hillary Clinton in the crucial days leading up to an election, if the movie were paid for by a corporation? Could it, for that matter, ban a similarly funded book that said "Vote for X," or a sign in Lafayette Park that said the same thing? The government's lawyer, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, said yes: The government "could prohibit" such a book, movie or sign. The Supreme Court said: No, it cannot.
Cue the hysterics.
The ruling, fumed President Obama, "strikes at democracy itself." Democratic National Committee chairman Tim Kaine - Virginia's former governor - termed it "a major victory for oil companies, banks, health insurance companies and other special interests." Others called the ruling a "constitutional Frankenstein moment," a "corporate takeover," "radical," "absurd" and "terrifying." On MSNBC, Keith Olbermann declared the ruling worse than the 19th-century Dred Scott decision upholding slavery. It was, he intoned, a "Supreme-Court-sanctioned murder of . . . democracy." A writer for The Huffington Post declared, "We are all royally, hopelessly [expletived] for the rest of recorded time."
And then there was The Times, which insisted the Court had "paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections. . . . Congress must act immediately to limit the damage of this radical decision, which strikes at the heart of democracy." Other liberals, from John Kerry and Ralph Nader to Nancy Pelosi and the Occupy movement, agreed the Bill of Rights needed to be rolled back to stem the terrible flood of political speech.
The premise underlying all of that wailing was the very same notion The Times now accuses conservative politicos of harboring: that voters are sheep, easily hypnotized by slick advertising. But as others have pointed out, this line of reasoning is not an indictment of campaign financing alone. It is an indictment of democracy itself. Efforts to keep "outside groups" from speaking during an election are equally efforts to keep the voters from hearing what they have to say, and being persuaded. After all, if voters are smart enough to see through the slick ads, then no harm is done. But if the voters are such gullible morons that they will believe anything Karl Rove tells them, then what does democracy have to recommend it? Precious little.
President Obama's re-election and the defeat of so many conservative candidates backed by big-money groups seem to have redeemed democracy in the eyes of those who fear free speech - perhaps not "for the rest of recorded time," but at least for now. Yet they remain concerned politicians will be bought. Or rather, some politicians.
Quick show of hands from those who cheered Elizabeth Warren's victory in Massachusetts: Do you expect the $39 million she collected in contributions, or the $2 million spent on her behalf by a Democratic super PAC, will turn her into a shill for donors' interests? No? Didn't think so. Likewise, The New York Times does not object to the huge sums spent on electioneering communications by big corporations, such as - oh, The New York Times. (See e.g. "Barack Obama for Re-Election," editorial endorsement, Oct. 27.) At bottom, it isn't political spending per se that many find so troubling. Just other people's political spending.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
A. Barton Hinkle is Deputy Editor of the Editorial Pages at Richmond Times-Dispatch
Comment by clicking here.
• 11/07/12: The $4,000 Trash Can: We need regulation, but not this much
• 10/23/12: The Ballad of Islamist Rage Boy
• 10/17/12: Undermining the values that enable people in poverty to escape it? Sadly, yes
• 10/11/12: How Much Is This Tax Cut Gonna Cost Me, Doc?
• 10/04/12: Warrantless spying skyrockets under Obama
• 08/20/12: The wrong side absolutely must not win
• 08/14/12: America was not built on dirt alone
• 08/02/12: Libs Discover Their Inner Cheney
• 07/30/12: Feds want to help you --- whether you want help or not
• 07/23/12: Barack Obama, Storyteller-in-Chief
• 07/23/12: Nation's worst outsourcer? You
• 07/19/12: Listen up, America: You need to knuckle under
• 07/12/12: Obama, Romney: As Different as Two Peas in a Pod
• 07/05/12: Are teenagers big children --- or little adults?
• 06/25/12: Minorities treated as mere numbers
• 06/21/12: Memo to the the Little Guy: Seemingly innocuous activity could bring the federal hammer down out of a clear blue sky
• 06/19/12: We mustn't let America be buffaloed
• 05/31/12: Drop and Give Uncle Sam 20
• 05/15/12: The feds would like to know if you enjoyed that video
• 05/03/12: Obama inspires: 'America --- Still Not as Bad Off as Venezuela!'
• 04/26/12: It's everyone's favorite time of year again
• 03/29/12: GOP disillusionment is a good thing
• 03/27/12: Just what America needs: more red tape
• 03/20/12: Nation wondering: what happening to language?
• 02/21/12: Culture warriors resort to propaganda
• 02/15/12: Step away from that cookie and grab some air
• 02/08/12: Lessons in heresy
• 02/01/12: Do We Really Need Pickle-Flavored Potato Chips?
• 01/11/12: Shut up, they explained
• 12/30/11: A Modest Proposal: Let's Ban All Sports!
• 12/26/11: A Christmas letter from the Obamas
• 02/24/11: Will the next Watson need us?
• 12/24/10: Here Are Some Good Gifts for People You Hate
• 06/15/10: The Presinator
• 05/26/10: More than equal
• 04/08/10: Angry Right Takes a Page From Angry Left but guess who is ugly?
• 02/16/10: Either Obama owes George W. Bush an apology, or he owes the rest of us a very good explanation for his about-face on wiretapping
• 02/03/10: Talkin' to us 'tards
• 01/27/10: I never thought I'd see the day when progressives would howl in ragebecause the Supreme Court said government should not ban books
• 01/07/10: Gun-Control Advocates Play Fast and Loose
• 12/31/09: Nearly everything progressives say about neoconservative interventionism abroad applies to their own preferred policies at home
© 2011, A. Barton Hinkle
Richard Z. Chesnoff
Frank J. Gaffney
Victor Davis Hanson
A. Barton Hinkle
Judge A. Napolitano
Debra J. Saunders
J. D. Crowe
David Ray Skinner
Ask Doctor K