Comments on: A suggestion: People who pose as Constitutional literalists should know what’s in it

By: Fratguy's friend

Fratguy's friend — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:30:04 +0000

Okay, so much for my get-rich-quick-by-being-a-racist strategy. I will start my intellectual timeclock now … or actually after I drink this pitcher of beer. Thanks for the career advice!

By: Historiann

Historiann — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 14:01:09 +0000

Dr. Koshary–I’m not a 20th C or Civil Rights historian, but as far as I know, Williams’s book and PBS series were considered very respectable popular histories. I’ll be interested to hear what people closer to the field think.

By: JackDanielsBlack

JackDanielsBlack — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 12:03:39 +0000

Nina Totenberg and Cokie Roberts are NPR commentators who have made politically suspect comments on other shows over the years (for example, Totenberg opined that it would be nice if Jesse Helms or his grandkids got AIDS, while Roberts seems to think that Glen Beck is a terrorist.) Wonder if they’ll be summarily fired for violating NPR’s policies? Oh, wait, I guess not, because they are not black men flirting with conservatism. NPR–the only liberal news network with no black news analysts! The hypocrisy of liberals never fails to amaze me.

By: Dr. Koshary

Dr. Koshary — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:19:12 +0000

The sad thing to me — maybe I should say ‘sad and surprising’ — is that Juan Williams was, at an earlier point in time, a thinker and analyst worthy of respect. I’m not a historian, so I’ve never had professional opportunity/need to read his work with a fine-toothed comb, but I remember encountering Eyes on the Prize‘s documentary adaptation, and being impressed with its thoroughness. (Full admission of my wet-behind-the-ears youth: I was in high school at the time.)

Was my initial impression mistaken, in the eyes of his fellow US historians? Or did he raise hackles among his colleagues before he began this shifty “I can be an NPR correspondent AND a Fox News media-whore!” business?

By: Historiann

Historiann — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 04:26:23 +0000

Heh, Fratguy’s friend. The irony is that in order to cash in on racist comments, you need to spend a good 20 or 30 years building up a reputation as a sensible, serious, semi-intellectual. (For example: if not a gig as a news analyst at NPR, at least 6 appearances on Charlie Rose, plus a few in-depth articles published in The Atlantic.) Then and only then is it worthwhile for Rupert Murdoch to buy you out with a $2M contract. It won’t pay to be a random, obscure racist.

So, you’d better get going on that 20-30 year investment in earning goodwill and a reputation for a moderate level of intellectual seriousness. Some of us have a good 15-year head start on you!

By: Fratguy's friend

Fratguy's friend — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 03:49:53 +0000

Is there anything in the First Ammendment that guarantees that I will get a job if I make a racist comment? I don’t have a job and might be willing to insult large groups of innocent people to get a good job.

By: Historiann

Historiann — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 18:44:09 +0000

Excellent point, cgeye. It IS NPR’s fault. (They have black news show hosts like Michele Norris and Michel Martin, but as you note, in a majority black city, they could do a heck of a lot better.)

By: cgeye

cgeye — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:52:14 +0000

Isn’t the fault NPR only having one black news analyst? And one who wasn’t satisfied having that bully pulpit, and decided to flirt with conservatism, at that?

The best thing about Williams leaving is that it opens up that slot (tokenism, for good or ill….) to someone who could stand for something more than placeholding. For a corporation based in a majority-black city, it can do better — and should.

By: JackDanielsBlack

JackDanielsBlack — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:52:03 +0000

KC, I think we’ve about beat this one to death, so this will be my last post on it. Let me close by pointing out that if we don’t at least adhere to the plain language that is in the Constitution we end up with ridiculous opinions like Justice Douglas’ invocation of “penumbras” and “emanations” of various Bill of Rights guarantees as creating “a zone of privacy” in Griswold v Connecticut. Whether you think this case was decided rightly or wrongly, one’s confidence is not helped by watching Douglas’ frantic armwaving in his opinion. By invoking penumbras and emanations, you can use the Constitution to justify just about anything!

By: KC

KC — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:50:09 +0000

KC, again you are putting words into my mouth and then criticizing me for saying them. I did not say that separation of Church and State was “some liberal invention out of whole cloth”; indeed, Thomas Jefferson interpreted the first amendment in this way. Of course, Jefferson also had some interesting ideas on States Rights that you probably wouldn’t adopt with the same enthusiasm — google “Kentucky Resolutions” for an example.

Yes, exactly the reason why I think it is stupid to attempt to limit interpretations of the Constitution to the kind of strict literalism that O’Donnell favors. The founders were not unusually wise in many respects.