As I read, hear and watch the coverage of the coming election, it seems to me that the real issues might not be the economy, but these:
- For the Presidential race: What sort of Supreme Court justices and federal judges would each presidential candidate be nominating? More Alitos, Roberts, Scalias and Thomases -- or more Ginsburgs, Breyers, Sotomayors, Kagans?
- For the Senators up for election: What sort of Supreme Court Justices will they be required by the leadership in their party to vote for or against?
- For Congress and Senators: What bills would they propose or be willing to vote for in response to the Citizens United decision Supreme Court decision? Does each candidate see anything troubling about that decision?
- I might add to that the question that of, in view of the fact that 1/3 of American women have an abortion sometime in their lifetimes, one thinks it appropriate to vote for people who would criminalize this extremely personal decision. I'm all for safe, legal and rare, and applaud all who work to reduce the need for abortions, but
The rest of the issues, it seems to me, are secondary.
I'll try to remember to take another look at this issue from time to time.
As I listen to poll results, I think of the questions that are asked and conclusions one might jump to based on them. Were I asked "is this country on the right track or the wrong track?" or whatever the standard formulation for that question is, I'd answer "wrong track." But that doesn't translate into a vote for Republican candidates.
I think our current candidates are not looking at the relevant issues. And that's how our incentives are set up.
P.S. on 1/14: I appreciated this comment on one of the NYT op-eds:
The Supreme Court has made campaign finance reform impossible without a Constitutional amendment. Which is why I will contribute magnanimously to the next candidate who makes such an amendment a top priority. And by magnanimously, I mean $25, which is all I have, having given the other $25 to Elizabeth Warren.
Comments