Full text.

With my editor's permission, I've posted the full text of my Wall Street Journal op-ed.

"Politics sometimes blends in with celebrity."

Said Barack Obama to Oprah Winfrey, as quoted in Maureen Dowd's TimesSelect column.

"And it gobbles you up because the tendency is for people to want to see you perform and say what they want to hear, as opposed to you trying to stay in touch with, you know, that deepest part of you, that kernel of truth inside."

Dowd aptly quips:

Doesn’t he see that when you express this skepticism on Oprah it is not skepticism at all?

It almost seems unfair to quote that quote. Maybe the things said inside the Oprah confessional should not be repeated outside of it. Can you even parse that quote into something that makes sense?

Politics blended with celebrity... gobbles you up?

What was he thinking? Now I'm speaking to a lot of women, so a cooking metaphor seems good. Politics blended with celebrity... mmm... yummy. But then he loses focus on the possibility of a metaphor -- food shouldn't be gobbling you up -- as he goes for the gooshy emotion. He's getting gobbled up! Yikes! It's all those people who want you to be want they want, when you're trying to stay in touch with ... with what? ... yourself, presumably. But let's Oprahfy it... that deepest part of you, that kernel of truth inside. Any intelligent person serving up those words -- here, have a kernel! -- has got to be thinking oh, what garbage, but this is the sort of thing you're supposed to say here, to prove there really is something to you, some core of authenticity. There's a big, roiling phony world of people trying to ruin the real you, and what you've got to do is steady yourself and go deep inside, because, of course, there's a kernel in there. Mmm... yum. Phony authenticity. My favorite.

"I think I'm more joyful than she is."

What a great stereotypical example of utterly lame woman-to-woman competitiveness!

Who should I vote for?

Even though I write about politics every day here, I have given very little thought to the question of who I'll vote for next month. With no party affiliation and not particularly liking anyone, I find it enough of a pain to develop preferences that I've seriously considered not voting.

There are two ballot issues -- same-sex marriage and the death penalty -- that are designed to get out the vote and that I really do have very distinct preferences about, and that will probably push me get me to go over to the church. So, with the election coming up awfully soon, it's time to figure out what to do about the actual politicians who seek my support.

I'm looking at three Democratic incumbents: Governor Jim Doyle, Senator Herb Kohl, and Representative Tammy Baldwin. The corresponding Republican challengers are: Mark Green, Robert Lorge, and Dave Magnum.

Who should I vote for?

"The advice that came back was unabashed: 'You must take him down.'"

"Him," meaning President Bush. That advice -- according to WaPo -- came from "advertising executives, Internet moguls and language specialists," who were consulted by Nancy Pelosi after the Democrats did badly in the 2004 election.

advertising executives, Internet moguls and language specialists.... advertising executives, Internet moguls and language specialists.... advertising executives, Internet moguls and language specialists... advertising executives, Internet moguls and language specialists....

I'm having trouble thinking about government this morning...

"Politics makes artists stupid."

Let's check out the part of the Wall Street Journal we can all read. They've got a piece by my favorite Wall Street Journal writer, Terry Teachout, about the play -- shudder -- "My Name Is Rachel Corrie":

It's an ill-crafted piece of goopy give-peace-a-chance agitprop--yet it's being performed to cheers and tears before admiring crowds of theater-savvy New Yorkers who, like [co-writer and director Alan] Rickman himself, ought to know better.

So why don't they?...

"My Name Is Rachel Corrie," by contrast, is a scrappy, one-sided monologue consisting of nothing but the fugitive observations of a young woman who, like so many idealists, treated her emotions as facts. "I am disappointed," she declares, "that this is the base reality of our world and that we, in fact, participate in it. This is not at all what I asked for when I came into this world." To mistake such jejune disillusion for profundity and turn it into the climax of a full-length play is an act of piety, not artistry.

"No Exit: Judicial activism is inevitable."

You'll need to be a Wall Street Journal subscriber to read it, but that's the title of my op-ed today. First paragraph:

Everyone seems to oppose judicial activism these days. If you don’t like the role the courts are currently exercising, you find a way to call it “activism” and argue that the change you want would be “restraint.” But if the status quo pleases you, you insist that what the judges are doing is not “activism,” rather, nothing more than what the law requires. Or you concede the existence of activism—but contend that changing things will only unleash a new form of far more virulent activism.

ADDED: My point in this piece is that activism/restraint rhetoric is very common and that you need to realize that it's being used by people who probably have substantive preferences. As such, you've got to expect them to warn you about "activism" with respect to outcomes they don't like and characterize things they do like as a way to avoid activism. I refer to Justice Scalia's recent ACLU debate and to Richard Fallon's SLU lecture (which I blogged about here).

AND: My editor says it's okay to reprint the whole text. Here it is:

Wall Street Journal
No Exit
By ANN ALTHOUSE
October 21, 2006; Page A9

Everyone seems to oppose judicial activism these days. If you don't like the role the courts are currently exercising, you find a way to call it "activism" and argue that the change you want would be "restraint." But if the status quo pleases you, you insist that what the judges are doing is not "activism," rather, nothing more than what the law requires. Or you concede the existence of activism -- but contend that changing things will only unleash a new form of far more virulent activism.

There was a time -- not all that long ago -- when we openly praised the activist judge and scoffed at the stingy jurist who invoked notions of judicial restraint. That restraint was a smokescreen for some nasty hostility toward individual rights, we'd say. Now we all seem to love to wrap ourselves in the mantle of the new fashion. But that fashion comes at the price of candor.

Consider abortion. The Supreme Court has begun its 2006 term, and there are two abortion cases scheduled for argument on Nov. 8. Up for decision this time around: whether the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act violates the Constitution.

Back in 2000, the court struck down a state "partial-birth" abortion statute. In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia mocked the majority for thinking that judges, by locating abortion rights in the Constitution, could put an end to political conflicts over abortion. The court, he wrote, had only "inflamed our national politics" and blundered into "the abortion-umpiring business." His was a plea to abandon activism: The court ought to overrule Roe v. Wade and let the people fight over abortion in the state political arenas.

Justice Scalia often repeats his plea -- about abortion rights specifically and about judging generally. For example, last Sunday, in a televised debate sponsored by the ACLU, he dutifully professed not to "take any public view on whether it would be good or bad" for government to adopt one regulation or another and to limit his work to figuring out whether or not those things other people want are supported by the Constitution. Do we really believe that?

Two days before Justice Scalia spoke Harvard law professor Richard H. Fallon Jr. gave a lecture at Saint Louis University School of Law in which he speculated about the legal landscape if Justice Scalia got his way. Mr. Fallon declined to disclose his personal preference about whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Yet he took great pains to amass an astoundingly complex collection of legal issues that could plague the courts in the post-Roe world. (What if one state attempted to regulate whether its citizens could obtain an abortion in another state? Constitutional?)

Don't be fooled, Mr. Fallon said: The courts will remain embroiled in the abortion-umpiring business, with or without Roe. Bemoan activism all you like, but be forewarned: There's even more of it in the world after Roe.

As one of the panelists, I suggested that Mr. Fallon meant for his project to function as an argument against overturning Roe. He resisted: No, it isn't a question of whether the courts should be restrained or whether individual rights do warrant active judicial protection. It is simply an exercise in thinking through the new problems that would arise post-Roe.

Still, the implications are clear. The Supreme Court once imagined -- wrongly -- that enshrining abortion rights in the Constitution would spare us a torturous political fight. It did not, and the court's initial feat of creativity laid the groundwork for decades of controversial cases and contentious confirmation battles. Nevertheless, it is also a delusion to think that matters would improve if the court rescinded those rights. New political fights would spring up and produce a new set of cases that would plunge the courts into even more troublesome legal disputes. The sought-after exit from "the abortion-umpiring business" would not take place. There is no exit.

That easily translates into the conclusion: Roe v. Wade should not be overturned. But it is an oblique argument that avoids speaking directly about the importance or reality of the rights in question. Instead, the argument appeals to our preferences and aversions about judicial behavior. And it assumes that these days we like our judges restrained. With this assumption, we're reconfiguring arguments into plans for -- or intimations about -- minimizing judicial activism.

We can see the same phenomenon this fall in the debate about state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, which are on the ballot in a number of states, including mine. Supporters of the amendment say that we need it in order to get out in front of judges who might succumb to activism and discover a right to same-sex marriage lurking hitherto unobserved in the state constitution.

In response, opponents of the amendment struggle to convince voters that our state supreme court justices are modest and circumspect, and can be trusted not to short circuit what should be a democratic decision-making process. But opponents have a second move. The proposed Wisconsin amendment bans not only same-sex marriage, but also any "legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage." That language is perplexing enough to give substance to their argument that the amendment will perversely drag courts right back into the controversy the amendment's proponents are saying we need to keep them out of.

It is worthwhile to devote some attention to the question of what should be determined by judges and what ought to be left to legislators. But the current fashion of framing substantive issues in terms of activism or restraint can only take you so far -- which isn't very. Those who offer advice about finding the way around judicial activism tend to have substantive preferences that affect which pitfalls they choose to warn you about -- and which ones they don't.

Ann and Dan!

Hey! It's me and Dan Drezner on Bloggingheads TV! ADDED: I just watched it. I wish we'd coordinated our head sizes and lighting. How discordant is that for you? But I like the flow of the discussion. We start out talking about Hugo Chavez's thwarted quest for a seat on the U.N. Security Council, and then we head into the subjects of free speech on campus, virtual reality, reality TV, blogging, and the upcoming elections. It was really cool talking to Dan. I assume you read his blog, but let me point you there anyway.

"A reality show with fashion integrity."

Robin Givhan approves of Jeffrey Sebelia's "Project Runway" victory. He won because his collection was the best, and even though he was not the fan favorite -- that was clearly Michael Knight -- and in fact he was nasty enough that he -- notoriously -- made someone's mother cry -- and refused to apologize for it:

Sebelia stood out because he sent fashion -- something personal and challenging -- down the runway....

It has been hard to like Sebelia over the course of the last few months. The usual reality show editing and his own acid tongue conspired to portray him as insufferable and self-absorbed. Like his fellow contestants, he complained about his competitors. But Sebelia continued to malign his nemesis, Angela Keslar, long after she had been eliminated. He defended his condescending rudeness to Keslar's mother -- who had the misfortune of being Sebelia's "client" for one of the challenges -- by saying he was being honest and she was being difficult....

Sebelia was a splendid reality show star, and it may be that he survived several eliminations because of the sick pleasure the audience took in his appalling behavior. He could have been sent home after he dressed Keslar's mother in about five yards of pure, dark purple "ugly." The frumpy, asymmetrical frock led Kors to describe it as Comme des Garcons goes to Amish country. Sebelia could also have been sent packing when he created a black and white cocktail dress that looked like he'd been given a budget of 10 bucks and still managed to come back with change. Bennett and the other finalists had even accused him of outsourcing his sewing. At the beginning of Wednesday's show, he had to produce proof that he had not cheated, or face disqualification an hour before his debut at New York fashion week.

Sebelia was kept on because he provided more than just wicked entertainment. He was talented and creative. And more than any other contestant, he was a fashion designer and not just a guy trying to make nice clothes.

Yeah. And don't forget that I was a Jeffrey supporter from pretty early on. I want to retrace my reaction to Jeffrey.

Episode 1:

That guy with the writing tattoo'd all over his neck? I'm fed up to here with looking at his neck! Why would you go and mess up your whole neck like that? How can his judgment about anything be trusted?

The episode about making clothes from trash:

And Michael wins again! Cool! Jeffrey comes in second and -- like an idiot -- he expresses his jealousy: Michael won for a "diabetic" outfit. No flavor.

August 19th: I'm still hung up on the neck tattoo.

My reaction to the episode where Jeffrey makes Angela's mom cry:

In the original consultation with Jeffrey -- who only had her as a model because he got last choice (no choice) -- Angela's mom told him two colors she liked. Shopping, he decided he needed a better color match and went with light blue, which upset her rather bizarrely. He dealt with it badly, and both the mom and Angela exploited his emotional weakness by acting all emotional, in a much warmer way, which made him look monstrous... just by chance. I love when Angela and her mom are behind the screen and Angela is all you have a right to say you're not happy.

Meanwhile, all the other designers displayed a nice bond with their models -- though Robert's distaste for his large-sized model showed when she wasn't around. So Jeffrey, you were outplayed. And you should see how much you were helped by your own mom, who -- by being nicely normal -- humanized you.

On reading an Entertainment Weekly article about why the show is so great (one reason being "The judges reward actual talent...."):

As the guy with the tattoo on his neck, Jeffrey Sebelia, puts it ''We're not eating cow's balls or having to survive in the jungle with one book of matches and a bottle of water.'' Exactly! Yeah, there's no career in "cow" ball eating. Aw, leave our darling tattoo boy alone! It's not that it's hard to tell a cow from a bull, but it's funny to act like you don't give a damn.

Suddenly, he became "our darling tattoo boy" to me. I've got to admit that the "mom" episode seems to have turned me toward him!

From the black-and-white challenge:

It was kind of surprising that the tattoo boy, Jeffrey, finished in the bottom two, though not the slightest bit suprising that he survived. The judges swing back and forth with him. They either like their rock and roll boy, or they wonder why he is always the rock and roll boy. Well, I like him, and I even liked his goofy cocktail dress with plastic leg casings. So what if we keep getting Gwen Stefani?

So there's my emotional arc.

"If I thought that cameras in the Supreme Court would really educate the people, I would be all for it."

"But I think it would miseducate and misinform," said Justice Scalia -- in the same speech as I linked in the previous post:

"Most of the time the court is dealing with "bankruptcy code, the internal revenue code, [the labor law] ERISA -- stuff only a lawyer would love. Nobody's going to be watching that gavel-to-gavel except a few C-SPAN junkies," he said.

"For every one of them, there will be 100,000 people who will see maybe 15 second take-out on the network news, which I guarantee you will be uncharacteristic of what the Supreme Court does."

If this principle were seriously believed, you'd have to be in favor of suppressing all the news.

"My first response to that question always is, it's six years ago. Get over it!"

Justice Scalia responds to a question about Bush v. Gore. He adds: "It surely is not activist to apply the text of the Constitution, which is what the court did." Yes. But that's what they all say. It could be true, but asserting it doesn't make it so.

"Now he looks washed, rinsed, bleached, his flat smile an awful rictus; that upper lip has lost all its lift."

That's Martin Amis describing George Bush (in a review of Bob Woodward's "State of Denial"):

Until [9/11], “US hegemony” was largely a matter of facts and figures, of graphs and pie-charts. Thereafter it became a matter of options and capabilities, of war plans cracked out on the President’s desk. We can understand the afflatus, the rush of blood, in the White House: overnight, demonstrably and palpably, a tax-cutting dry drunk from West Texas became the most powerful man in human history. One wonders, nowadays, how it goes with Bush, in his glands and sinews. Post-September 11, he had the body language of the man in the bar who isn’t going anywhere till he has had his fistfight. Now he looks washed, rinsed, bleached, his flat smile an awful rictus; that upper lip has lost all its lift.

Understand the afflatus.

Is law really this exciting?

That's the statue of Justice on display at Saint Louis University School of Law (where I was last week). Quite something, no? All we have is "Blind Bucky":



And it's not even a statue.

I don't like the way Bucky is holding the sword by the blade. And I don't like the way the SLU Justice is waving the sword around while blindfolded. In the classic portrayal of Justicia/Themis, the blindfolded goddess holds the sword by the handle and in the "down" position. Then there's the federal government's Spirit of Justice, who doesn't bother holding any implements but just flings her arms up in the Evita position and lets the toga fall where it may, setting the stage for years of fun mocking Attorneys General.

Sorry.

About the double post. [UPDATE: Fixed!] I'm having some trouble getting Blogger to perceive that I deleted it... Maybe pushing through this post will get it to pay attention. (That's the way I think about computers.) Meanwhile, comment on the first one.

"The Bush administration will be unable to achieve its goal of a stable, democratic Iraq within a politically feasible time frame."

WaPo has a big article saying "[s]enior figures in both parties are coming to [that] conclusion."

And here's a quote from Joe Biden:

[I]f the Democrats win big in next month's elections, "You have a lot of Republicans who are going to openly join Democrats and will push back hard against the president."

Or perhaps you prefer Carl Levin:

Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), who would take over the chairmanship of the Armed Services Committee, said he favors beginning a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops that "gives the Iraqis notice that they're going to be looking into the abyss" unless they make necessary changes.

So... feel like talking about the abyss today?

"I'm a P.R. office for the White House."

Said Texas Supreme Court justice Nathan L. Hecht about his active promotion of the nomination of Harriet E. Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court. Later, he said that was a joke. The state Special Court of Review will announce today whether it agrees with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct said that he "improperly lent the prestige of his office to advance someone else’s 'private interests,' illegally used his name to endorse 'another candidate' for 'public office,' and violated the State Constitution by conduct discrediting the judiciary." The Texas ACLU has taken the justice's side.

In testimony to the Special Court of Review in August, Justice Hecht traced the start of his involvement in Ms. Miers’s nomination to a call from President Bush’s senior adviser, Karl Rove, on Oct. 1, 2005, two days before Mr. Bush announced his choice to fill the Supreme Court seat being vacated by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Justice Hecht told the court that Mr. Rove had asked him to talk to callers about Ms. Miers’s “faith, about her religious background,” and that the group included James C. Dobson, a conservative leader and founder of Focus on the Family.

Justice Hecht said he also answered news media queries, which he said were so numerous that he was asked to report back to a White House aide on the nature of the questions.

He conceded to the court that he told one reporter, “I’m a P.R. office for the White House,” but he later called that a joke.

Justice Hecht said he had considered the Code of Judicial Conduct during his campaign in support of Ms. Miers’s nomination but did not think he was in violation of it. That opinion, he said, was reinforced by two senior appellate judges with whom he conferred.

The evidence [Mark L. Greenwald, a special counsel for the commission] presented to the special review court included a television interview in which Justice Hecht vouched for Ms. Miers as an opponent of abortion, citing her attendance at “a church that is — takes an open pro-life stance.” He also said of Ms. Miers: “She is very charming, of course. Everybody says gracious, but also very determined.”

UPDATE: Hecht wins. Good.