Cards on the table: I think Rush Limbaugh acts like a baby. I mean that in a bad way, for all you parents of perfect babies.
More precisely, I think Rush’s behavior frequently mimics that of spoiled toddlers. While he occasionally offers helpful insights to important conversations, most of the time his goal seems clearly to attract attention—and in so doing, to justify to the marketplace his many-zeroed salary. Like a spoiled toddler in a home with clueless, exhausted, or distracted parents, he seems to succeed because when they're clueless, exhausted or distracted, most all of us enjoy name-calling more than nuance, and jingoism more than journalism. Thoughtful conservatives I respect, like George Will, John Danforth, or Gen. Colin Powell, do what discreet people of courage and character usually do with windbags: They usually keep silent (except when they can’t!)
Rush’s whining about the newest Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, is one example. As a pre-law major in Constitutional Democracy, I tend to agree with conservative, textually-based interpretations of constitutional law. (I also notice that oftentimes justices who enjoy the label of strict-interpretationalists seem unaware of their own cultural-cognitive ghetto when interpreting). And because she apparently doesn’t think exactly like I do, I’m not sure that I’ll like all the calls Judge Sotomayor’s will make from her new & bigger bench.
But calling any accomplished professional, dedicated civil servant a racist because of one or two slightly offensive (to high-paid people in power like himself) shout-outs to her home-town base (lower-paid people without power like most Hispanics) strikes me as self-serving, hate-mongering, and just logically baseless (my attempt not use the word ‘stupid’, which you should
never call a toddler). And to have a hugely powerful white guy call the first minority female success-story at the door of the Supreme Court "a racist" for trivial remarks years ago—-that borders on the sin God finds most abominable: insolent pride.
I speak from experience, which is not an altogether bad lens with which to look at constitutions—or Bible passages, for that matter. I worked for years with a brilliant female pastor who was the wife of a strong, good-humored man, and the confident, whining-intolerant mother of four gifted, gracious kids. (She was whining-intolerant of staff & colleagues, too, a trait I tried to value exceedingly!) I came into the staff as the book-smart, in-charge white guy, and because I had the longer resume and bigger title, I assumed that, in a pinch, I’d make the better decisions. In contrast, my colleague had the quiet confidence of someone whose life full of much more diverse experiences made her more capable of seeing forests through the trees (and frankly, seeing some toxic trees in otherwise peaceful forest!) Our church ended up honoring Jesus more as it listened to her insights more often. In many ways, the church grew healthier as she grew into the power her greater experience deserved.
So when Judge Sotomayor said,
"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,”
did it betray a certain pride and confidence that God had given her the challenges He did for a reason? I hope so. Did it convey that she had seen white men in power make momentous decisions without much life-wisdom? It sure did. Does it also imply that she may have a certain empathy for the poor, so that all else being equal (though it never is, really), she’d be alert to the effects of decisions on them? Maybe.
But unlike temper-tantrumy toddlers, schoolyard bullies, and radio roughnecks, I don’t find her confidence threatening. (Ok, that there was kind of a schoolyard brag--sorry.) I think that hers is a healthy grown-up perspective from someone who worked her tail off to rise in power from an economically and politically underprivileged community. It’s not the only healthy perspective an honorable jurist could have. But it’s not unhealthy. It’s not unpatriotic. And it certainly is not injudicious. In fact, I bet it’ll be darn good for Americans of all paychecks and colors.
Angry rich white ones included.
Psalm 72:1 Give your love of justice to the king, O God,
and righteousness to the king’s son.
2 Help him judge your people in the right way;
let the poor always be treated fairly.
3 May the mountains yield prosperity for all,
and may the hills be fruitful.
4 Help him to defend the poor,
to rescue the children of the needy,
and to crush their oppressors.
5 May they fear you as long as the sun shines,
as long as the moon remains in the sky.
