Potpourri

It has been postulated that a Dem prez starting in 2009 could swing the Supreme Court away from extremism. Possible. Firstly, that depends on the Democratic Party managing to construct a winning coalition. Secondly, it's not just about winning the elections, but more successfully framing the issues. The big picture--it's not enough, as Bill Clinton showed, to win the White House. You have to control the national debate to create a strong, effective political party. The Dems seem to be perfectly happy working from the paradigms the Republicans and their radicals create. This is nonsense. When speaking with Bush voters (not supporters, there's a difference), Loyal Opposition was told many times that "We just shouldn't change Presidents in the middle of a war." Loyal Opposition would often times ask them "Which war are you talking about?" Many times, people would answer "Iraq" when they were thinking more in terms of "the war on terror." The war on terror is a lie. It's a useful construct designed not to describe the reality of the situation, but rather to create a brand that carries a certain recognition and subsequent psychological response. Unlike the war on drugs, the war on terror has a more immediate and cursory resemblance to an actual war. But the reality just isn't there. And it hurt the Democrats. The Dems played ball with this characterization, out of fear, out of cynical intention to use it for their own benefit, whatever. But it isn't benefitting them. John Kerry's biggest mistake was not making his own frame and subscribing to the war on terror. However you criticize the war on terror's prosecution, you're on ground that's favorable to the president--because it's his war. He created the terms. He knows the terrain--and he can use it better to his advantage because of its connotations and implications. The way to reframe is to show how "the war on terror" conception hasn't kept us safe at all. That's just one example of the folly of following a Republican, radical script. It applies to domestic policy as well---without a frame, there is no chance to establish yourself as having a true, differing vision.

So before we even get to the Supreme Court, there's that.

Rehnquist is going. There a replacement is merely an increase in degree. But Stevens will likely go--there you replace a liberal leaning justice with a radical. You have then a 6-3 majority. O'Connor has expressed a will to retire---she has been generally favorable to women's rights. If you replace her with a dogmatic radical, you lose even that slight bit of moderation. That will have tremendous impact on constitutional law even if a Dem president can replace one of those 6. Which is assuming that a Dem president can get elected and not encounter obstruction from a Republican congress, both of which are large assumptions. Even if a Dem president is elected, odds are he'd merely be replacing liberals with moderates, which doesn't change the score. Now, there's room for hope--life is unpredictable. But it looks, at the moment, like there's more cause for battening down the hatches than hoping for 2008.