Ignore Intellect, Embrace Ethnicity

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” – Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

All the headlines, commentary, and punditry surrounding the recent appointment of Judge Sonia Sotomayor has brought forth an important question for Americans to consider: what makes a good judge? And in this particular case, what matters more in considering the qualities of a judge: race/ethnicity or their abilities as a jurist concerning the highest law? With all due respect to Judge Sotomayor, neither race nor jurisprudence warrant a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

If there is reason to confirm Judge Sotomayor on the basis of her brilliant legal mind, it is going overlooked. The focus has almost entirely been centered on her ethnicity and background. This of course includes a quintessentially American story, replete with both warm fuzzy feelings and tear-jerking details. Most of the emphasis is on her race. The argument (articulated by both herself and her supporters) seems to be that she will be a better judge for America because she’s Latina.

So we can forget the importance of legal reasoning in favor of her background, her “compelling personal story”, and her brown-ness. Sound ridiculous? Well, it is. It reeks of prejudice and racial preference when put in plain terms. She’s a favorite of the President because of her ethnicity, there’s little argument about it.

The travesty here is that the great aim of liberty and justice is equality under the law. To the degree in which people are treated differentially under one law, there will be injustice. Giving preferential treatment based on race is no more honorable than the Jim Crowe laws decades ago. Racial preference by it’s very definition is the antithesis of equality under the law. Affirmative action, nominating judges based on race, and other prejudice sentiments make a mockery of equality under the law, just like “separate but equal” did in years past. Not only is Sotomayor’s nomination teeming with prejudice, much of her judicial thought is as well.

Sotomayor’s jurisprudence (or lack thereof) regarding Ricci v. DeStefano is appalling. In this case a test was administered to firefighters in New Haven, CT so to promote the highest scoring individuals. When the results came back, the high-scoring field was not sufficiently racially diverse so the city refused to certify the test (in essence, they threw the test out).

My legal reasoning indicates that the case should be overturned and the higher scoring firefighters given promotions based on the merits of their performance, not the color of their skin. But even if you don’t agree with that outright, a careful consideration is due to these firefighters given the complex legal issues at stake. That apparently was too much to ask from Sotomayor.

Without any diligent effort, Sotomayor neglected to provide opinion on the matter. Rather, she simply joined the other judges on her panel in issuing an “unpublished summary order”, a decision only intended to be used when a case is not of any substantial weight and no purpose could be served from serving an opinion. With grave Constitutional issues hanging in the balance, she punted the decision.

And this wasn’t the first time she had joined such a cavalier, unwarranted ruling. She used the same tactic in Didden v. The Village of Port Chester, a case in which a landowner had his property seized for refusing to comply with a politically powerful developer. The city exercised expanded power under the “Takings Clause” from the Kelo v. City of New London decision.

Kelo has been ridiculed as a gross violation of property rights by legal minds across the political spectrum. Many states subsequently passed laws forbidding the government from unwarranted seizure of property. Yet again, Sotomayor flippantly avoided weighty legal issues in the case and provided no comment. She simply felt the seizure of land was right and offered no legal opinion in justification.

There has also been some news of late concerning Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion in the Hayden v. Pataki case dealing with convicted felon’s voting. In her dissent she implies that felon’s are unjustly disenfranchised when not allowed to vote. Obama fancies empathy as a highlight on a judicial resume. So empathetic they believe convicted felons are disenfranchised? I digress.

In addition, Sotomayor—when given the opportunity—has failed to confront the delicate issue of the Second Amendment in any meaningful way. In the case U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar Sotomayor joined a decision that concluded "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right." The case dealt with the State’s ability to ban private citizens from possessing weapons. Even if you’re not a card-carrying member of the NRA be aware: there is a host of legal tension around this issue. Does the Second Amendment apply only to the U.S. Congress? To the States? With bold contempt again, Sotomayor joined in the unsigned opinion (meaning the author of the opinion is ambiguous) thus in the Sanchez-Villar case. Apparently the complex legal issues and Constitutional severity weren’t enough to induce a response from Sotomayor.

Sotomayor will not make a suitable judge for the U.S. Supreme Court. She has been selected and supported thus far because of her race, an effort as incorrectly prejudice as it is unjust. Her affinity for avoiding difficult decisions is hardly becoming of a Supreme Court Justice and her demonstrable contempt for the Constitution is reason alone to oppose her nomination.

Since I don’t believe one race ought to be given preference over another, I’m left without reason to support this nominee. Our President can’t say the same, so what does that say about him?

“…one should hope that the men who head the state resemble the law, for the law does not punish because it is angry but because it is just” – Marcus Tullius Cicero

Crouch, touch, hold, offend?

If you've ever been to a rugby party, you've probably been "offended." Rugby songs, to say nothing of drunk ruggers themselves, have a way with words. Each verse of "Jesus Can't Play Rugby," for example, offers a blasphemous addendum: "because he only had 12 friends," "his Dad would rig the game," and "he doesn't f***ing exist," to name a few.

But when a black Luther student was "offended" by a recent "gangsta" Luther women's rugby party, he sought vengeance. He sent a letter to the administration and circulated it to students. He later said, "This is a countrywide problem, this stereotype of what black men are. But I wanted to eradicate it at my college."

Luther summoned the girls for an inquisition and forced them to admit their "ignorance." They confessed their sins in a humiliating campus-wide email and will be punished with community service next year. Most importantly, Luther's Diversity Center has a refreshed mandate for preventing offensiveness.

I sent a letter to the Star Tribune, which strangely carried this story:

Dear Star Tribune,

The Star Tribune reports that Luther College is taking action to address an offensive “gangster” themed rugby party (“Luther College to change diversity program over rugby party flap,” 26 May 2009). Perhaps even more disappointing than the Star Tribune’s sense of what is newsworthy is Luther College’s sense of what is offensive.

In 2007, Luther saw fit to host a traveling anti-Iraq War art exhibit in its student library. It featured a six by six foot swastika made up of little George W. Bush faces. Another piece displayed pictures of President Bush with the captions, “hates blacks,” “hates gays,” and “hates women.”

As a supporter of President Bush, I was "offended." But as a proponent of free expression, rather than demand changes in our “diversity” program (Bush-backers bring rare “diversity of opinion” to colleges like Luther), I sent a critique of the exhibit to the Star Tribune and the Des Moines Register. Only the Register felt it was newsworthy enough to print.

The “gangster” party was not as offensive or newsworthy as the Bush swastika, but perhaps when it comes to diversity, conservatives need not apply.

Pat Knapp

Back From the Dead, Rob Notices Media Obsession with Sotomayor's Race

Sorry for the absence lately. I've been busy here learning Marine Corps stuff and watching Twins games. Eventually one of us will, I'm sure, post a detailed analysis of Justice Sotomayor's jurisprudence, but for now I want to critique the media's coverage of the nomination.

"...A major effort to block her confirmation could be risky for a party still reeling from last year's elections. Hispanics are the fastest-growing part of the population and increasingly active politically." -Ben Feller, Associated Press

"[Wisconsin Democrat Senator Herb] Kohl said he thought Obama's selection of a woman and a Hispanic was a plus, adding to the diversity of the court." -Craig Gilbert, Journal Sentinel

"'A lot of Republicans are worried that [fighting the Sotomayor nomination] could be the last straw when it comes to the party's ability to reach the Hispanic community,' said Robert de Posada, a Latino GOP strategist who said he was advising Republican staffers on the Senate Judiciary Committee. 'Republicans are in a very awkward position'." -The LA Times' Peter Wallsten and Richard Simon's take, who also opened their piece with this:

"Rush Limbaugh called her a 'reverse racist'," perhaps further solidifying Rush's stature at the top of the GOP.

From the Chicago Tribune, Mark Silva waits until late in the story to bring up race: "In a speech at UC Berkeley in 2001, she suggested that her background and heritage helped guide her decision-making. 'I would hope that 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,' Sotomayor said."

This above quote is probably the crux of some arguments against Sotomayor's confirmation and seems to be the first legitimate mention of how her race, if at all, affects this nomination. All other mentions seem superfluous. Let's talk about her vision of the law, during the debate of her confirmation instead of making this a racial thing. Please.

Interestingly, the New York Times' online headline story on the nomination refused to being race into the equation, opting instead to discuss, seriously and maturely, Sotomayor's jurisprudence.


Update: Jonah Goldberg says, "Clarence Thomas understands what it is like to be poor and black better than any justice who has ever sat on the bench. How’s that working out for liberals?" Check out Goldberg's column (click on the word column).

Or, in honor of the Twins beating the Red Sox last night, listen to Jonah dominate on some Boston radio show.

Easy Money

I read this morning a delightful bit of news from Bloomberg. Apparently, two Harvard economists (please lower your head in reverence) Ken Rogoff and Greg Mankiw have requested that Fed Chairman Ben “The Liquidator” Bernanke target 6% inflation growth “for at least a couple of years”. There seems to have been calls for inflationary policy from other economists as well. I would like to be on the record (as marginally public The Founder’s Porch seems to be): this is a bad idea. There’s no simpler way to put it. The Fed should aim for price stability to avoid uncontrollable inflation.

Before we get started breaking down the issues, let’s all get caught up to speed. Monetary inflation is a function of how much currency is available and how fast it’s spent. Although expanding the money supply is typically characterized as “the Fed firing up the printing presses”, this is inaccurate. The money supply is primarily grown through issuing credit, and this is exponential. Here’s how it works (if you’re startled easily, please sit down). My explanation is a little over-simplified but in essence is true.

We have in this country what is called “fractional reserve banking”. This means that at any given time a bank only is only required to possess in reserves the cash to cover a fraction its liabilities. And to avoid confusion, a liability for a bank is the deposits from its customers. So when the lovable Ryan Seacrest deposits money at his local branch, although an asset for him it’s a liability for his bank. He can return and demand that money in cash and the bank is required to pay up. But wait, for those of you attentively following along, you’ll realize that because of the fractional reserve system a bank could have liabilities far surpassing their cash holdings. Well, you get a gold star if you caught that. Not only could a bank do that, they always do.

There are few reasons to hold “excess reserves” because when a bank keeps more than is required, they forego the income from interest on a new loan. The current reserve requirement as established by the Fed is 10%. That means when Mr. Seacrest deposits his $100 check, the bank only has to hold $10 cash in reserve to cover. And what do they do with the other $90? They loan it out, get the juice running, and you’ve got yourself an income generating depository institution.

So what does this have to do with expanding the monetary supply? Well, when Seacrest’s bank issues out the $90 worth in loans to Miley Cyrus, she deposits some portion of that money at her bank. And the cycle proceeds. So, expansion of credit is exponential. It is also largely determined by the Fed. When Miley needed a loan, she went to a commercial bank. But where does a bank for a loan? They turn to the Fed (the proverbial “banker’s bank”). The Federal Reserve is the key player in what economists call the “loanable funds market”. So if the Fed wants to expand the money supply, all they have to do is make it easier for banks to borrow from them (i.e. lower interest rates).

Here’s the grand finale. When the Fed loans out money, it’s starkly different than the rest of the market. When a bank borrows money from the Fed, new funds are simply added to their account housed there; money is literally created and added to their account. That’s the essence of the Federal Reserve’s power to create money. When they write a check, it comes out of thin air.

If that sounds a little fishy (the phrase “funny money” comes to mind), you’re on to something. There are many reputable economists (and disreputable economists as well, i.e. myself) who argue that our system of banking is in need of a little more accountability and a little less smoke and mirrors.

Thus we arrive at the first problem with Rogoff and Mankiw’s proposal. Under most conditions, banks hold little excess reserves. However, in times of crisis they become very particular and selective about how much money they will loan out (hence the term “credit crisis”). In times of great uncertainty, banks tend to hold more in reserves to avoid a “Mary Poppins”-esque run on the bank.

Prior to the current economic malaise banks held around $1-2 billion in excess reserves at the Fed. Today, the total is around $877 billion. That means that there is a huge sum of currency that is out of circulation. And if you recall, inflation is a function of quantity of money and how fast it’s spent. As soon as banks start lending again and consumer spending picks up, you can be sure those dollars in excess will become dollars chasing goods, bidding up prices, and thus causing inflation. The money is already there; the Fed can’t issue less loans. There’s little the Fed can do to curb this cascading effect on money supply.

At the very least, it will be unfathomably difficult to maintain any semblance of price stability once the economy starts genuinely recovering. For this reason alone, it is unwise to pursue a policy of discretionary inflation. The effects are extremely volatile and unpredictable. We are better off pursuing a policy that aims towards price stability, this will enable economic growth.

The easy money policies of the Federal Reserve were one of the foremost contributing factors to the economic mess we are wading through today. Let’s not make the same mistake twice. Quite frankly, as there is no sense in using dynamite to open your front door, it’s dangerous to give the central bank the mandate to flood the economy with new money.

Standing with Isis

I subscribe to a stubborn rule against voting for politicians that do not believe in evolution, and the prospective Republican presidential candidate for 2012, Bobby Jindal, might put my rule to the test. “Jindal's position on creationism and intelligent design reveals a colossal break with reason that we cannot accommodate again in our elected officials,” the Huffington Post’s Rationalist-General Jeff Schweitzer recently warned. “Denying the validity of evolution is no different than claiming atoms do not exist or that the DNA is not genetic code, or that al Qaeda was in Iraq before our invasion. Jindal's position is untenable.”

It’s hard to fumble the defense of evolution, but Schweitzer did it: The hideous Mr. Movies louse-turned-drone of the prophet Muhammad and leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, entered Iraq to kill infidel Kurds well before the invasion (and recall that under the Baathists getting into Iraq without permission was as hard as getting out).

This bagatelle aside, Schweitzer is more right than he knows. Indeed, Americans shouldn’t “accommodate” politicians that make “a colossal break with reason.” That rules out Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison. Like all Muslims he believes Muhammad is the messenger of God. Beliefs can’t get much more “untenable” and obviously false than that.

But I’d add a more direct equivalence to Schweizer’s list: denying evolution “is no different than” denying evolution’s role in creating racial differences in brain power. Will Schweitzer vote for someone that denies that European descendants might have more brain power than African descendants? Of course! Otherwise who’d be left on the ballot? Liberals that condemn the study of innate brain differences are as naïve and backward as creationists. Alas, I might have to settle for Jindal after all.

The Star Tribune boldly ran an LA Times article last month describing a new brain theory: Ashkenazi Jews have inheritable genes that are especially susceptible to certain diseases, and evolution compensated by encoding in these same genes a brain power boost. For my money, creative brain power doesn’t get any better than Spinoza’s The Ethics, Einstein’s physics, Bob Dylan’s Mr. Tambourine Man, and Bruce Spingsteen’s Thunder Road – all Jews. My personal affinities aside, the Ashkenazi ethnic group contributes a disproportionately high number of scientists and CEOs, and scores better on IQ tests than Northern European and African descendants.

Cue the murmurs of the aghast: “Neil Risch, director of the Institute for Human Genetics…finds the matter so offensive he can barely discuss it without raising his voice. ‘Do they have genetic theories about why Latinos and African-Americans perform worse academically?’”

Why yes, see the 1994 book on the inheritability of intelligence, The Bell Curve, which was condemned with populist Swine flu fury. Liberals fear an inevitable link between “innate differences” and eugenics. Yet The Bell Curve’s libertarian authors wanted the government out of demographic engineering. It was the all-star progressives of yore (e.g. John Maynard Keynes and Margaret Sanger) that proposed the demented utopia-striving racial programs.

A more legitimate objection is that the truth hurts. A Jewish scientist withheld findings similar to the recent Ashkenazi gene study for fear of an anti-Semitic reception. Spanish philosopher Miguel De Unamuno wrote stories about this fight between faith in feel-good lies, and sheer reason. In one of his parables a village wiseman explains his religious charade to a young doubter: “The truth, Lazarus, is perhaps something unbearable, so terrible, something so deadly, that simple people could not live with it!”

John Milton’s Aeropagitica speech had more confidence in truth’s utility. He recalled Scripture’s comparison of truth to a stream: “if her waters flow not in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition.” Truth is like the mangled body of the Egyptian God Osiris, taken from his virtuous wife Isis: conspirators have scattered it in a thousand pieces across the world, and “ever since, the sad friends of Truth, such as dare appear, imitating the careful search that Isis made for the mangled body of Osiris, went up and down gathering up limb by limb still as they could find them.”

To defend the search for the truth of innate brain differences in less abstract terms: it could save lives. If brain size and structure differ between races, it might help if brain surgeons know it. Understanding these differences helps neuroscientists map the brain. Perhaps the new brain pacemakers that dramatically control the symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease could be customized to complement patients’ genes. So if religious fanatics oppose funding stem cell research, what do we call the people that oppose fully researching neurotechnology?

I suspect that when it comes to some truths, Schweitzer (like Unamuno) doesn’t mind “a colossal break with reason.” As for me, I stand with Isis.

Don’t Hate Her ‘Cause She’s Beautiful

There’s been quite a stir regarding the comments made by “Ms. California” beauty queen Carrie Prejean. Her response to a question (indubitably meant to incense controversy) has left many social commentators falling over themselves in outrage and subsequently attempting to smear and destroy the contestant. Perhaps the most disheartening truth from the fray over Prejean is that this is just another footnote in the long story of marginalization, censorship, and trivializing legitimate beliefs.


Prejean was asked a question about her personal beliefs and responded with a candid answer. During the final round of the “Miss U.S.A.” pageant, she was asked a question regarding her sentiments about the legality of homosexual marriage. So the bold Ms. Prejean gave her answer truthfully: she doesn’t think all states should redefine marriage, she politely offers that her personal belief defines marriage as man and woman. And here’s when things get sour.

Now, it seems a more newsworthy headline would be that the pageant contestant failed to somehow wish for world peace, end hunger, and save all the “wittle cutesy-wootsy baby seals” in her response; that’s what shocked me. Instead, she simply and respectfully expressed a sentiment that many Americans hold. Even a popular majority in “progressive” California share her belief. So, what’s all the uproar? How unbearably sex-o-centric of me to be so closed minded.

The question was asked by judge and jockey of Hollywood coattails, the eminent “Perez Hilton” (born Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr.). During his rigorous studies getting a degree in “Drama” from NYU, it seems he at least took away the ability to create it. Of course, he forgoes the whole stage, story, script, characters, plot, and other toilsome elements get in the way. His medium of choice is the perpetually classy internet blog and the ever-reliable tabloid. Apparently, eloquent use of the English language wasn’t taught at haughty NYU either. He called Prejean a “dumb bitch” on his blog and also referred to her during an MSNBC interview using a word that rhymes with what the Minnesota Vikings typically do after three downs.

And thus we’ve arrived at tolerance junction. And what’s its function? Well, it’s apparently to tolerate those who agree with you and scourge those who don’t. Those who demand we tolerate and accept all viewpoints, lifestyle choices, sexual orientations, etc. are perennially the most intolerant, zealous, and shrill. All you have to do is call those you disagree with you “hateful and intolerant” and you have a license to abuse, crush, and silence opposition.

Judging by the juvenile response from our excitable “Perez”, he didn’t ask the question because he cared about her answer; he only cared if she agreed with him. Although he denies this in his MSNBC interview, his excuse for marking her down was that she didn’t represent all Americans with her answer. Well, had she capitulated and given the “right” answer she would have sold out her values and the beliefs of many Americans. His position is untenable.

Prejean’s popularity and press coverage has soared (can anyone even name…uh, the other gal who won?) and she has taken a bold stance on the issue. I admire her tenacity. She openly talks about how Christian beliefs and values influence her life. With the surge in Prejean’s appeal, the threatened “progressives'” smear campaign begins. The foremost attack: a release of “nude” pictures (which don’t expose anything more than you see at the beach…or during the swimwear section of the pageant).

Prejean will likely be accused of unbearable hypocrisy for the suggestive photos released. In the end, the hypocrisy seems to cast a larger shadow on her critics. We have a group of people in the country who demand embracing all viewpoints, tolerance, and non-conformity. However, the only one can avoid being called hateful, bigoted, “dumb bitch”, etc. is to embrace their beliefs and conform to their system of values.

Tolerance for “progressives” like the ubiquitous “Perez” is about as meaningful as a set of useless DVDs from the President. If the hysterical moaning over “tolerance” and “acceptance” from left-wing socialites wasn’t so deafening, this issue would be far less important to me. But the double standard is, well, intolerable.

The point remains: the validity of her beliefs and morals are hardly contingent upon a photograph taken when she was a teenager. While the pictures are not something you’d see in Sunday school, they are also not any more pornographic than a Victoria’s Secret catalogue. The desperate attempt to discredit Prejean’s character is little more than laughable. I’m not telling anyone to “go easy” on her; by all means fire away. However, I am asking her left-wing critics to attack her argument, not her career.

On a side note: the media fracas over Prejean is a distraction from the genuine issue needing resolution at hand. Rather than confront her arguments, her reputation is scoured for any inconsistency. It happens on both sides. Conservatives are called hateful and bigoted. Republican hacks call anyone who disagrees with their military adventurism “unpatriotic”. Their tireless refrains are nauseating.

Frankly, I don’t really care how much Joe Biden doesn’t give to charity (there’s not much there to talk about anyhow) when he’s so generous with taxpayer welfare. I don’t care if Obama pushes his daughters to private school with one hand and signs bills stifling efforts to bolster private education with the other. It does demonstrate a measure of hypocrisy and lack of integrity and is indicative of character faults. That’s all; it doesn’t mitigate the substance of their arguments. The cases against over redistribution of wealth and the government monopoly in education still need to be articulated.

I’d like to see an end to the name-calling and political hacks trying to make fools of leaders. Both parties are guilty of stirring that pot. However, Tocqueville reminded the young America that democracy becomes oppressive when conformity is forced upon a culture. Only one side of the political aisle can be accused of doing just that; attempting to trivialize the opinions of many Americans in an effort to mold them into more “progressive” humans.

“Perez” said that he wanted Prejean to represent him in the pageant. Well, she’s beautiful, talented, and will likely have a future doing something productive and worthwhile…not quite representative of a fruity Hollywood leech who makes his wage spouting inane and worthless gossip about meaningless lives. She was better off losing than representing the likes of him.

Curb your enthusiasm

Without completely dismissing the influence of bodily nuances in geopolitics, President Obama’s impromptu handshake last month with the gimcrack Bolivarian unifier Hugo Chavez didn’t bother me. Not as much, anyway, as the more consequential corporeal actions Chavez has taken, directly by punishing dissidents and indirectly by arming the FARC kidnappers (where are the Left’s demands that FARC’s hostages receive bibles unstained by the touch of their infidel captors’ hands? I digress). Nor as much as his homo-erotic actions on behalf of the incorporeal: he pathetically reserves a chair for the ghost of Simón Bolivar at his meetings.

But in Argentina the headline was “The Handshake That Wasn’t,” and the story was even more frantic. Had President Obama snubbed President Cristina Kirchner’s outstretched hand at the same G20 summit?

Answering a recent question about Argentina’s state-stifled mess-of-an-economy, Cristina evaded pesky economic algorithms with a two sentence answer about the inevitable shocks of the global market’s failure. Ha, just like the failure of your handshake with Obama, a reporter quipped, thereby raising an “issue” that actually interested her:

Cristina: No, far from it, we had had a meeting, he came over to me, he shook my hand, he gave me a kiss, far from it.
Reporter: We all saw it, don’t feel bad. This can happen.
C: I swear I didn’t see it, I didn’t realize. Where was this?
R: We have a picture
C: It must be photo shopped
R: (Reporter returns with picture in hand) Here’s the picture of when Obama didn’t want to shake your hand!
C: I wasn’t extending – give me that, you’re a bigger idiot than I thought - I wasn’t extending my hand to him. I already shook his hand the day before. You’re an idiot, you’re such a fool. The night before I was with him and Michelle, we shook hands for ten minutes!
(Translation mine. Talk about exclusive content at Founders’ Porch).

If only she would apply this insecurity to her socialist nationalization schemes, perhaps Argentina would be starting some long due introspection.

This enthusiasm for gewgaw trifles has an opportunity cost, for it steals time and energy from the competition of reasonable ideas. This is what conservatives dislike about Fox News, for its viewers can learn the name of the President’s dog but not the names of the Enlightenment fathers that warned of this very tragedy of capitulating reason to passion.

The founders, heeding John Locke’s warning of “the dangers of enthusiasm,” were fixated on checking lawmaking powers. The Senate would be a cooling saucer for the House’s vim, and state sovereignty would effectively quarantine the overzealous whims of each mini laboratory of democracy to itself. They had to compensate for the appeal of enthusiasm that Locke described:

… the ease and glory it is to be inspired, and be above the common and natural
way of knowledge, so flatters many men’s laziness, ignorance, and vanity, that
when once they are got into this way of immediate revelation, of illumination
without search, and of certainty without proof, and without examination; it is a
hard matter to get them out of it

Those who mean to conserve the Enlightenment’s gifts of reason, liberty, and individual rights should never be “sure, because they are sure,” nor take comfort in the majority. “If freedom is lost in America,” Alexis de Tocqueville prophesized, “that will be due to the omnipotence of the majority driving the minorities to desperation and forcing them to appeal to physical force.”

Our ideal president is so boring that foreign leaders find ten personal minutes with him unbearably dull. So boring that fixing the nationalized economy, for instance, is a more interesting prospect than reading the president’s biography. He is a quiet, expressionless, pro-fundamentals Ron Gardenhire of government. As Goldwater reminded conservatives, “My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them.” We want an Old Man Marley shoveling “salt” on the front porch of the White House and striking a death glare into the eyes of rascals that dare say something as stupid as “I’m just for action and change."

Passions have their place in politics, such as giving people the courage to face terrors. Benazir Bhutto’s fierce arm waving speech minutes before her assassination, when she said to cheers of long live Bhutto, “These extremists have set up an unauthorized government. We will handle them. I will handle them. You will save the country, and so will I,” is an instance of fighting the passion of fear with hopeful enthusiasm. Yet typically the best bet is the temperament of “silent” Calvin Coolidge or depressed Abraham Lincoln, “one of the most diffident and worst plagued men I ever saw,” according to a friend. Marching forward united and inspired is not inherently noble: “Humanity is so constituted that it prefers to stay still rather than march forward without independence toward an unknown goal,” Tocqueville wrote. Boring? Indeed. But it is the plight of the anti-populists to elect someone too dry to be fought over for handshakes.