Daniel Larison's latest
response makes explicit something I had suspected based on
his previous posts: he is tearing Sonia Sotomayor's comments out
of a context of multiculturalism, critical legal theory, and more
mainstream forms of judicial liberalism and trying to shoehorn
them into a context of particularism and a paleoconservative
understanding of diversity. His comments almost treat these
liberal ideologies as if they don't exist when they are in fact
adhered to by many of the people now running the country -- which
might suggest a need to start looking critically at the people
who are wrecking the country right now instead of continuing to
focus on the people who were
wrecking it yesterday.
Nobody as far as I can tell has criticized Sotomayor for
expressing pride in her roots and her community. What has been at
issue is her sustained argument with the idea that a wise old man
and wise old woman can meaningfully strive for the same impartial
justice -- and her conclusion that a wise old Latina woman could
make "better" decisions. Sotomayor's remarks are preferable to
other multiculturalist pronouncements in that she expresses pride
in an actually existing culture rather than a generic celebration
of non-whiteness. But at its root is a point of view where some
cultures and heritages can be celebrated while others cannot
(some are in fact denigrated).
That means we get to hear the good news about mass immigration
but not the bad, celebrate the fruits of diversity but not
question whether the New Haven firefighters are getting shafted,
and talk about the richness of communities so long as they were
not built or inhabited by dead white males. In the real world
where this ideology has been in vogue, expressions like
Sotomayor's routinely coexist with accusations of racism against
conservatives. I'd like to hear of an example where it has ever
been the other way around.
Unlike some others, I have not actually called Sotomayor a racist
-- I have not seen evidence of a real animus against white people
-- but I have said that when the logic behind identity politics
is laid bear, you get something that looks an awful lot like
racism. Taken too far, it is detrimental to fair, color-blind
justice. There is a real debate here over whether the way to get
"beyond race" is to actually stop counting people by race or to
emphasize race even more in pursuit of diversity. Sotomayor has
made clear which side of that debate she's on, and it isn't a
side where La Raza lies down with the League of the South in a
joint celebration of particularism.
Larison argues that "having dramatically lowered the standards of
what counts as a racist statement," conservatives will ultimately
pay the price. I've
argued at length against conservatives playing the race card
and have enumerated many examples of them doing so foolishly. But
I don't think it's setting a ridiculously low standard to ask
potential holders of high office to refrain from saying their
race physiologically qualifies them for the position -- a
statement that would have indeed been historically more harmful
coming from a white man, but is inappropriate across the board in
an era of increasing racial diversity and the sharing of
institutional power.
The only way I see any "boomerang" effect for conservatives is if
they actually say or do
something racist. And if they do, they'll deserve all the
criticism and political fallout that they get. But not a seat on
the Supreme Court.
