One Last Thought About Lithwick's Column:
I'm glad to see that Eugene and I are on the same page on the issue of Lithwick's writing. While we're on the topic I thought I would add one more oddity about her latest column: the ending. Here it is:
There's just one problem: Lithwick knows that her statement is false. It is rather hard to believe that Ann Coulter, Tom Parker, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page have unleashed their "unremitting scorn and abuse" against Justice Kennedy with the subjective intent of "nudging" him to vote in a way that they like. Indeed, the entire point of Lithwick's column is that conservatives have an irrational instinct to lash out and blame Kennedy for everything, no matter what he does. If that's right, it makes no sense to suggest in the last paragraph that this irrational lashing out is actually an effort to persuade Justice Kennedy to change his votes. Still, the conclusion makes conservatives look silly and mentions breasts. So it stays in.
Anyway, I hope I'm not being too critical. I have enjoyed Lithwick's writing a great deal in the past, and I know she can be very sharp. But I think a little less zing and a little more effort to be accurate and true would improve her columns considerably.
Clearly, critics on the right are hoping to nudge the justice back into the fold with all the unremitting scorn and abuse. Note to Ann Coulter's breasts: It's not working.Again, this is very zippy. It also sneaks in another mention of Ann Coulter's breasts, which creates the impression (among other things) of a connection between the end and beginning of the piece.
There's just one problem: Lithwick knows that her statement is false. It is rather hard to believe that Ann Coulter, Tom Parker, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page have unleashed their "unremitting scorn and abuse" against Justice Kennedy with the subjective intent of "nudging" him to vote in a way that they like. Indeed, the entire point of Lithwick's column is that conservatives have an irrational instinct to lash out and blame Kennedy for everything, no matter what he does. If that's right, it makes no sense to suggest in the last paragraph that this irrational lashing out is actually an effort to persuade Justice Kennedy to change his votes. Still, the conclusion makes conservatives look silly and mentions breasts. So it stays in.
Anyway, I hope I'm not being too critical. I have enjoyed Lithwick's writing a great deal in the past, and I know she can be very sharp. But I think a little less zing and a little more effort to be accurate and true would improve her columns considerably.
Related Posts (on one page):
- One Last Thought About Lithwick's Column:
- Lithwick on Coulter on Kennedy:
- Dahlia Lithwick on Conservatives:
Then again, Kennedy was Orin's former boss. Too bad he can't tell us whether Kennedy is a liberal sheep in conservative clothing.
(1) A trivial point. Coulter's use of sexuality to promote herself and her books is a running gag at this point. Maybe Lithwick's use of it is a cheap shot, but you've made a vastly bigger deal of it than Lithwick does.
(2) A slightly less trivial point. Lithwick doesn't use the word "irrational" (meaning without rational motivation) to describe the ostensible criticisms of Justice Kennedy. I read the piece as suggesting that they are "unprincipled," which leaves room to conclude that the reason for doing so is to shame him back into the fold. She doesn't say much to make the case that this is in fact the motivation, but the conclusion is not inconsistent with the rest of the piece.
(3) Lastly, re: criticisms of Roper. In the earlier post, you say
"But as far as I know, no conservative has criticized Justice Kennedy on the ground that Roper 'attempted to divine the will of the majority of the people.' Rather, conservatives have criticized Roper on the ground that it ignored the will of the people as expressed in state law, and its analysis of the emerging national consensus was quite plainly unconvincing."
Looking at pages 1 and 2 of Justice Scalia's dissent in Roper, I think both criticisms are plainly present. The criticisms are obviously related, as your post suggests--what's the substantive difference between a criticism of "divin[ing] the will of the majority" and a criticism that "analysis of the emerging national consensus was quite plainly unconvincing." Seems to me that those really get to the same thing.
Of course, that means that to the extent your criticism of the piece rests on Lithwick drawing an insignificant distinction, I agree. But I don't agree that conservatives have not criticized Kennedy's Roper opinion for trying to ascertain the national moral judgment. Scalia seems to be taking him to task for just that.
In fact, Coulter has perfected this — gather attention by saying a few utterly ridiculous things, and continue to do so every so often, and people will continue to pay attention to you, read your columns, buy your books. It's the Howard Stern principle — people who like you will continue to pay attention, but you get even more attention by getting some people to hate you because they will pay attention to see what you'll do/say next, and then make a big stink. Presto, free publicity!
I dunno, Thorley, is Lithwick's bottom featured prominently on the cover of anything she's written? I had a bit of a crush on her for a while, but must confess to ignorance on the state of her bottom. Whereas there is all too little to imagine about Coulter's anatomy.
As for Spoons's curiosity about measured responses to Lithwick, she's a good writer, almost always entertaining, whose coverage of Supreme Court oral arguments has been a must-read. I'm sure that the good profs would just like to see her put a little more thought into her writing, which she is well-able to do.
Patrick: So if a woman prominently puts her cleavage on the cover of a book, it's off limits to notice it, unless one is a liberal and the woman is a conservative? Come back now? We're noticing what she's selling. It's not our fault she's using the way she looks in addition to what she has to say (and how she says it) to sell copies. It's her fault, or to her credit, or whatever. Objectify Ann? I would never.
See my latest post for some commentary on her, if you like that kind of thing.
I agree with Shake-n-Bake. Nice point! Zippy = fun.
As mentioned above, a book that was seriously trading one her sexuality would prominently highlight her legs, and would have gone for much more light on her face and hair (see the Time pictures for examples). Ann has said some exceptionally distasteful things, but I find it funny to see how her opponents focus on trivialities (her breasts) rather on her arguments (or the lack thereof).
If you can't beat Ann in print (she's very hard to beat live, not so much in print), then you need to work on your arguments as you simply have not thought them through enough.
What breasts?
Orin, I'm not saying it's not a flawed column. And if you frame Lithwick's thesis the way you did, it's easy to say it's a seriously flawed column. But it's also an editorial. I don't think she's making any serious warranties of objectivity.
More generally, I note that Slate is catching hell from you guys lately. I guess that can be a good thing. It's shows you're reading it. But there are other popular news (and opinion) outlets on the Web. Salon, for example, would kill to get equal time on Volokh. :)