Centerfield: Ralph Reed at Harvard

March 23, 2005

Ralph Reed at Harvard

Ralph Reed, former executive director of the Christian Coalition, and now a candidate for Lt. Governor of Georgia, spoke tonight at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Reed, looking tanned, youthful, but no longer boyish, spoke before an audience at the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum. He praised President Kennedy as one who placed public service ahead of the accumulation of personal wealth, and had kind words about JFK, Jr., who once interviewed him for George Magazine.

Reed, speaking more like a political analyst than a candidate, identified four key factors of contemporary political life.

1. The parties are in rough parity, a condition that is likely to continue. Referring to the parity in the National Football League, Reed said, "American politics is sort of a civic version of the NFL." He attributed the GOP's recent wins to having a better "quarterback" in George W. Bush, who he praised as a gifted politician. "I think the President is a great leader, and he's an inclusive leader," Reed said.

2. American political parties now more resemble the European model of ideological parties. This gives the Republicans an advantage in the South, a fast-growing region which once controlled 1/4 of the electoral college but which now controls 1/3 of the electoral college.

3. New technologies have aided a revival of grassroots politics. Volunteers participate in creating Bush house parties and sending out invitations. Tracking and contacting voters personally is easier than ever.

4. The media is increasingly disaggregated and fragmented. No more do three networks control the information flow. 30% of voters got most of their information about the campaign from the internet, including visiting candidate web sites.

"Early voting is coming, and will transform American politics," Reed said. "It's one of the reasons for the highest turnout since 1968." Reed said that one of the reasons the exit polls were off in 2004 was that more voters than ever do not go to the polls. "Very shortly, half of the vote will be cast before election day," Reed predicted.

At the conclusion of his prepared remarks, Reed took questions. Despite a request by Dean David Ellwood that questions to Reed "should end with a question mark" the first audience member to speak made a statement denoucing the actions of the Congress in the Schiavo case, arguing that it was supported neither by the philosophy of limited government or by the Bible. Reed vigorously disagreed. He stated that the case was "uniquely tragic" and that therefore the congressional action "does not set a precedent." He also cited a lack of due process at the state level, which violated Schiavo's rights under the 14th Amendment, and justified federal intervention.

Once member of the audience praised Reed for coming before an audience that was guaranteed to challenge him, and asked why President Bush always appeared before audienced that were pre-screened to eliminate potentially hostile questions. Reed rejected the premise of the question, stating that the President is often challenged by adversarial questions.

-----

The above is what I consider a neutral, objective report of Reed's appearance. It also contains what I consider a "whopper," which is that the Schiavo case is uniquely tragic, so therefore federal legislation on the case does not set a precedent. It seems to me that a case like Schiavo's is all too common, and that unprecedented legislation does by definition set a precedent. I also consider it ridiculous to claim that the years of consideration given in Florida to the Schiavo case do not constitute due process. It seems to me that federalizing this case gives carte blanche for the US government to federalize any case they consider important. Since I'm not a states rights advocate, that doesn't bother me much. However, it seems to me only fair that the Democrats can play this way if they ever regain control of the federal government.

------
Because I'm a blogger, I can say the above. I guess if I was a journalist, in order to be "objective," I could not say what I think in my own voice. Instead of saying I think Reed is got it wrong, I'd have to make a few phone calls to solict quotes from people willing to say Reed is wrong. That's how journalism works, right?

And let's say I didn't disagree with Reed on this point. Then, I might not make those phone calls. Would that be objective?

On second thought, perhaps it is a good thing that I have to make those phone calls, rather than answer in my own voice. I am not in fact a lawyer, and perhaps if I made a few phone calls, I'd learn that Reed is in fact right about this case not setting a precedent. Or, as a blogger, I could state my guess, and let you the reader correct me if I'm wrong, and Reed's right.

Posted by rickheller at March 23, 2005 09:18 PM

Comments

I think you bring up a good point on objectivity, Rick. The issue is where is the line between reporting all (or at least two) sides of an issue and interjecting your opinion based on what quotes you do include?

I'd say seeking out a quote to put forth your opinion of the situation would make the piece non-objective, but only to a small extent (assuming you don't overtly point to it or single it out above the rest of the story somehow). The story can be fairly reported with all sides given equal coverage and still be written subjectively, without detriment to the reader.

But then the question becomes what constitutes "equal coverage." Is it number of words? Is it strength of argument, and if so, who decides that? Is it the writer or the editor?

Posted by: Art at March 23, 2005 10:20 PM

The Schiavo bill was essentially a private relief bill. No precedent there, Congress does it all the time. (In fact Section 7 of the bill itself prevents it from being cited as precedent.) This one just got a lot more publicity. But I'm with you 100% on due process, and that federalizing a state case this way is (to be kind) dumb.

To judge from the CBS poll, I'm not the only one who thinks the GOP shot themselves in the butt this time. Of course, anytime you team up with Randall Terry, it's a mistake.

Posted by: Tully at March 23, 2005 11:00 PM

Well, then, I guess it would have been good for me to make that call, if I wasn't a blogger.

I don't understand this concept of private relief bill, however. I read somewhere that the constitution's prohibition on a bill of attainder prohibits legislation directed at a specific person. But I guess it only prohibits legislation that would penalize a specific person. Legislation that singles out a specific person for benefits is constitutional, then?

Posted by: rickheller at March 23, 2005 11:42 PM

It's interesting that an American conservative actually made a positive analogy towards Europe. I thought we didn't want to be like them?

Great post.

Posted by: Bamacrat at March 23, 2005 11:44 PM

Legislation that beneficially targets a specific person is frequently enacted, though it's not usually of the nature of the Schiavo bill. By definition every such bill is unique, and many of them are "uniquely tragic" cases. A whole bunch of individual relief bills for immigration exemptions can be found here. Nothing at all unconstitutional about it. They're one of the things that balloon up the bill numbers into four digits so quickly.

Your link is pretty clear on what a bill of attainder is, an act of legislation punishing someone without a criminal trial and due process. They were commonly used in England to strip someone of ALL rights and titles under the law, including the right to own property. Sometimes even of the right to breathe. Usually for pissing off the monarchy or other Big Dogs.

But interfering with the state courts on an ex post facto basis in an individual case is a bit unique. I don't know that it's never happened, but it sure hasn't been often. The predictable reaction of the judges has simply been to affirm the state court decision if there was no glaring error. Judges don't much appreciate Congressional interference with the courts.

I do think Reed was full of it and spouting a prepared party-line answer, but I'm not an attorney either. And I definitely think the GOP is hurting itself with its grandstanding. All the Dems need to do to win this round with the bulk of the public is keep quiet and keep passing over more butt-shooting ammo.

Posted by: Tully at March 24, 2005 01:06 AM

I'd like to pick up on something Rick was saying at the end of his post concerning the role of the blogger in "journalism."

I think that bloggers fulfill their public duty by adding context to news, not necessarily by adding new news. I don't expect bloggers to do original reporting, but I like it when they come across and link to other reporting on the same story. And since I know that bloggers are not beat reporters, I don't mind if they slant their writing with their opinions. By calling it a blog, they are telling me that the writing is not objective. The NYT, on the other hand, tells me that they are a newspaper; from that I infer a duty to objectivity (well, not from the NYT, but you know what I mean).

So, Rick, pick up the phone and make the call, or don't. It doesn't matter to your audience. You have a different duty.

Posted by: Literally Retarded at March 24, 2005 06:15 AM

Going off topic a bit, you referenced two questions after Reed's talk. Did anyone ask him since he admires Kennedy for placing public service over the accumulation of personal wealth, how does he resolve his actions with the $250,000 Casino gambling money he took Abramoff and Scanlon?

Posted by: EG at March 24, 2005 09:40 AM

A Bill of Attainder does not mean any private legislation aimed at one person. It basically means a bill which convicts someone of a crime without benefit of judicial process and imposes a "taint" on a person thus convicted, basically prohibiting that person from owning any property at all or passing along property to his family in a will. In England, it would also strip the person so convicted of his peerages (make him no longer a Duke, for example).

Posted by: PatHMV at March 24, 2005 09:45 AM

EG,

I was wondering if anyone would reference the Abramoff scandal. No one did. I sprained my ankle and am a bit hobbled, so I did not get in line by the microphones to ask any questions.

Centerfield

A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics

March 23, 2005

Ralph Reed at Harvard