« Political Sign Mapping? | Main | The Role of the Courts »
Conservativism vs. Neo-Totalinarianism
I’m often skeptical of news reports (having been the victim of inaccurate reporting myself in the past), so when I read this story on Senator Buttars, I decided to listen to the interview myself. I’m left speechless.
While almost any Republican would agree with Sen. Buttar’s views on judicial activism, his statements about minority protection show a marked misunderstanding of US constitutional history and the very foundations of what made this country great. The Deseret News story writes the exchange up this way:
When Grover mentioned that “courts are the way for those in the minority … to ensure (their) rights are protected,” Buttars responded with the following:
“I don’t understand that at all. You give me an example. I don’t know of any example where the minority is being jeopardized by legislative action.”
When Grover mentioned Brown v. Board of Education as an example, Buttars said: “Well, I think Brown v. Board of Education is wrong to begin with. That’s a whole other subject. Call me again and take a half-hour to talk about that.”From deseretnews.com | Anti-segregation ruling wrong, Buttars says
Referenced Tue Aug 22 2006 09:08:30 GMT-0600 (MDT)
After listening to the exchange, I’d say the write-up is accurate. It’s about 9 minutes into the audio. I won’t even touch the segregation ruling comment—that deserves airing after Buttars has had his say on it, but the comments on the role of the courts in protecting the rights of those in the minority are just out in space.
Now, maybe Sen. Buttars didn’t mean it like is sounds, but is he really saying that the will of the majority never infringes on the rights of the minority and that legislative action has never been unconstitutional? That’s what it sounds like to me. Has he ever read any history at all about the constitutional convention?
Frankly, Sen. Buttars is one of those Republicans who embarrass the party by misrepresenting true conservatism as neo-totalitarianism. He would cry real tears as he told you how much he loves this country and the freedoms it provides. In the meantime, he’s working with all his might to undercut them. I have no personal animosity against the man, but I think he’s severely misguided and ill-informed.
Posted by windley on August 22, 2006 09:34 AM
Comments
"Totalinaranism"?
Posted by: Anon at August 22, 2006 11:34 AM
Yeah, my spell checker's broken (really). That's a hard word to get right...
Posted by: Phil at August 22, 2006 11:38 AM
He elaborated (=backpedaled) on his comments during an interview with KCPW today. His ideas are still SNAFU, but he realizes he made a mistake on the KVNU interview. See http://www.kcpw.org/article/1529 or http://www.kcpw.org/article/1531.
Posted by: brett at August 22, 2006 01:50 PM
There are legitimate arguments that, while the outcome of Brown was correct, the decision was poorly reasoned. But making such an argument requires extreme care and precise explanations and, if one is a politician, extreme sensitivity. Instead, Buttars has left us all to wonder whether he thinks the outcome of Brown was wrong.
Posted by: Charely Foster at August 22, 2006 02:47 PM
Not knowing Sen. Buttars personally, I wonder if his comments come out of ignorance rather than a genuine "neo-totalitarianism" (did I spell that right?).
In addition, it's sometimes hard to comment coherently on something when you're put on the spot and haven't been given a chance to really think about it - particularly if it's not something that you work with everyday.
Then again, he could just be an idiot. He certainly wouldn't be the first politican (nor the last) to have said something stupid.
Posted by: Flint at August 23, 2006 10:26 AM
Yes, Flint, you're right. That's why I've asked Sen. Buttars to respond in the Senate Site blog on this question (see http://www.utahpolitics.org/archives/2006/08/the_role_of_the_courts.shtml)
Posted by: Phil at August 23, 2006 10:35 AM
Post a comment