Every time I hear the media refer to Republicans on the Supreme Court (and elsewhere) as “conservative,” it makes my blood boil. What’s “conservative” about radical rulings that defy both long-standing precedent and the meaning of the Constitution itself?
Now, a well-respected judge like J. Michael Luttig is a conservative. Nobody can question his bona-fides; as law clerk to Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia and having been nominated to the US Court of Appeals by George H. W. Bush, Luttig is a conservative’s conservative.
Likewise, Liz Cheney’s conservative credentials are impeccable. She was elected to Congress on the Republican ticket as Representative of Wyoming, ultimately rising to chair of the House Republican Conference for the 116th Congress. In this post, she was the third-ranking Republican in the chamber and as conservative as they come.
And when it comes to her father, Dick Cheney, he served as Vice-President under George H. W. Bush. ‘Nuff said.
Both Luttig the Cheneys are about as conservative as you can get. And yet, all three stood up against the rulings of the so-called “conservatives” on the Supreme Court when it came to giving Trump presidential immunity for anything he might do in office.
So, who are the real “conservatives?” Or has the term ceased to have any meaning at all?
I say that it still does. But the term definitely doesn’t apply to what the media cavalierly and unthinkingly refers to as “the conservative wing” of the Supreme Court. They are not “conservative” by any means. Call them radical, authoritarian, politicized, partisan, what have you. But they are certainly not “conservative” in any real sense of the word.
Why is this important? It’s because being conservative is generally thought of as being a good thing. We try to be conservative in our financial decisions, in planning for the future and in dozens of other ways. Being conservative generally means taking calm, measured steps that indicate prudence and good judgment.
So using the term carelessly gives a rhetorical pass to egregious behavior that’s beyond the pale – decisions like recent court rulings overturning 50 years of precedent with abortion and 249 years of precedent in exempting a corrupt president from the rule of law.
The casual inappropriate use of the term isn’t necessarily malicious. It’s just lazy. And reputable news outlets should stop doing it… NOW.
When it comes to a faux-news outlet like Fox News, it’s understandable. After all, Fox is the once-official (now unofficial) communications arm of the Republican Party. Cheerleading for Republicans by letting authoritarianism masquerade as conservatism is their stock in trade.
But for other news outlets – TV, radio and print – the casual, knee-jerk use of the term is inexcusable. (I’m looking at you, CNN, MSNBC and New York Times.) Over 150 Republican House members voted not to certify the 2020 election and I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that these Congressmembers were a thousand times more likely to be described as “conservatives” than as what they really were: “insurrectionists,” “violators of their oaths of office” or simply, “traitors.”
There’s no excuse for giving these people a pass – unintentional or otherwise.
Think. Words matter. A lot.
And, while we’re on the topic, why do many Democrats regularly shoot themselves in the foot by proudly proclaiming that they’re on the “left?” It screams “defund the police” and only puts a target on their backs. A clear majority of Americans support abortion rights and gay marriage, to name just two things. So how about dropping labels that just end up being dead weight and sticking to (winning) issues instead?
I admit that I don’t watch Fox News unless I have to, but I’d doubt that they refer to themselves as “right” or “right-wing” very often.
Think. Words matter. A lot.
Anyway, for principled conservatives like Luttig or the Cheneys, sure – call ’em conservative. But in interviews, Democrats should immediately object to the word when it comes to characterizing today’s Republicans. Instead, interviewees should insist they be called something more accurate.
“Extremist” comes to mind. And “MAGA extremist” sounds even better… what do you think?
