The Supreme Court has given American history memorable figures. Justices Marshall, Taney, Brandeis, Holmes, Hand, Frankfurter, Warren, Douglas and O’Connor come to mind (to name a few). The late Antonin Scalia certainly falls into this influential grouping. Perhaps his passing will elevate the current presidential debate, even if for the wrong reasons.
Thus far, at least, we have on the one side a carnival barker in Donald Trump and on the other side a naif in Bernie Sanders. Unprincipled to a fault, one will say anything to make a splash, and he is very good at it; the other, principled to a fault, will propound solutions detatched from reality. Of course, there are the other candidates, and of course it is they who may end up being nominated. But right now it is the extremes that define the campaign: Trump on one side, Sanders on the other.
What about a focus on real issues from a sober and nuanced perspective? What about a debate on foreign policy grounded in realities and ideologies, not just throwaway lines? What about education, the unemployed, water conservation, pollution, immigration, campaign finance, abortion — debated separately from prepackaged fantasies?
Perhaps Scalia’s passing will make a difference. President Obama, a Democrat, will nominate a replacement. The nominee will likely be blocked by Congress, now controlled by Republicans. Given the current ideological tie on the Supreme Court, a blocked Obama nominee will — perhaps — refocus this election. Perhaps the future direction of the country will be debated in reference to the nuances in the concrete issues listed above, since the Supreme Court will vote on on them.
It is these issues, appropriately differentiated and fleshed out, that could become the focus of the presidential campaign. Yes, of course, there will be a lot of hooplah around Obama’s nominee: why he or she is, or is not, worthy. But the atmospherics will have no meaning separate from the way in which it is imagined that the nominee will vote on the Supreme Court, returning us to the issues. This campaign could use a healthy dose of non-sound bite, non-throwaway line, non-play-to-the-imagined-galleries debate about these issues.
The American public deserves better than one side’s simplistic screed on greed and the other side’s “this country is a Hell hole.” Surely we can have a more sophisticated debate than this.
Copyright © 2016 by the Intermountain Jewish News
