I recently wrote about how politics has become a sport among highly partisan voters to the extent that rabid Republican and Democratic loyalists no longer care much about issues and policy, just as long as their “team” wins.
One study of voters put this phenomenon in stark terms:
Acceptable tactics among these hardcore partisans included “voter suppression, stealing or cheating in elections, physical violence and threats against the other party, lying, personal attacks on opponents, not allowing the other party to speak, and using the filibuster to gridlock Congress.”
This type of delusional polarization was on display Saturday within minutes of the news that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had passed away.
Many Democrats tossed aside dignity and grace to cheer the death of the staunchly conservative justice. On Twitter, liberal media commentators declared that the don’t-speak-ill-of-the-dead rule does not apply to “a monster” such as Scalia.
“The devil is back in hell,” said one tweet.
“I hope he died from gay sex,” said another.
On the GOP side, partisans offered sanctimonious derision of such spiteful remarks. But it didn’t take long for the right-wing conspiracy theories to gear up, with several variations on Facebook of the claim that President Obama had Scalia killed so he would have one last SCOTUS pick before his time on the clock expired.
“I knew this would happen,” said one GOP loyalist.
The Scalia eulogies were overshadowed by the buzz over which political party would benefit from his passing. The Democrats immediately saw opportunity, the chance to put their team ahead, 5-4, in the SCOTUS game. The GOP’s instant reaction was to play for a tie, 4-4, and hope for a win down the road.
The sudden death of the justice was treated like a turnover, a fumble in a football game. The GOP response was “Dee-fense, Dee-fense” – Obama should be blocked from altering the SCOTUS playing field. GOP Sens. Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell almost instantly announced that it would be unfair for the president to step in. A fillibuster would be the likely call if Obama proceeded.
Cruz went further, providing an unhinged prediction of the future if the opposition grabbed that 5-4 lead: abortions of all types available everywhere; the repeal of the Second Amendment; the end of religious liberty in America; and this:
“… the crosses and Stars of David sandblasted off of the tombstones of our fallen veterans.”
A defeat worse than death for the Cruz fans.
Meanwhile, the suggested Democratic game plan called for a recess appointment to the high court. With the Senate in recess, the Obama strategy should be to appoint his SCOTUS choice while the GOP-controlled Senate is not around. “A shrewd move,” diehard Democrats said. “That’s cheating,” said the hardcore Republicans.
Rather than thoughtful discussions about how the vacancy might affect the wide array of issues on the high court’s packed docket, what followed over the past 24 hours is a distinctly 2016 version of truth: Wildly varying facts and figures tossed about as rhetorical battles are waged regarding the history of presidents nominating SCOTUS justices in a presidential election year.
We should keep in mind that all this acrimony comes on the heels of an embarrassing Republican presidential debate that was marked by shouting, sniping and claims of “he’s a liar!” The audience in this lion’s den of a debate venue reveled in boos and catcalls.
At this rate, the debates will need much more than a moderator. They’ll require a bouncer.
In the wake of Scalia’s death, some pundits have emphasized the loving relationship he had with fellow Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, though the two were polar opposites on legal issues. Their relationship was held up as a prime example of how political differences should not preclude personal bonds of friendship.
One past quote from Ginsburg was recalled on Monday: “I love him, but sometimes I’d like to strangle him.”
That remark could be easily misinterpreted in this age of social media wars.
In this case, I think it’s fairly safe to say that Ginsberg did not mean that she literally wanted to strangle her colleague.
