Fat Guys in Blue Uniforms

Rarely do I approach a posting with a flippant comment. This will deviate slightly.

The Supreme Court of the United States is of little democratic importance. The Supreme Court of the United States is critical to the republic. The Supreme Court of the United States is like a child: it should speak only when spoken to. The Supreme Court of the United States is like a king: when it speaks every tongue confess and every knee bow.

I have been struck by the confirmation hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor in a way that I had not been struck before. Roberts and Alito passed my attention with scant notice. The only SCOTUS Justice I have seen in real life is Ruth Bader Ginsberg-- and after seeing her I would object to the characterization of "real life."

The impression I am left with is that the SCOTUS is little more than a vestige of an uncomfortable truth: democracy is impossible and authority, in the end, must be absolute. It was too convenient and insufficiently salutary to vest in monarchs the absolute authority of the Divine. Nevertheless, our founders recognized the equal folly in vesting absolute authority in the People. Democracy, capital D, writ large with universal suffrage is not-- in the vernacular-- "doable." There will always be intractable questions, irreconcilable differences, principled debates, and moral arguments that a simple vote could never satisfactorily resolve. Democracy for all its lauded glory is really rather lousy when it comes to governing.

Our founders, conscious of this fact, invented from whole cloth peculiar, anachronistic notions such as the Electoral College and separations of power to blunt the unsavory implications of majority rule. These anachronistic peculiarities are what makes us a constitutional republic and NOT a democracy. Only a finely tuned hybrid with ample trip wires may be counted upon to ensure "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

I am told that baseball is the national pastime, the game of youth, and as American as apple pie. Fine. I am culturally aware enough to know that Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier. That the Red Socks ought to have kept Babe Ruth. That Joe DiMaggio was a big deal. That Barry Bond's head was too big a deal, and that A-Rod simply makes too much. All of this from a profoundly disinterested vantage. What I cannot tell you is the name of a single MLB umpire. Baseball, like any competition is dependent on the skills and actions of its stars and supporting cast. T-shirts, hot dogs, and beer are sold in support of great pitchers, sluggers, and amazing fielders (I even know that Denver's short stop Troy Tulowitzki has a rare unassisted triple play). The obvious but unsung reality of this game is that without the overweight guys in blue uniform, the games would not work, the competition would not function.

In the NFL much debate has taken place over the role of instant replay. Purists believe that the game should play out under human eyes, and that the human failings that result will largely cancel each other out. Others argue that modern technology empowers officials to know in near-real time exactly what actually happened. Perhaps no sport has more officiating staff than football. What with the referee, the umpire, the line judges, etc. it is as if football has seed all other sports and raised them a striped shirt! The debate over instant replay reveals an uncomfortable truth: there is no way for two teams to meet in feats of strategy and strength and struggle to a just conclusion. Only by the inclusion of aging, striped, wise-men of the game, operating under controversial and disputable rules may the contest bear any real legitimacy.

Imagine if Christianity had a Supreme Court. Rather than countless sects battling amongst themselves for souls, a single body would interpret the Bible. They would of course all profess to approach the Bible with deference to its teachings. They would protest that no judge can "make scripture." They would insist that they were faithful to the "spirit of the authors intent." Their rulings would be extremely controversial. Would never be wholeheartedly accepted by all Christians, and would be subject to constant efforts at repeal. Yet, were there to be such a court, all Christians would more or less agree to live under their rulings. Christendom would be much less democratic and diverse, but surely much more uniform and explainable. Religion is not governance, and so there is no such body. It helps to understand the difficulty.

Human interactions, it seems, are complex and frustratingly insensitive to the vagaries of talent and momentum and force. This is why at the end of the day Lord Democracy requires King Justice. This is why 100,000,000 plus votes can be cast in a presidential election, while that election is settled by a single justice. The ugly truth is that human governance cannot avoid authoritarianism. We can reserve it for the rarest of cases, dilute it with as many checks and balances as possible, and wrap it in liberty infused folk lore, but the truth is the same: no society can govern itself without some extremely limited, absolutely powerful force bearing the final verdict.

There is always an exception, a loop-hole, and backstop. There is always someone who gets to circumvent public whims and simply settle matters. No matter our delusions, we need absolute, undemocratic rule to make this great nation go.

If we are to have a demi-dictator. A soft sovereign. The best we can hope to do is to keep a mix of individuals who are wise, collegial, and principled. They won't agree with each other, but they will rule from on high when the masses can't. They will be the fat guys in blue uniforms--er, black robes-- to which (mostly) no one pays any attention.

R.E.M. Was Right

Driving around for work this past Wednesday I was subjected to repeated top-of-the-hour radio news broadcasts. Each time some ABC news reporter too ugly to make it on television would mention hearings underway on Capitol Hill. Not remarkable as it goes. However, the hearings weren't about the ballooning deficit, health care, or financial regulation. The hearings were being held on the subject of school bullying.

Bullying it seems, is something of a problem in this country. Apparently--and I had to do some follow-up research on this-- middle and high school students tend to be intolerant and often verbally or even physically abusive to other students. I am cognizant of the shock this may provide the reader, but I assure you, if you read the testimony you will see there is evidence. Children have been called names. They have had embarrassing things written on their lockers. They have had their books dumped en route to study hall. This crisis is reaching a boiling point.

It is clearly right and good that Congress should act to halt this abusive environment in our nation's schools. Clearly we need a law. We need a regulation. We probably need federal funding. An anti-bullying program for every classroom. Teacher retraining. Parental accountability. We need zero tolerance policies and detention and a cop in every janitor closet. Congress must not rest until every child is safe and secure and no one hates and bad words are never spoken. Until anger is vanquished and conflict put asunder and lions lay down with lambs.

Or maybe what we need to do is get a grip. Kids are brutal, mean, and insensitive. They are insecure and prone to establishing identity and power in relation to whom they can put down and lord over. Middle school is a gauntlet of emotional, psychological, and physical turmoil from internal as well as external sources. And it should stay that way.

We have reached a point in this country where tolerance is a near-universal cultural norm. The stilted, exaggerated political correctness of the past couple decades has gradually given way to a genuine feeling of deference toward other people, cultures, habits, and beliefs. The country is much more likely to live and let live that it was a generation ago.

At the same time society has been encouraging children toward individualism and self-esteem in historically unprecedented ways. Every child is encouraged to believe that they are--yes-- good enough, smart enough, and gosh darn it people like them. Every action undertaken by every little crumb cruncher is praised, documented, filmed, and shared with relatives at the holidays. Every scribble becomes a prized work of art. Every voice angelic, every mismatched outfit couture.

The combination of these phenomena yields a twisted cocktail. It leads some to believe that anyone can do anything, wear anything, say anything at anytime anywhere and the world around them must tolerate it. This is nonsense. Our society must be tolerant and increasingly accepting of the wonderful differences found in the great human family. However, we must still live with each other. A vast, diverse, wildly divergent population must somehow share a country, a neighborhood, and a school. We are still social creatures, and we still must learn to function in some normative cultural model.

The wages of tolerance and acceptance must be deference and respect.

Anyone who seeks society's acceptance should be willing and able to show some deference for the majority's mores. Unfortunately, lessons about social mores often come in uncomfortable packages. Which brings us back to our bullying problem. Children must learn to function in social groups and they must learn cultural norms. Those lessons come at a point of maturation corresponding to middle and high school. These are the years where each person sorts out both their personal identity and how that identity fits into the larger social fabric. As we hammer out our personalities the often brutal, crass interactions with fellow travelers serve as the fire and water by which we are tempered. Bullying is part of the anvil upon which we form our adult selves.

Middle and high school is a time for experimentation, eccentricity, and individuation. Everyone is "bullied" in some way: aspiring athletes learn the limitation of their talents, others learn the limitation of their intelligence, or are beaten down by the vagaries of physical attractiveness. Others are teased for their style of dress, their mannerisms, their unusual hobbies or interests. Everyone runs into something that rends their perfect self-image. In short, they learn the hard way that the scribble was just a scribble.

Some people will change a little, some will conform altogether, and some will stiffen their resistance as they grow comfortable in the role of outcast. The key is to learn how to strike a balance between accepting other's differences and comporting oneself to different social contexts. In the end nearly all will learn this critical survival skill needed to navigate through life. Shielding kids from the tortures of maturing into socially functional adults is not desirable or even achievable. Which is probably why Congress is so comfortable dealing with it.


(The most poignant arguments, the tearful testimony always concerns young people who have died, often through suicide, and sometimes through murder. Of course these are tragic outcomes that cannot be dismissed. Suicide is always an unfathomable tragedy--especially when it involves the very young. Murder is a crime. Assault is a crime. Criminal activity can never be tolerated, and suicide must always be guarded against. However, I think it is simply going too far to suggest that these rare but tragic outcomes are the result of school yard teasing, name calling, shoving, and other standard "bullying." These outcomes are no more explainable than any other senseless act of violence. I do not mean to conflate the two or to excuse violence.)