Remembering Bork, and the borkings we’ve endured since
Before this week ends, I want to point out one thing from last week: the anniversary of Senate Democrats’ defeat of Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court. The New York Times’ Joe Nocera — always worth reading, but no one’s idea of a right-winger — made this observation:
The Bork fight, in some ways, was the beginning of the end of civil discourse in politics. For years afterward, conservatives seethed at the “systematic demonization” of Bork, recalls Clint Bolick, a longtime conservative legal activist. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution coined the angry verb “to bork,” which meant to destroy a nominee by whatever means necessary. When Republicans borked the Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright less than two years later, there wasn’t a trace of remorse, not after what the Democrats had done to Bork. The anger between Democrats and Republicans, the unwillingness to work together, the profound mistrust — the line from Bork to today’s ugly politics is a straight one.
(Links original. NB: The editorial to which Nocera referred was by the Atlanta Journal, not the combined Sunday AJC, and our archives credit Jeff Dickerson — yes, that Jeff Dickerson — as the author.)
There were ugly moments in politics before, and there would be ugly moments in politics afterward. I don’t think Nocera intends to excuse ugly Republican behavior that followed the Bork nomination (I recommend reading his whole column) and nor do I.
But as a moment when character assassination became a substitute for arguing against philosophical differences, long before Hillary Clinton lamented the “politics of personal destruction,” it should be recalled as a moment of national shame. Whatever aisle-crossing Ted Kennedy did later in his Senate career is undermined by his role in creating the art of borking. It is no coincidence that Joe Biden, who as Senate Judiciary chairman in 1987 helped lead the charge against Bork, now as vice president still has the audacity to hint that Republicans will bear the blame for future murders and rapes if they don’t agree to President Obama’s latest stimulus package; leopards don’t change their spots.
The sliming by both parties of presidential appointees is de rigueur. The scapegoating of Sarah Palin for the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, because she used the kind of rhetoric that is part and parcel of contemporary politics, may well be another moment where this tendency was escalated. Mild cases of borking even take place within parties now; see the swapping of insults by Rick Perry (”you don’t have a heart”) and Mitt Romney (”it means you have…a brain”) over one another’s immigration stances. There is a growing list of beliefs one is not allowed to challenge without being labeled a “denier,” a clear reference to those who deny that the Holocaust took place.
And it’s not just politicians: The likelihood that someone in an online discussion will eventually invoke Hitler is so high that it has a name, Godwin’s Law. No wonder we the people keep electing the borkers.
This doesn’t only matter for the words people use. It feeds a tribalism that discourages people from challenging their ideological fellow-travelers on particular issues, lest they give “the other side” an opening to undermine their broader agenda. It causes people to say things they might not actually believe, simply because they know how “their side” is supposed to answer the question. And it leads to sloppy arguments, because people don’t bother to learn the thinking behind, and nuances of, the stances they adopt (e.g., “all government spending boosts demand and thus the economy,” or “all tax cuts produce higher revenues”).
Anyone who wonders why Americans lack faith in our institutions, and despair that there’s no solution in sight, would do well to remember what happened to Robert Bork some 24 years ago.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
217 comments Add your comment
Hummon
October 28th, 2011
2:49 pm
I agree with an earlier poster who points out that both Nocera and Wingfield conveniently leave out Bork’s role in the Nixon-era Saturday Night Massacre. That was a time to stand up and be counted on the side of justice, and Bork didn’t do it. That mattered in what people thought of him in 1987, and it should have.
But having said that, I remember the time well and there is a lot of truth in what Nocera has to say. Our side let the genie out of the bottle.
However, it would be hugely inaccurate to throw up our hands now and say the Democrats started it and now everybody does it. One party, starting with Newt Gingrich, has made this scorched earth approach not just an isolated tactic but central to its political strategy.
Aquagirl
October 28th, 2011
2:50 pm
witness Elena Kagan vs. Clarence Thomas.
I wasn’t aware Justice Kagan sued Justice Thomas. Or maybe I missed one of those PPV cage matches on your usual viewing schedule. Please do enlighten us as what has bunched your undies, Fast.
Southern Comfort
October 28th, 2011
2:50 pm
Dusty
You’ve read most of what I’ve posted here at the AJC, but that is not a comprehensive representative of my positions on everything. I don’t consider myself a Democrat any more than I consider myself a Republican. I do, however, think about each and every issue before making my choice. It’s usually a choice between one who will do little versus one who will do even less most of the time. One thing you will never hear me say/do is tow the party line for either group. That is what makes one a Democrat or Republican.
Kyle might not be so firm on everything Republican, but I have not seen him enthusiastic about anything Democratic. That’s the difference between being a moderate versus an independent. I have no problem with saying that I agreed with some of Bush II’s programs/policies. I disagreed with some too. There’s things that I both agree and disagree with Obama on. I just don’t singularly preach the praises of either without also preaching the shortcomings.
Hillbilly D
October 28th, 2011
2:52 pm
Good post Kyle. In many people’s mind, the end justifies the means and that goes as much for one side as it does the other. As long as people have that attitude, it’ll never change and will continue to escalate. In my memory, this trend started during the time of LBJ. A person older than me might think it went back even farther than that.
You can look at this blog, the other AJC blogs or basically any other political blog and many people aren’t interested in discussing ideas, they’re interesting in scoring points, playing gotcha and getting a rise out of the other side. It’s just an adult version of the elementary school playground. Just remember, if it’s okay for your side to do something “because it’s justified”, it’s just as okay for the other side to give it back to you. Doing unto others would go a long way towards solving this problem but most of the people who exacerbate this type are too self-centered to give it a thought.
UGA 1999
October 28th, 2011
2:53 pm
Southern….I think people make judgements regarding the presidency based on the overall term. There will always be decisions that we agree an disagree with, but you have to look at the ideology of the person and their overall record.
Southern Comfort
October 28th, 2011
2:54 pm
UGA
I’m just happy that the game falls on my off days. I may drive over to sit in on College Gameday that morning.
Independant.....Really I am......
October 28th, 2011
2:54 pm
UGA..Not a fan of either…I was just poking at you….
Dusty
October 28th, 2011
2:55 pm
Football!! This blog has now gone down hill. At least you could discuss that stunning game of last night’s World Series.
Who was it that wanted pure political discusssion here? He must have forgotten.
GO RANGERS! You did good even if you lost. “It’s not whether you win or lose but how you play the game.” Or something like that.
See ya later..
UGA 1999
October 28th, 2011
2:55 pm
Southern….yep, if I were a fan of Bama or LSU I would drive over there.
UGA 1999
October 28th, 2011
2:55 pm
Dusty…you are in the South brother. College football will ALWAYS trump baseball.
BT
October 28th, 2011
3:01 pm
Kyle,
I appreciate your willingness to debate the liberals here, but as you see there’s no point. They’ll call you every invective in the book, then blame you for them doing it. Something I learned blogging during the Bush years.
Let’s be clear, incivility in politics is nothing new, although these days it’s at a fever pitch. Difference is Republicans can and do call each other out for incivility (sometimes unnecessarily). Democrats consistently show they’re unwilling to, probably because such language is S.O.P. on that side. Don’t believe me? Just read their posts.
Southern Comfort
October 28th, 2011
3:01 pm
UGA
When it comes to judging an overall term for a president, I’m of the opinion that it’s worthless to judge someone who’s recently left office as their total impact won’t truly be known for years or even decades. All we can do is really judge the individual decisions/policies for short term impact.
Kyle Wingfield
October 28th, 2011
3:02 pm
dixiedemons: I wasn’t saying Bork was the only reason. But I do think it’s worth thinking about that episode when we wonder why things are going wrong.
Hillbilly D
October 28th, 2011
3:09 pm
College football will ALWAYS trump baseball.
Not for everybody.
UGA 1999
October 28th, 2011
3:09 pm
Southern…I think we have seen enough of Obama to get a pretty good judgement. Four more years not needed.
joe
October 28th, 2011
3:09 pm
I wouldn’t put it that way.
Nat Turner
October 28th, 2011
3:17 pm
You talk about civility on your blog, and yet you allow Lil’ Barry Bailout to spew nothing but venom on your blog. How many times has he said “Idiot Messiah”, “Obozo”, called liberals “scum”, “libtards”, etc.? So either you agree with him, or you don’t really care to have civility on this thread. Self-policing? Uh-huh.
Southern Comfort
October 28th, 2011
3:20 pm
UGA
If four more years of Obama continues the obstruction that’s going on, I’d agree. If memory serves me correct, going into Jan 2011, Obama still had not had little more than half of his positions that require congressional confirmation filled in his administration. It’s a bit harsh, in my book, to judge someone who doesn’t even have all their posititions filled. That would be like giving Richt five people on defense and judging him by making him face Bama’s offense for a series.
There’s many things going on in this economy that are far beyond the control of the POTUS or even the government. I don’t see how things would be much different had McCain won in 2008. Our economy won’t improve until demand increases, and the only way the government can increase demand is by increasing it’s spending. I don’t see that happening regardless to whomever is in office.
UGA 1999
October 28th, 2011
3:22 pm
Southern….I agree to some extent. However when you look Obama’s ideology throughout his political and adult life you can see a pattern of behavior and ideas that are very scary.
I can tell you that you wil not increase spending in any sector by increasing taxes.
Southern Comfort
October 28th, 2011
3:28 pm
UGA
Looking at is ideology since being elected, I think Obama is nothing more than a GOP appeaser. He reminds me of the dog that wants to be liked so much that he rolls over for anybody passing by to give him a belly rub of appreciation. I’ve stated it on other blogs that he has the spine of a sour gummy bear. Mind you, that’s just my opinion, but looking at what he’s actually done versus what people speculate about, he’s been a better GOP president than I think McCain would have ever been.
UGA 1999
October 28th, 2011
3:35 pm
Southern….A GOP appeaser???? Reallly? WOW. I am not saying that McCain would have been much better but there are a few things that I know he would NOT have done.
In some cases you are right. Obama has no balls and the shame is that the Dems are losing, the Repubs and losing and the American people are losing the most.
Southern Comfort
October 28th, 2011
3:43 pm
UGA
Yep, a GOP appeaser. Has the GOP not been in control of the national dialogue since Obama’s election? Remember the health care townhall meetings? How about the whole dialogue on debt and the debt limit when people wanted to discuss jobs? Even though Obama has been in the WH, the GOP has controlled the dialogue AND the direction of Congress since his election. Even with the healthcare bill, the left didn’t get what they really wanted, which was a single payer system. The healthcare bill ended up being nothing more than a sell out of the American public to the insurance industry.
saywhat?
October 28th, 2011
3:45 pm
Kyle Wingfield
October 28th, 2011
3:02 pm
“dixiedemons: I wasn’t saying Bork was the only reason. But I do think it’s worth thinking about that episode when we wonder why things are going wrong.”
I would say that incivilty started with the Impeachment of Nixon. The guy deserved it, but the Republican base was so butt-hurt by it that I believe it to be the original source of deep seated resentment that they hold for every Democratic office holder, a resentment passed down to your generation.
You might also consider Tip O’Niell’s decision not to pursue the impeachment of President Reagan for Iran-Contra for the good of the country. Newt Gingrich could easily have chosen to follow in such footsteps, but didn’t. Nancy Pelosi, however, did.
Filter
October 28th, 2011
3:46 pm
BT Sez: Let’s be clear, incivility in politics is nothing new, although these days it’s at a fever pitch. Difference is Republicans can and do call each other out for incivility (sometimes unnecessarily). Democrats consistently show they’re unwilling to, probably because such language is S.O.P. on that side.
Filter sez: BS. That is a load of horse crap at it’s finest. The reality is that the objective person can and does see that both sides are guilty, both sides do it and both sides will make a spectacle of themselves “calling themselves out” trying to look civil while digging the knife into their target further with their “condemnations.”
The test of the true partisan is the person who wants to point the finder more so at one side than the other.
Filter
October 28th, 2011
3:47 pm
finger not finder
UGA 1999
October 28th, 2011
3:48 pm
Southern…… Was Obama being an appeaser when….
He pushed through Obamacare?
Attempted to close Gitmo?
Pushed for civilian trials for terrorists?
Pressing to raise taxes on the rich?
Sued Arizona over immigration laws?
Spent more money at this point in his campaign than any other president?
Had the S&P credit rating downgraded?
Cap and Trade?
Balancing the budget?
Hillbilly D
October 28th, 2011
3:50 pm
SoCo
If I understand your point correctly, I think I’d agree with you on Obama. Whether people agree with his positions or not, he doesn’t get out there and sell his ideas; he doesn’t lead. He’s supposed to be a great speaker and communicator but when his programs fail, he falls back on “the people don’t understand what we’re trying to do”. That’s his job; make 51% or more understand and buy into it.
Independant.....Really I am......
October 28th, 2011
4:01 pm
Flag on the Play…..UGA….The last 7 points of your 3:48 are right out of the republican talking points memo….
Southern Comfort
October 28th, 2011
4:01 pm
Southern…… Was Obama being an appeaser when….
He pushed through Obamacare?
The ACA was a sell-out of the American public to the healthcare industry. It does nothing to curb healthcare costs, but it gives insurance companies limitless customers to jack prices up on. To top things off, everyone will be required to carry insurance.
Attempted to close Gitmo?
Early in his administration, he tried to do what he thought was right. He became an appeaser when he backed down from his stance that it should be closed. That was the beginning of his gummi-spined leadership.
Pushed for civilian trials for terrorists?
And how did that push turn out?? Appeased the GOP with no trials.
Pressing to raise taxes on the rich?
Has any tax increase on the rich passed yet? Gave in to the GOP again…
Sued Arizona over immigration laws?
Sued other states too. Parts of the laws have still been allowed to be enacted. ICE deportations were up to almost 400k this year too. Seems like he got tough on deportation instead of doing the “liberal” thing of granting amnesty.
Spent more money at this point in his campaign than any other president?
Don’t know what that has to do with appeasement other than he’s putting money back into the economy to create jobs in relation to his campaign.
Had the S&P credit rating downgraded?
From the reading of the report, that was more to the condition of DC itself and the inability of Congress to do their job. His lack of forceful leadership is his appeasement to the GOP’s desire to dictate the direction of DC.
Cap and Trade?
Have you seen anybody mention it lately? Appeasement by dropping it…
Balancing the budget?
I seem to recall Obama throwing Democrats under the bus when he put “entitlements” on the table while dealing with Boehner.
We can do this all day, and I can continue to show Obama’s lack of spine and his giving in to the GOP.
HD
That’s my point exactly. Thank you for stating it in a manner that I didn’t. Maybe that will clear it up for UGA and others.
UGA 1999
October 28th, 2011
4:02 pm
Independant….WOW I am that good…..Penalty declined!
rightwing troll
October 28th, 2011
4:16 pm
The biggest problem of Kyle’s lament for today is that history has proven the decision to keep Bork off the bench was a correct decision…
Chuck Doberman
October 28th, 2011
4:16 pm
@ Dusty
“The rotary mind of liberals is amazing. The same old lines over and over deflecting blame from its obvious source”
Amazing… this (almost exact) statement comes to mind regarding conservatives after reading your posts! See, there is neutral ground somewhere
Aquagirl
October 28th, 2011
4:18 pm
I would say that incivilty started with the Impeachment of Nixon.
I think we’re all giving way too much credit to our politicians. They reflect our society, not make it.
An excellent view on our social breakdown is Bowling Alone By Robert Putnam. We’re more mobile and increasingly isolated from others. We tend to stick with “our kind” and it’s not always racial division. This makes us less tolerant of those who don’t share our ideology.
When we see other Americans as the true threat to our way of life something is seriously broken.
Of course UGA grads will never grasp these concepts.
saywhat?
October 28th, 2011
4:30 pm
rightwing troll
October 28th, 2011
4:16 pm
“The biggest problem of Kyle’s lament for today is that history has proven the decision to keep Bork off the bench was a correct decision…”
There is this too.
MarkV
October 28th, 2011
4:30 pm
Incivility in politics has flared up at the Bork confirmation hearings, but to claim that it started a new era is both historically wrong and simplistic.
What is ironic about Kyle’s article is that his own blog often degenerates into exchanges of insults, and Kyle either cannot or does not want to do anything about it.
Hillbilly D
October 28th, 2011
4:36 pm
What is ironic about Kyle’s article is that his own blog often degenerates into exchanges of insults, and Kyle either cannot or does not want to do anything about it.
The same could be said of his collegue, across the aisle, and he has also written columns similar to this one..
Southern Comfort
October 28th, 2011
4:43 pm
HD @ 4:36
AMEN!!!
MarkV
October 28th, 2011
4:49 pm
Southern Comfort @4:01 pm
While I am sympathetic to the feelings you have expressed, I keep in mind that politics is always the art of the possible. Even the best policy is worthless if it cannot be implemented.
Aquagirl
October 28th, 2011
4:49 pm
The same could be said of his collegue, across the aisle, and he has also written columns similar to this one.
Jay? I have the idea you don’t hang there anymore because of some a-hole, but I can’t agree the posting is as wide-open as it is here.
Matter of fact, the Friday group hug is in progress. Having the regulars relax over a mutual interest de-fangs people. For a minute anyhow.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
October 28th, 2011
5:20 pm
I do not know anyone who plans to vote for Romney and I guess that’s why the libs think he’s a sure thing.
They’re clueless, as usual.
Southern Comfort
October 28th, 2011
5:27 pm
MarkV
I’m not quite following your statement that politics is the art of the possible. Are you saying that Obama could possibly pull off some ultra liberal policy in the current political climate? Obama’s fate was sealed as soon as he took the oath of office. Look at the national dialogue and see who’s actually controlled it. The Democratic Party can not even put together a coherent message, so there’s little to no chance that they could enact any liberal policy. They couldn’t manage to do it when they held control of both houses of Congress.
ragnar danneskjold
October 28th, 2011
5:43 pm
Well argued. Explains why I never trust – at face value – anything any leftist says about anything. If they say the sky is blue, I think I better go to a window to verify it.
The fabled lie: “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”
American is a more honest country than represented by democrats, and more intelligent than the bald lies told by Senator Kennedy. Thus leftists have so little credibility with Americans, why they have to deny being “liberals.”
MarkV
October 28th, 2011
5:44 pm
Southern Comfort @5:27 pm
I think you are putting your finger on at least part of the problem. Obama is not the Democratic party. He may be an official leader of the party, but he is not a dictator, who could unilaterally make things happen. We could go on into all the reasons why some Democrats do what they do, but my point is that you have accused Obama of “giving in,” when in many of those cases he did not have the support he needed to succeed.
Jack
October 28th, 2011
5:49 pm
I agree with Dusty, Kyle. You might as well stay out of the trenches because you can’t reason with folks that supported Ted Kennedy or his politics.
Shantel
October 28th, 2011
6:04 pm
Robert Bork was no hero. The system worked when the Senate declined to confirm his Supreme Court nomination.
For those too young to remember, Robert Bork carried out Richard Nixon’s order to fire the Watergate special prosecutor in 1973 after his two bosses, more principled men, refused the order and resigned. Bork was a thug and a traitor.
saywhat?
October 28th, 2011
6:04 pm
ragnar danneskjold
October 28th, 2011
5:43 pm
“Well argued. Explains why I never trust – at face value – anything any leftist says about anything. If they say the sky is blue, I think I better go to a window to verify it.”
I have a similar philosophy about the right. If you want to know what they are up to, listen to what they are accusing the left of. Today’s right wingers are the worst sufferers of projection in history.
Old Timer
October 28th, 2011
6:22 pm
I think Bork was an instance in which the conservatives pushed their position too far, giving rise to all the hostility. The killer for me was his naked assertion that there was no constitutional right to privacy. Having someone like that on the Supreme Court would have been far, far worse than nine Clarence Thomases.
Now, dozens of court nominees fail to merit even an up or down vote. It’s a plain fact: this country is governed by the Supreme Court, not Congress. Constitutionality is whatever a majority of the Supreme Court says it is, and the determination is governed by political beliefs. So much for the idiot who taught my business law class and asserted that court decisions are not influenced by political beliefs. Is it any wonder that most federal court nominations languish in Congress till they die of inaction?
And so we can expect a continuation of the cut-and-slash brand of consideration of federal court nominees. Given what’s at stake, it’s hard to blame the parties. Members of the Judiciary Committee know that they’re not conferring a lifetime appointment on an impartial arbiter.
@@
October 28th, 2011
7:07 pm
…after Bork, nominees would scarcely acknowledge that they had rich and nuanced judicial philosophies for fear of giving ammunition to the other side. Those philosophies would be unveiled only after they were on the court.
And the “means” brought to ^^^ the end. At least something good came of it.
Haven’t even read the comments, but I’m guessin’ jay’s crew has arrived to lecture the rest of us on civility.
Thbppbbbt.
Crenshaw8
October 28th, 2011
7:31 pm
The SCOTUS needs to watch Obama closely.
Barack Obama wants everyone to know that he’s the president, and by golly he’s getting impatient. “We can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job,” he told a Las Vegas crowd Monday. “I’ve told my administration to keep looking every single day for actions we can take without Congress.”
In his zeal to get reelected, he just may step out of bounds.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
October 28th, 2011
7:40 pm
This is how they have to go out and raise funds. There is nothing, not one syllable from either Michelle Obama or Barack Obama or anybody in this campaign that’s inspiring or uplifting. They are happily presiding over and managing a country in decline — and the only ammunition in their arsenal is these never ending lies about the Republicans want poisoned air and water, dirty air and water; nobody able to speak. It’s just breathtaking, to listen to this, to listen to absolutely how morally vacant they are — how unable they are to talk about anything positive or uplifting, including any of their own achievements, because there aren’t any. -RushLimbaugh