How low can American politics go? We’re about to find out.
Last Friday the inimitable Ruth Bader Ginsburg finally lost her long struggle with cancer. And immediately, the tributes to her brilliant career were drowned out by the clamour of politicians squabbling over the process of appointing her replacement to the US Supreme Court.
On paper at least, the process is straightforward. The president nominates a candidate for the vacancy, the Senate investigates the candidate, and then the Senate votes (by simple majority) on the confirmation of the candidate.
The problem is that process wasn’t followed in March 2016 when then-president Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court to replace Justice Antonin Scalia who had died in February.
The Republican-controlled Senate declined to even consider the nomination on the grounds that it was took close to the 2016 presidential election — at that point still eight months away.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had already made his position very clear on the day that Scalia died:
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
A similar view was expressed by numerous Republicans. (See here for an exhaustive list of such self-righteous declarations.)
Given this history, surely Republicans could never entertain a nomination from President Donald Trump just six weeks before the next presidential election?
Of course they can.
Mitch McConnell, still the Senate majority leader, released a statement on the day of RBG’s death.
He said that “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate”. What happened to “the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice”?
The hypocrisy is staggering. McConnell attempted to justify the unjustifiable on a specious argument that in 2016 the Senate majority had been elected “to check and balance” a president in his second term.
Perhaps the most egregious backflip is from Senator Lindsey Graham, the Republican chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee who will oversee any confirmation hearing. In 2016 he could not have been clearer:
“I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, ‘Let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination’.”
On Saturday Graham tweeted that he will support President Trump “in any effort to move forward regarding the recent vacancy created by the passing of Justice Ginsburg”.
These politicians have no shame.
There is already talk that if Trump’s nomination is successful, but the Democrats win the presidency and control of the Senate, they will retaliate by expanding the number of Supreme Court justices, “stacking” the court in their favour.
The sad reality is that US politics are now toxic. There is no room for compromise or co-operation. There are no mistruths that cannot be spoken; no norms or conventions that cannot be broken to achieve partisan political goals.
But there is a high price to pay for such behaviour. According to the pollster Gallup, confidence in the US Congress has declined from 42% in 1973 to just 13% in 2020.
Democracy is in trouble when citizens hold their politicians in such contempt.
There are lessons here for politicians in liberal democracies like Australia. They must resist the temptation to follow the path taken by their American counterparts. They must not sacrifice their principles for short-term political gain. Ethics matter.
Australian politicians have never been saints. But there is evidence that their standards are slipping.
In the lead-up to the 2016 federal election, the Australian Labor Party ran what came to be known as the “Mediscare” campaign. This was intended to scare voters off voting for the Coalition by making them believe that the Coalition would somehow “privatise” the Medicare system. The campaign was unquestionably dishonest.
The Coalition expressed outrage over Mediscare in the 2016 election. But rather than retain the moral high ground for the 2019 election, it chose instead to take Labor’s low road.
The result was the “death tax” scare campaign. This was intended to scare voters off voting for the ALP by making them believe that an ALP government would bring in an inheritance tax. Like Mediscare, the Coalition’s death tax campaign was fundamentally dishonest.
The politicians behind both those campaigns knew exactly what they were doing. For them, the ends justified the means. This is what “win at all costs” politics looks like. Politicians who have no shame.
Former Queensland judge Tony Fitzgerald describes them as “‘whatever it takes’ politicians driven by self-interest and ideology”.
It must be obvious to Australia’s major political parties that US politics are deeply flawed; that hyper-partisanship and the absence of a moral compass are inconsistent with a healthy democracy.
We can only hope that they have the good sense to take a different path.
72 hours only. 50% off a year of Crikey and The Atlantic.
Our two-for-one offer with The Atlantic was so popular we decided to bring it back.
But only for 72 hours.
Use the promo code ATLANTIC2020 and you’ll get 50% off a year of Crikey (usually $199) and a year of digital access to The Atlantic (usually $70). That’s BOTH for just $129.
Hurry. Ends midnight this Thursday.
Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief of Crikey
Leave a comment
“We can only hope that they have the good sense to take a different path.”
I am increasingly fearful of the future and where it is all heading. Do you think our lot do have ‘the sense’?
Also becoming more prominent is the attitude ‘our worst is better than your best’. It gives a licence for the government of the day to be exceptionally awful whilst still claiming the higher ground. Coalition have become masters at this.
The relentless demonisation of Andrews has more than a touch of 1975 deja vu. The new Whitlam .. if only.
Hmm I think this comment is an example of what he’s talking about.
“We can only hope that they have the good sense to take a different path.” Not a hope.
I’ve always called it playing the board game “Politics”. They love it, they’re addicted to it and we voters are just “points” in their game. With social media the way it is, there’s no way off this path down the low-road.
Jeremy I reckon you kinda nailed it.
The only solution it to somehow, perhaps by magic, depoliticize social media.
Can it be done?
The old aphorism ‘ Act in haste Repent at leisure’ has never been accurately applied to the 2016 US Presidential election. They seem doomed to reap this whirlwind into the forseeable future. The Great Delusion has ensnared them all.
What’s worse is that both political choices in the US are terrible.
Re the “choice” – it strains credulity that the Dems (pretend to) believe that Biden is mens sana.
To have this whited sepulchre stand (rather than approx. 100M other native born citizens) is to ensure defeat which sounds like a plan – who would want to have to repair the damage of the last 4 years?
Which might explain why “Labor” has its current leader – the Machine does not want to win, too comfy in the bowels of SussexSt manipulating the factions for fun & profit – responsibility is too exhausting.