Monday, May 10, 2010
The Art of Compromise
I spend a great deal of my lectures in distinguishing for students the difference between zero-sum and mutual gain as ideological approaches that define actors in the political arena. Today's nomination of Elena Kagan by President Obama and the resignation of Gordon Brown, are examples of political leaders that have chosen to compromise as a tactical maneuver in a strategy toward mutual gain. President Obama and Gordon Brown could have taken a zero-sum process dictated by narrow political interests instead chose what they perceive to be the greater good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The media seems to be playing into the fact that if Kagan is elected, the nation's most prominent religious sect, Protestantism, will no longer have a place on the Supreme Court. Does religious affiliation really carry that much sway in a Justices' decisions these days? I find it difficult to buy the claim that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg puts forth in that "society is past worrying about a nominee’s religious affiliations." (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/weekinreview/11liptak.html)There would definitely be some worrisome groups of people if Obama, however unlikely it seems, nominated an evangelical Christian instead. I am not quite ready to say that the nomination of Kagan was for "mutual gain" but Obama is a smart politician- he made the nomination for a reason beyond simply the "mutual gain" ideal.
ReplyDeleteI think Petros' point was that the President didn't go with a far left individual, an "activist judge."
ReplyDeleteHe didn't go with a judge period. Kagan's lack of judicial "paper trail" will probably prove to be an asset in the upcoming Senate confirmation hearings. Although other things that she has done and written in her career will be scrutinized in order to try and ascertain exactly what will be her judicial temperament and ideological bent; all will, of necessity, be only speculative. To this end, the question of strategy seems to me to be more pertinent than that of "mutual gain vs. zero sum."
ReplyDeleteJim's point about religious affiliations could just as easily be applied to other highly contentious "affiliations" that have been discussed in the context of making the Court more ascriptively representative. Does it matter that Kagan is a woman and will increase the percentage of women on the court to an all-time high? Will the Court now be more sensitive to women's issues in deciding cases before it and crafting opinions? Would an Asian-American or openly gay nominee bring different perspectives and judicial points of view? In other words, is justice blind or is it fundamentally political in nature?