Michael Kinsley goes over the top with this one:
It’s clear that the one paralyzing fact about Sonia Sotomayor, to Republicans, is the color of her skin. If she weren’t Latino, they would be in full revenge-for-Clarence-Thomas mode. Instead, they are in an agony of indecision, with GOP strategists openly warning: Support the Latina or die. If the 40 remaining Republican senators end up voting for Sotomayor, her race will be the reason.
Yes, congressional Republicans have been nearly unanimous in opposing Obama’s economic plans. But that’s no reason to be so sure they’d be unanimous in opposing a white Supreme Court justice. Just for example, Stephen Breyer was confirmed on an 87-9 vote, and if the Republicans wanted to be in “full revenge-for-Clarence-Thomas mode.” that would’ve been a more natural time to do it. I know that Kinsley specializes in clever arguments, but in this case I think he’s too clever by half.
To put it another way: the simplest response to Kinsley is that he’s taking pure untestable speculation and claiming it’s simply true. A more nuanced response is that I don’t actually think his statement is true. Much depends on the particular nominee.
Wouldn't you say he's using a form of argument in which you characterize your opponent's arguments by connecting them, however superficially, to something rancid or repugnant? As in, calling someone who is aggressive a Nazi. Is that technically a form of innuendo? I'm not up on my terms of rhetoric.
In other words, I don't think it's a causal claim, however casual, but rather a calculated disparaging argument.
Latino? What is it? What about Latin Americans from European ancestry? I believe that the proportion of people with European background is higher in, for instance, Argentina than in US.
"the simplest response to Kinsley is that he's taking pure untestable speculation and claiming it's simply true."
Hey, you can't apply scientific paper standards to people communicating in the op-ed mode!
What bothers me about it — and this happens on both sides of political debates all the time — is that he's condemning the other side not for something they have actually done, but for what he imagines they would do in a different situation.
I've been thinking about this post for a few hours now because I think it is an interesting insight into the discipline. Instead of being irritating, I think it is a good opportunity for political science to revisit the strategic legislative voting literature. The strategic voting literature hasn't really addressed this sort of question as the heavy use of ideal points kind of preempts categorical issues like this so I think Kinsley's statement could provide a nice research agenda.
Even better, I think that Sotomayor provides a possibly good case study because we've seen such racially charged comments from the elites and I imagine most of the Republican caucus will make some sort of comment on the race issue eventually. With race being so salient, perhaps there is a way to test it's effect.
Just a random thought from an aspiring political scientist.
Stuart: I completely agree. Kinsley's simultaneously insulting Sotomayor, Obama, and the 40 Republican senators.