- BitsBlog - https://bitsblog.com -

Publius, Et Al

There’s been much fury and spittle being passed back and forth recently regarding the outing of “Publius”… [1] his real name and position being revealed, by Ed Whelan over at National Review [2], incidental to an argument over the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court.  Whalen has, alas,  since apologized as he should not have, having done nothing wrong, thus giving the left another full retreat. The lesson learned, of course is that when a liberal screams loudly enough, the principles of the thing go away and everyone apologizes for offending the liberal.

But that apology, in my view, takes none of the weight off the discussion that springs from the occurrence.

I will point out to you that this kind of ‘outing’ is hardly [3] new. [4]  Oh, more than granted that it is a bit more heated than most, given the politics behind it, but for the moment, let’s ignore that aspect and stick to the general aspects of blogging anonymously.

( Full Disclosure: I’m also known as “BitHead”.  That said, I can also honestly say I’ve never having done anonymous blogging, myself… Even in the pre-blogging, UseNet days, I made no secret that I am ‘BitHead” and “BitHead” is me… the nick being more of a promotional exercise than anything else. I’m no more secret than Glenn Reynolds is for being known also as “InstaPundit”. As a result of that experience, and the logic behind that choice, I’m less than sympathetic to “Publius”.)

Trying to hide one’s identification while spreading one’s ideals seems to me inherently contradictory. Our politics are supposed to be a reflection of our most personal values and beliefs. So, in a free society, how seriously can we take an argument about one’s most cherished beliefs, if they won’t even sign their name to them?

I am reminded of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence, and the consequences they all, to a man suffered at the hands of King George [5]. I dare say the consequences “Publius” might now face pale in comparison.  If we take that lesson, though, taking a stand means having the courage to subject yourself to the consequences… both good and bad… of that stand. Secrets have a tendency to be exposed eventually despite any efforts, and when they are so exposed, they tend to distract from the arguments being made… as “”Publius” ” is now finding.

In other situations, such as when you’re blogging about the people you work with or for, being anonymous might be useful, but strikes me as outright underhandedness, and is so childish I won’t even address it fully, here, except to say I personally despise such things.

But here it is… Because of the increased amount of damage that one can do while so cloaked in anonymity, writing anonymously about someone else, as was being done by “Publius” here, requires an increased caution… even while allowing such a person to toss caution to the winds, since they are then disconnected from the direct consequences of their comments. Publius crossed that line, exposing someone who was using his real name  to some very real if less than fully tangible consequences so as to push a particular political agenda. Whalen in my view had nothing to apologize for and he created more damage than he yet knows by doing so.

As to that agenda, and to this point, I have made no judgments as regards the politics involved. That’s because the two situations deserve to be examined separately, but since it is important to understand the reason underneath the intensity of this argument, I will provide you an example; let’s go back to “Publius” on  June the second [6];

I’m getting extremely annoyed watching the media repeatedly quote the “wise Latina” line without putting it in context. I saw it in the Post this morning, and have since seen it on TV a couple of times — with nary a word about context.

Basically, any reporter who quotes this line out of context is affirmatively misleading the public.

If you read the speech, you’ll see that Sotomayor is in the middle of discussion of race and gender discrimination cases. She’s saying that, in those type of cases, the experiences of minorities would hopefully lead them to reach better results as judges than all-white, all-male panels.

That argument only works if you make the assumption that the judges in question are allowing their ethnicity to influence their decisions, and that being both racist and within that racism, activist, is a net positive. Remember when ‘Blind Justice” was a goal?  The most generous read, then is that “Publius”‘ position is laughable on it’s face. Would he make the same allowances for an all minority panel of judges, and the influence of one white male judge’s ethnic activism being the leaven? I think not.

So we can either accept “Publius'” argument, or we can believe our lying eyes when we  read the direct quote of the judge in her own words:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

“Publius” says this line was delivered within a particular context. Trouble is, it’s not true.  CQ Politics: [7]

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor delivered multiple speeches between 1994 and 2003 in which she suggested “a wise Latina woman” or “wise woman” judge might “reach a better conclusion” than a male judge.

Those speeches, released Thursday as part of Sotomayor’s responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s questionnaire, (to see Sotomayor’s responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee click here and here) suggest her widely quoted 2001 speech in which she indicated a “wise Latina” judge might make a better decision was far from a single isolated instance.

This speaks to a group politics activism on the part of Sotomayor and her defenders that deserves no place on the bench of the highest court in land. If a white male were to utter such a phrase once, much less repeatedly, the left wouldn’t be able to heat the tar and gather feathers fast enough.  Yet, this is what our friend “Publius” has been defending, from his formerly anonymous perch. And of course attacking from behind his cloak, anyone who dared disagree.

One wonders if, the consequences now being re-attached to his words, those arguments will be altered. That effect is now somewhat blunted, at least for past writings, but one must wonder how this all will work going forward.