Until yesterday, putative Republican nominee Donald Trump appeared more interested in getting a judge disqualified than in, oh, making political hay about the continued non-recovery economic recovery, in which the unemployment rate decreases by subtracting discouraged workers from the work force.

There might be something else at work.  Here's Neil Steinberg, in Chicago's Sun-Times, calling out Mr Trump's error in suggesting there's a connection between a judge's ancestry and his ability to conduct a fair trial.
What Trump is too stupid to understand is this: if we begin to denounce our fellow citizens as being incapable of doing their jobs because their parents were Mexican immigrants, or because they’re Muslim, or Catholic, or whatever lineage or credo is disagreeing with Donald Trump at the moment, then the country unravels and we become just another balkanized hellhole.
Perhaps that ship has already sailed: see nominee Sonia Sotomayor, Wise Latina.

Or perhaps the ship has not yet docked: see Foster v. Chapman.  The prosecutor shalt not disqualify all potential black jurors when a black man is on trial (the case is out of Georgia; that might be material.)

And yes, there's a history of Most-Favored-Nationality legislation in the country's history.  But codifying hierarchies of Privilege, Oppression, and Protected Status cannot end well.

Jonah Goldberg notes, though, that demonstrating the absurdity of essentialist identity politics by using essentialist identity politics is an absurdity too far.
Trump is not battling identity politics here, or even undermining it. Trump is capitulating to it, and bringing the Republican party along with him. Sure, it’s interesting, even entertaining, to watch Trump use the logic of identity politics against its entrenched practitioners. But he’s not condemning this way of thinking, he’s embracing it.

By all means, conservatives should use this episode to point out the fallacies and contradiction of identity politics. But Trump is not a hero in that effort, he’s a cautionary tale.
He has links to commentators who suggest that the reductio is more serious, or more purposeful, than that, in case you're interested.

No comments: