Article by John Derbyshire |
||||
|
|
|||
| Exterminate
This Last month Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court gave a talk to the Law School of the
University of Melbourne, in Australia.
Her topic was judicial
independence, and in particular “assaults on judges from the political
branches”. To illustrate
her point, she singled out the current Majority Whip of the U.S. House of
Representatives: One powerful member of the U.S. Congress, Tom DeLay, has advocated the impeachment of judges who render unpopular decisions that, in his view, do not follow the law. Mr DeLay, who is not a lawyer but, I’m told, an exterminator by profession… DeLay has in fact been a
salaried elected official since 1978.
Prior to that, he did indeed run a small exterminating business in
Sugar Land, Texas. This fact
became known early in his political career, and his opponents, as well as
newspaper commentators and cartoonists, have been having good sport with
it for years. DeLay is surely
used to the quips by now, though he may have begun to find them
irritating, or perhaps just wearying:
in the biography posted on his Congressional web site he notes only
that he “owned and operated a small business”.
He certainly took exception to Justice Ginsburg’s remarks,
though, and issued a spirited rejoinder: I’m sure Justice Ginsburg does not believe that the judicial branch is above accountability. … I also reject Ginsburg’s assertion that I am not qualified to offer an opinion on problems within out justice system. … I believe that average Americans—not just Ivy League lawyers—have both a right and an obligation to speak out when they see members of the judiciary overstepping the proper scope of the law. The exchange illustrates two
salient features of the United States today:
first, that we are undergoing a slow drift towards a mandarinized
society run by an elite of law-school graduates who hold all non-legal
occupations in more or less open contempt, and second, that resistance to
that drift is alive and well, even in the lawyer-heavy U.S. Congress. To run an exterminating
business is, of course, to provide a very useful service to one’s fellow
citizens, much more useful than the ones most civilian government
employees provide. I have no
idea whether or not Albo Pest Control, the firm DeLay ran, was successful,
and I bet Justice Ginsburg does not know either, but it is certain that
without small firms like that, life in the United States would be very
difficult indeed. And yet the law-school elites and their hangers-on regard
these services with disdain —
a disdain so internalized they assume that
everyone else feels it too, so that they can be free to opine as Ginsburg
did (even on foreign soil). Remember
the comment of that other law-school graduate (and wife of a law-school
graduate), Hillary Clinton, during the debate on her health-care plan,
dismissing questions about the burdens it would place on small firms with
the sneering remark that she could not "be responsible for every
undercapitalized business in America”. Remarks like this are all over
the place now. I took a break
from writing this to watch a Fox News discussion about the Marc Rich
pardon. There was Democratic
strategist Bob Beckel —
architect of Walter Mondale’s 1984 presidential
campaign — laying into U.S. Congressman Dan Burton, whom he referred to
scornfully as “a graduate of the Iowa Institute of Auto Mechanics”.
It seems to me that on any rational scale of values, an auto
mechanic ranks much higher than a political consultant in social utility.
Why anyone should think less of a man for having learned such an
honorable trade is not clear, but plainly Beckel believes we should
so think. (In fact,
Burton’s Congressional bio lists Indiana University and the Cincinnati
Bible Seminary. Beckel holds
a B.A. from Wagner College, a liberal-arts institution in New York City.) In Imperial China the social
ranking was shi, nong, gong, shang:
the scholar-bureaucrat, the farmer, the artisan, and last of all
the despised merchant. Some
such spirit has always been present here —
see the description of Gopher
Prairie’s commercial center in chapter 4 of Main Street.
The partiality of America’s ruling classes towards lawyering has
a long pedigree, too: lawyers
were prominent in the Continental Congress, and seven of the first ten
presidents were lawyers. The
27th president, William Howard Taft, was actually made Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court after leaving office.
He wrote: “I don’t remember that I ever was President.”
It is a curious feature of
political vituperation in this country that a president who has been a
lawyer is never made fun of on that account, while a president who has
followed any other trade is never allowed to forget it.
Reagan was scoffed at for having been an actor, Truman for his
adventures in haberdashery, Jimmy Carter for his career as a peanut
farmer. Yet neither Coolidge,
the most-mocked of all modern presidents, nor Nixon, the most reviled,
ever had it held against them, even by the worst of their many detractors,
that they had been working lawyers. The power of the mandarins is
waxing ever greater now, though, with the vast apparatus of modern
government theirs to command. So
is resistance to the mandarinization of America.
The reason Tom DeLay went into politics in the first place was, in
fact, his indignation at the arrogance of E.P.A. bureaucrats in banning a
useful pesticide. There is, of course
— this is
America — a racial angle. The
Wall Street Journal recently ran a profile of Bowie, a suburb of
Washington D.C., where an influx of upper-middle-class black people has
unsettled the town’s lower-middle-class white population.
Reading between the lines, it is not hard to see that some part of
the resentment felt by the whites was due to the fact that the well-heeled
black citizens taking over their PTAs and city council belong
overwhelmingly to the two most despised professions in this country:
lawyers and government bureaucrats.
That the United States now has a large and flourishing black
middle-class is proper cause for rejoicing;
that this middle class is heavily weighted towards government and
legal employment is cause for concern.
It would be a shame if the great progress made by black Americans
this past generation should be vitiated by the perception, among other
Americans, that they are the fuglemen of an over-regulated, over-lawyered,
over-governed, over-taxed society. It is not easy to remember now
that when America was new, there was a hunger for law and lawyers.
Abraham Lincoln, as a boy, once walked 34 miles for the pleasure
“of hearing a lawyer make a speech”.
That was on the Indiana frontier in the 1820s
— not a place where
the rule of law was very securely established.
And elsewhere that hunger is
still keen today. A few
months ago I took lunch with a gentleman named Dong YuYu, a visitor from
mainland China, where he works as literary editor of a highbrow national
newspaper. Now, there is a
certain regrettable cast of mind that I fall into in these situations.
Here is a gentleman, intelligent, thoughtful, polite and
well-dressed, from an ancient civilization with a glittering literary
tradition stretching back into the Bronze Age, when my own ancestors were
dressed in animal skins. Unfortunately
his nation has been kept in poverty and misery for the past several
decades by packs of home-grown gangsters.
I sympathize, but I do not want to be condescending, and in the
effort not to be condescending I lean too far the other way, and find
myself harping on negative aspects of America’s political culture.
(This isn’t just me; Henry
Kissinger’s disgraceful brown-nosing of Chou En-lai seems to have been
another instance of this too-earnest determination not to condescend.) So it was on this occasion.
For reasons I have forgotten, I had been vexed by some member of
the legal profession. America,
I told Mr Dong, was plagued by lawyers.
They are crawling into every area of our national life, like
cockroaches, nibbling away at all the cement of decency and mutual
consideration that holds our society together… Mr Dong was shaking his head.
No, he said, you can’t have too many lawyers. Oh, I said, but he could not possibly imagine…
He was still shaking his head.
“No. Don’t
complain. You can’t have
too many.” I persisted.
Did he follow the O.J. Simpson case?
That so-called “dream team”…
“No,” said Mr Dong, calmly but very firmly now, “You
can’t have too many lawyers. You
can’t. Impossible.
Never too many.” I could not budge him on the point, this man from a nation
hungry for law. There, perhaps, is the solution to our lawyer problem. Let’s export them! |
||||