Which brings me, of course, to the story Bill Moyers aired on Friday evening. I had intended to write about that yesterday but I, like millions of others, got caught up in the statement issued by Tiger Woods on Friday morning. One of the things about Friday that I find interesting pertains to those who subscribe to conspiracy theories. It’s easy to dismiss them, to ridicule them – I’ve done it myself, many times. But it is does give me a bit of pause to hear the broadcasters spew stupidity for an entire day about a guy who plays golf.
Golf.
And then, later in the evening, tune in for an hour-long exploration of the recent decision to further sell elections handed down by the supreme court (not that anyone cares, but since it would imply respect, I’m no longer going to use upper-case letters for that particular branch). To me, it’s terrifying enough that we’re not even going to continue to pretend that elections in this country are based on anything other than money. We should all be well aware of that by now.
More than half of Bill Moyers’ Friday program was a repeat from one produced in 1998, in which he interviewed two of the supreme court judges who wrote the recent ruling. In the 1998 interview, based on stories from Pennsylvania, Louisiana and Texas, the two judges were very clear in their belief that mixing high finances with judgeships is a profoundly bad idea. What happened in the 12 years that have passed since then I haven’t the slightest idea.
Whatever has transpired, it doesn’t bode well for the future of what we think of as justice, or what we were once taught to think of as justice. That’s because in 80 percent of the states, the people who look after the law, the judges, are elected. So under the new rules, if you’re a judge – or you want to be a judge – your campaign, or, more importantly, the campaign against you, will be colored by the highest bidder. What are you going to do? Speak up for those who aren’t represented adequately? Speak up against big money? Speak up your way right out of a job? And then once you’re seated on the bench, whose interests are you going to keep in mind when you hear cases? People who are speaking up and acting out against the corporations? People who put the air we breathe – literally, in Louisiana – ahead of the third-quarter financials? Disenfranchised people? Poor people?
As I watched Bill Moyers on Friday night, it occurred to me that his entire on-air existence is a great analogy for the deadly mix of big money and electing judges. His program, which doesn’t include fancy graphics or shimmering correspondents, doesn’t come on until 9 on Friday nights (in Portland anyhow). Katie Couric, on the other hand – and I’ve read many places that her salary is more than PBS’ entire non-U.S. operating budget – well, she’s prime time, of course, where she apparently prefers stories about golf players and stunts pulled by aspiring reality television stars over topics like privatizing the judicial system. Her network’s chief legal correspondent, a snide-voiced woman called Jan Crawford, has said on at least two talk shows that the reaction – if we may call it that – to the recent supreme court decision has been “over dramatized.” I guess you really do get what you pay for.
At any rate, speaking of clichés, they say misery loves company, and on Friday night I could not have agreed more. My outlook is hovering on the border that separates, barely, overwhelmed from despair. I am not alone: In the 30 years he’s been covering money and politics, Bill Moyers said, even though it gets uglier every year, 2010 is in a league of its own. I sit here and write about it, and e-mail about it, and think about it and talk about it, not sure where to stop, not sure, really, where to even start. But Bill Moyers is better at language than I am, which is probably one of the millions of reasons he has his job and I do not. He summed up the whole mess with one beautifully chosen word: corrosive.
Golf.
And then, later in the evening, tune in for an hour-long exploration of the recent decision to further sell elections handed down by the supreme court (not that anyone cares, but since it would imply respect, I’m no longer going to use upper-case letters for that particular branch). To me, it’s terrifying enough that we’re not even going to continue to pretend that elections in this country are based on anything other than money. We should all be well aware of that by now.
More than half of Bill Moyers’ Friday program was a repeat from one produced in 1998, in which he interviewed two of the supreme court judges who wrote the recent ruling. In the 1998 interview, based on stories from Pennsylvania, Louisiana and Texas, the two judges were very clear in their belief that mixing high finances with judgeships is a profoundly bad idea. What happened in the 12 years that have passed since then I haven’t the slightest idea.
Whatever has transpired, it doesn’t bode well for the future of what we think of as justice, or what we were once taught to think of as justice. That’s because in 80 percent of the states, the people who look after the law, the judges, are elected. So under the new rules, if you’re a judge – or you want to be a judge – your campaign, or, more importantly, the campaign against you, will be colored by the highest bidder. What are you going to do? Speak up for those who aren’t represented adequately? Speak up against big money? Speak up your way right out of a job? And then once you’re seated on the bench, whose interests are you going to keep in mind when you hear cases? People who are speaking up and acting out against the corporations? People who put the air we breathe – literally, in Louisiana – ahead of the third-quarter financials? Disenfranchised people? Poor people?
As I watched Bill Moyers on Friday night, it occurred to me that his entire on-air existence is a great analogy for the deadly mix of big money and electing judges. His program, which doesn’t include fancy graphics or shimmering correspondents, doesn’t come on until 9 on Friday nights (in Portland anyhow). Katie Couric, on the other hand – and I’ve read many places that her salary is more than PBS’ entire non-U.S. operating budget – well, she’s prime time, of course, where she apparently prefers stories about golf players and stunts pulled by aspiring reality television stars over topics like privatizing the judicial system. Her network’s chief legal correspondent, a snide-voiced woman called Jan Crawford, has said on at least two talk shows that the reaction – if we may call it that – to the recent supreme court decision has been “over dramatized.” I guess you really do get what you pay for.
At any rate, speaking of clichés, they say misery loves company, and on Friday night I could not have agreed more. My outlook is hovering on the border that separates, barely, overwhelmed from despair. I am not alone: In the 30 years he’s been covering money and politics, Bill Moyers said, even though it gets uglier every year, 2010 is in a league of its own. I sit here and write about it, and e-mail about it, and think about it and talk about it, not sure where to stop, not sure, really, where to even start. But Bill Moyers is better at language than I am, which is probably one of the millions of reasons he has his job and I do not. He summed up the whole mess with one beautifully chosen word: corrosive.
