November 2, 2008
Political Science Department
Do You Have To Be a Lawyer?
Scott Greenfield uses the Sarah Palin 1st Amendment flub to complain about the way non-lawyers are allowed to express opinions about the law:
Whenever our politicians lack the education and knowledge to understand and appreciate how the law works, particularly the Constitution, they feel nonetheless empowered to expound on their personal view of how it should be, and what it is, in their view.
That sounds a bit like Scott doesn't like non-lawyers talking about the law, but he's always been kind to me about my ignorance, so that's not quite it. His position is a little more subtle, and a little more directed towards politicians.
I'm not suggesting that only lawyers belong in politics. But I am suggesting that non-lawyers don't get a free pass to ignorantly opine, or even whine, about the law.
Well, no, but I think accomodations have to be made. Just because someone is unable express an idea in the proper legal terms doesn't mean they have a bad idea.
Successful software engineers learn this early in their career. Just because your customer (or client or boss) doesn't know how the software works, what it does, or even how to reboot their computer, doesn't mean their opinion is worthless. This is especially true if they are the end user of the software. In that case, their opinion is the only one that matters.
So, with regard to Palin's comments, if they don't make sense to a lawyer, that doesn't mean they're foolish. It might be a good idea to draw her out on her ideas more so you separate the legal errors from the more important issues of philosophy and values.
Then again, here's how ABC is reporting what she said:
"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."
...
"It's sort of perplexing to me, because I'm a practical person and plainspoken also, but just cutting to the chase and calling things like I see them, just like most Americans. But this has not left a bitter taste in my mouth, the bitter shots taken by the mainstream media and by some of the elitism there in Washington," Palin said.
I don't think you need to be a legal expert to see some muddled thinking here.
7 Comments
Leave a comment
.
Sorry, Mark, but you missed the point of this post. I'm not complaining at all. I'm questioning whether those who would rationalize Palin's, and the many, many other politicians who make significant public mistatements about law, are entitled to a free pass because they aren't lawyers.
The point is that once you put on the mantle of public official, or candidate, you assume an obligation not to mistate, confuse or mislead the public about something that is an essential part of the government function.
I don't suggest that candidates or officials should be lawyers, but that they are not excused from mistatements and misleading the public because they're not, as many Palin defenders have sought to do.
I agree with Scott 110%. I have no particular love for Democrats or Republicans, I'm totally independent when it comes to voting. It wasn't until McCain chose Palin and I heard her "speak" for herself that the choice became a no-brainer for me.
In my opinion, she doesn't even have a basic understanding of the constitution. Rather than consult with staff about those obvious deficits in her understanding, she repeatedly continues to mangle the hell out of the one document which is the foundation upon which this country was formed.
Clearly one need not be a lawyer in order to be a effective politician, but to be completely ignorant of the constitution is inexcusable. Palin is spouting ignorance and her ignorance is akin to the blind leading the blind. All the Bubba voters of the world assume that she knows what she's talking about and so she get's their nod for basically "making up shit."
A guy sitting in a bar can do that all he wants, but I can't give Palin a pass on it....sorry.
Scott, whether you're "complaining" or "questioning," it sounds about the same. If you're saying it's important for politicians to get things right, I agree, but when Palin says something dumb about Constitutional law, it doesn't reflect as badly on her as it would on Obama if he said the same thing. As VP (or even P) Palin would have staff to help her figure these things out.
Now as Spicy points out, Palin keeps making the same mistakes over and over again. That's a different story. Either she's not interested in finding out how the First Amendment works, or she's lying about it to serve her own purposes.
There's a difference between making a mistake and being unwilling (or unable) to learn. Neither of those is an attractive trait in a presidential candidate.
I understand. That's part of the difference in the precision in language and thinking that distinguishes a lawyer hearing a politician talk about law and a non-lawyer trying to grapple with it.
If politicians discussed computer programs, I'm sure you would have a better understanding of the problems they might cause because you would have a deeper appreciation of the significance of their errors.
That could be. It's probably like watching television episodes or movies about our respective areas of expertise. I've had a number of otherwise good stories ruined when the main drama arose out of some computer-related issue that makes no sense at all to me, but you might see the same shows and not let a few doubts ruin it for you.
Maybe it's the same with Palin: I hear her and it sounds like she's confused and mistaken, but to experts like you, she sounds unhinged---she might as well be talking about fairies and unicorns.
She sounds looney, but what concerns me more is that others who know nothing are listening to her and thinking, "hey, she's a governor and VP candidate, she must know what she's talking about." Now you have 10,000 people thinking the same as Palin, and all wrong, and all certain that they know what they are talking about.
I don't think that lawyers are being especially harsh on Palin because of her ignorance of the constitution, the majority of the country is shell shocked at her level of ignorance.