4 ms·

The Clarence Thomas nomination hearings are I think a better marker for the beginning of our modern era of "hyperpoliticization" of everything. https://en.wiki

The Clarence Thomas nomination hearings are I think a better marker for the beginning of our modern era of "hyperpoliticization" of everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_...

Clubber 2y ago
I would opine it was Robert Bork a few years earlier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomi...
- matthewdgreen 2y ago
  One of the pieces of history I didn’t appreciate at the time, because I was just a kid: Bork was Solicitor General in the Nixon administration. When Nixon ordered that his AG fire the Special Prosecutor investigating Watergate, Nixon’s appointed AG and deputy (very ethically) resigned instead. This left Bork as acting AG, and unlike his superiors, Bork was very happy to fire the Special Prosecutor at his boss’s request. In other words, almost everyone in the Nixon administration had more ethics than Bork. What was so disgusting and surprising about the Bork nomination is that it was clearly a reward for that behavior, one that persisted across multiple presidential terms. It sent a message that “no matter how damaging your lack of ethics might seem in the short term, there is a reward for loyalty and willingness to short-circuit the criminal process” that would have felt at home in an organized crime family. The stuff we see today is just a further development of the metastasizing cancer that began right there.
  - Clubber 2y ago
    >...there is a reward for loyalty and willingness to short-circuit the criminal process” that would have felt at home in an organized crime family. "Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don't have men killed!"
MisterBastahrd 2y ago
I disagree. For one, Bork had already been refused a seat on the Supreme Court. Secondly, it's the first time that a mainstream political party ever succeeded in "othering" another group of straight white capitalists purely with propaganda.
- frmersdog 2y ago
  Everyone forgets that the DNC forced out FDR's two-time VP for being too buddy-buddy with socialism, giving us Truman and a half century of the ultimate in hyperpartisanship (the kind with Nukes of Damocles hanging over everyone's heads).
  - MisterBastahrd 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - frmersdog 2y ago
      I acknowledge the exceedingly particular wording of your statement and happily exercise my choice to kill the author and read it as the (true and cogent) general indictment that justifies my reply. :) In any case, that was the monied conservative wing of the DNC - pre-Southern Strategy - going after not just the man but the coalition he represented (so you're kind of wrong there too?).

Clubber 2y ago

I would opine it was Robert Bork a few years earlier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomi...

matthewdgreen 2y ago
One of the pieces of history I didn’t appreciate at the time, because I was just a kid: Bork was Solicitor General in the Nixon administration. When Nixon ordered that his AG fire the Special Prosecutor investigating Watergate, Nixon’s appointed AG and deputy (very ethically) resigned instead. This left Bork as acting AG, and unlike his superiors, Bork was very happy to fire the Special Prosecutor at his boss’s request. In other words, almost everyone in the Nixon administration had more ethics than Bork. What was so disgusting and surprising about the Bork nomination is that it was clearly a reward for that behavior, one that persisted across multiple presidential terms. It sent a message that “no matter how damaging your lack of ethics might seem in the short term, there is a reward for loyalty and willingness to short-circuit the criminal process” that would have felt at home in an organized crime family. The stuff we see today is just a further development of the metastasizing cancer that began right there.
- Clubber 2y ago
  >...there is a reward for loyalty and willingness to short-circuit the criminal process” that would have felt at home in an organized crime family. "Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don't have men killed!"

MisterBastahrd 2y ago

I disagree. For one, Bork had already been refused a seat on the Supreme Court. Secondly, it's the first time that a mainstream political party ever succeeded in "othering" another group of straight white capitalists purely with propaganda.

frmersdog 2y ago
Everyone forgets that the DNC forced out FDR's two-time VP for being too buddy-buddy with socialism, giving us Truman and a half century of the ultimate in hyperpartisanship (the kind with Nukes of Damocles hanging over everyone's heads).
- MisterBastahrd 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - frmersdog 2y ago
    I acknowledge the exceedingly particular wording of your statement and happily exercise my choice to kill the author and read it as the (true and cogent) general indictment that justifies my reply. :) In any case, that was the monied conservative wing of the DNC - pre-Southern Strategy - going after not just the man but the coalition he represented (so you're kind of wrong there too?).