mildly interesting traits among the many she might possibly possess,” Mr. Brooks said.
“But she happened to attend Princeton and then Yale Law School in the 1970s. These were the days when what we now call multiculturalism was just coming into its own. These were the days when the whole race, class and gender academic-industrial complex seemed fresh, exciting and just.
“There was no way she was going to get out of that unscarred. And, in fact, in the years since she has given a series of speeches that have made her a poster child for identity politics. In these speeches, race and gender take center stage. It’s not only the one comment about a wise Latina making better decisions than a white male; it’s the whole litany. If you just read these speeches you might come away with the impression that she was a racial activist who is just using the judicial system as a vehicle for her social crusade.
“And yet her history and conversations with her colleagues suggest this is not the main story. If you look at the whole record, you come away with the impression that Sotomayor is a hardworking, careful-though-unspectacular jurist whose primary commitment is to the law.” but a ramp-up in debt followed by a greater explosion in spending and debt,’ he told Fortune, predicting a day when America’s creditors will start viewing the U.S. Treasury as a risky bet. ‘The bond markets will come after us with a vengeance. We’re playing with fire.’
“Krugman favors far higher taxes, while Ryan wants to curb spending, but for now what’s so big and so dangerous that it distresses such diverse types as Krugman and Ryan — and should scare all Americans — is the Great Debt Threat.” “President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court points to a dilemma that will likely plague his presidency: How does a ‘postracialist’ president play identity politics?” Shelby Steele writes in the Wall Street Journal.
“What is most notable about the Sotomayor nomination is its almost perfect predictability. Somehow we all simply know — like it or not — that Hispanics are now overdue for the gravitas of high office. And our new postracialist president is especially attuned to this chance to have a ‘first’ under his belt, not to mention the chance to further secure the Hispanic vote. And yet it was precisely the American longing for post-racialism — relief from this sort of racial calculating — that lifted Mr. Obama into office,” Mr. Steele said.
“The Sotomayor nomination commits the cardinal sin of identity politics: It seeks to elevate people more for the political currency of their gender and ethnicity than for their individual merit. (Here, too, is the ugly faithlessness in minority merit that always underlies such maneuverings.) Mr. Obama is promising one thing and practicing another, using his interracial background to suggest an America delivered from racial corruption even as he practices a crude form of racial patronage. From America’s first black president, and a man promising the ‘new,’ we get a Supreme Court nomination that is both unoriginal and hackneyed.
“This contradiction has always been at the heart of the Obama story. On the one hand, there was the 2004 Democratic Convention speech proclaiming ‘only one America.’ And on the other hand, there was the racebaiting of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Does this most powerful man on earth know himself well enough to resolve this contradiction and point the way to a genuinely postracial America?
“The Sotomayor nomination suggests not. Throughout her career, Judge Sotomayor has demonstrated a Hispanic chauvinism so extreme that it sometimes crosses into outright claims of racial supremacy, as in 2001 when she said in a lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, ‘a wise Latina woman … would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male.’ “
Greg Pierce can be reached at 202/636-3285 or gpierce@ washingtontimes.com.