DOCSLIB.ORG

A Transcript of the Book Review Podcast from Aug. 2, 2019. Carl

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Transcript of the Book Review Podcast from Aug. 2, 2019. Carl A transcript of the Book Review podcast from Aug. 2, 2019. Carl Hulse talks about “Confirmation Bias: Inside Washington’s War Over the Supreme Court, from Scalia’s Death to Justice Kavanaugh,” and De’Shawn Charles Winslow discusses his debut novel, “In West Mills.” [MUSIC PLAYING] PAMELA PAUL: How has the Supreme Court nomination process changed since the death of Antonin Scalia? Carl Hulse will join us to talk about his new book, “Confirmation Bias.” And how do you imagine the life of someone who has figured into your childhood in fiction? De’Shawn Charles Winslow will tell us about his debut novel, “In West Mills.” Alexandra Alter will give us an update from the publishing world. Plus, our critics will talk about the latest in literary criticism. This is the Book Review Podcast for The New York Times. I’m Pamela Paul. Carl Hulse joins us now. He is the chief Washington correspondent for The Times, and the author of a new book, “Confirmation Bias: Inside Washington’s War Over the Supreme Court From Scalia’s Death to Justice Kavanaugh.” Carl, thanks for being here. CARL HULSE: Great to be here. PAMELA PAUL: So, you are the chief Washington correspondent for The Times. What does that mean exactly? CARL HULSE: Probably that I’ve been here a long time. I’ve been, in some capacities, with The Times since 1986. I had many positions. I started out as a reporter for the papers The Times owned around the country. I became an editor. I became chief congressional correspondent. I became the Washington editor and at the end of that, I think they were looking for something for me to do, so they said, “Now you’re the chief Washington correspondent.” But I think I do a couple of things in that role. I write a lot about the intersection of Congress and the administration and politics from the perspective of somebody who’s been around for a long time. And I also sort of lend myself out to a lot of the other reporters around here to talk with them about how to do their stories and how to approach it, that sort of thing. PAMELA PAUL: You also write a column called On Washington. CARL HULSE: Correct. PAMELA PAUL: How long have you been doing that? Did you originate it, or did you take it over from someone else? What do you try to do? CARL HULSE: Dean Baquet, the editor, actually originated it. We were in a meeting one time when I think I was explaining something to folks. Like, here’s how things really work, and here’s why this is going to happen. And Dean said, “Let’s give Carl a column.” And so On Washington to me is a way to explain kind of the inner workings of things and why things that look like they shouldn’t be happening are happening or why things that aren’t happening, why they’re not happening. So it’s sort of the insider view. PAMELA PAUL: You make sense of it all for the people who are not insiders. CARL HULSE: At least, I try to. PAMELA PAUL: You’ve been reporting out of Washington, as you said, for more than three decades. You’ve seen a lot. Has your job changed significantly since 2016, or is it just sort of just the latest thing? CARL HULSE: Yeah, I think it’s the latest thing. The changes in my job have been a lot about how we deliver the news and how quickly we do the news now compared to when I started here in 1986, which, at the time, we thought we were really going fast, but we go really fast now. But I think, obviously, the Trump administration has changed the way we do things. It’s very intense. There’s a lot of conflict with the people we’re reporting on. And it’s just go, go, go all the time. PAMELA PAUL: Do you get jaded covering Washington politics? CARL HULSE: I think some people would say I do. I try not to. I think it’s one of the most fascinating jobs in the world. And I always tell people — I worked in the Capitol for a long time, in the building itself, and live on Capitol Hill. And I’ve trained a lot of reporters in how to cover Congress. And I always say, the day you walk into the Capitol to work and you’re not thrilled by it and awed by it, it’s a day you need to find another job. So I try to keep a good perspective. But there is a tendency when you see things happen over and over again and kind of go the wrong way politically, there is a tendency to be jaded. I tried to really avoid that. I love working here. I think it’s just extremely fascinating and important to tell people what’s going on in Washington. PAMELA PAUL: Well, the book review version of that is when you start to refer to books as units, as opposed to books. CARL HULSE: I can totally understand that. PAMELA PAUL: That means your clock is ticking. But— CARL HULSE: Yeah, that’s funny. PAMELA PAUL: —you’ve done many things, as you explained, in your role in Washington and your various roles. But one of them has not been covering the Supreme Court directly. CARL HULSE: Correct. PAMELA PAUL: Why did you decide — this is your first book — why this subject? CARL HULSE: Well, and the book is not. It’s about the politics around the Supreme Court. Adam Liptak, our great Supreme Court correspondent, who I give a fulsome shout out to in my acknowledgments, he really helped me a lot in this book. It’s about how these confirmations have gotten so out of control and partisan. People say, oh, you’ve got a Kavanaugh book about the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh. I say, well, it’s about Kavanaugh, but to me, it’s much bigger than that. It’s about how we got here, and these confirmations, and what that has done to the Senate, and the process, and also the court itself, sort of the threat to the integrity of the court. And another big element of this book is how the fight over Merrick Garland, who was stonewalled by Republicans in 2016, how that really helped Donald Trump get elected. I think a big part of my book is how that fight led to the election of Donald Trump. And I just thought it was a really — it was a history changing moment. There was a decision made in 2016 by Mitch McConnell to thwart Obama on a Supreme Court vacancy, and it literally changed history. And I thought that was worth writing about. I’ve actually started the book and was probably a third or so through when Justice Kennedy retired. So I was going to write this book with or without the Kavanaugh fight. PAMELA PAUL: You got a little bonus chapter there, or more than one. CARL HULSE: Yeah, correct. PAMELA PAUL: When people talk about politicization of the Supreme Court nomination process, generally speaking, they date it back, at least in the modern era, to Robert Bork’s failed— CARL HULSE: Correct. PAMELA PAUL: —nomination. And so you were there for that. Is this recent series of battles sort of part of that ongoing continuum? CARL HULSE: It’s all a continuum. Yeah, that’s the perfect word. This has really started out even in the ’60s over Abe Fortas’ nomination to be Chief Justice. And it’s been going on and steadily building, and building, and building. And all these different events have happened to make things worse. One thing that I really point out in the book I think is that both sides — and that’s part of the title, “Confirmation Bias”— both sides, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives, progressives, feel they have been wronged in the confirmation fights. And there’s been this tit for tat series of changes and escalations. And we’ve gotten to the point where the process has just totally broken down. But you are able to confirm justices now with a simple majority. The minority party has little to do with it. But the one I focus on is after the 2000 election of George W. Bush. And Democrats who were outraged by the Supreme Court, by the way, deciding that election began filibustering circuit court, appeals court nominees. And Miguel Estrada, who gets some attention in the book, about a chapter, is the first of these. And it’s this big fight over Miguel Estrada, and it led to more and more fights. There were some little temporary reprieves, but in 2013, Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, majority leader of the Senate, changed the rules to allow Obama to get some of his judges through on a majority vote. And things just built from there, where Senator McConnell blocked Merrick Garland. And that led to Trump being able to really emphasize what he was going to do for the court to bring conservatives behind him, even though they had some qualms about him. Republicans have a tendency to vote more on the court than Democrats. And so this was a big benefit for Trump, as it turned out. Sort of accidental, but it did happen. PAMELA PAUL: This sounds a little bit like the Arab-Israeli conflict in terms of who started it.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Filibuster and Reconciliation: the Future of Majoritarian Lawmaking in the U.S
    The Filibuster and Reconciliation: The Future of Majoritarian Lawmaking in the U.S. Senate Tonja Jacobi†* & Jeff VanDam** “If this precedent is pushed to its logical conclusion, I suspect there will come a day when all legislation will be done through reconciliation.” — Senator Tom Daschle, on the prospect of using budget reconciliation procedures to pass tax cuts in 19961 Passing legislation in the United States Senate has become a de facto super-majoritarian undertaking, due to the gradual institutionalization of the filibuster — the practice of unending debate in the Senate. The filibuster is responsible for stymieing many legislative policies, and was the cause of decades of delay in the development of civil rights protection. Attempts at reforming the filibuster have only exacerbated the problem. However, reconciliation, a once obscure budgetary procedure, has created a mechanism of avoiding filibusters. Consequently, reconciliation is one of the primary means by which significant controversial legislation has been passed in recent years — including the Bush tax cuts and much of Obamacare. This has led to minoritarian attempts to reform reconciliation, particularly through the Byrd Rule, as well as constitutional challenges to proposed filibuster reforms. We argue that the success of the various mechanisms of constraining either the filibuster or reconciliation will rest not with interpretation by † Copyright © 2013 Tonja Jacobi and Jeff VanDam. * Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law, t-jacobi@ law.northwestern.edu. Our thanks to John McGinnis, Nancy Harper, Adrienne Stone, and participants of the University of Melbourne School of Law’s Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies speaker series. ** J.D., Northwestern University School of Law (2013), [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Overspeech
    ARTICLES CONGRESSIONAL OVERSPEECH Josh Chafetz* Political theater. Spectacle. Circus. Reality show. We are constantly told that, whatever good congressional oversight is, it certainly is not those things. Observers and participants across the ideological and partisan spectrums use those descriptions as pejorative attempts to delegitimize oversight conducted by their political opponents or as cautions to their own allies of what is to be avoided. Real oversight, on this consensus view, is about fact-finding, not about performing for an audience. As a result, when oversight is done right, it is both civil and consensus-building. While plenty of oversight activity does indeed involve bipartisan attempts to collect information and use that information to craft policy, this Article seeks to excavate and theorize a different way of using oversight tools, a way that focuses primarily on their use as a mechanism of public communication. I refer to such uses as congressional overspeech. After briefly describing the authority, tools and methods, and consensus understanding of oversight in Part I, this Article turns to an analysis of overspeech in Part II. The three central features of overspeech are its communicativity, its performativity, and its divisiveness, and each of these is analyzed in some detail. Finally, Part III offers two detailed case studies of overspeech: the Senate Munitions Inquiry of the mid-1930s and the McCarthy and Army-McCarthy Hearings of the early 1950s. These case studies not only demonstrate the dynamics of overspeech in action but also illustrate that overspeech is both continuous across and adaptive to different media environments. Moreover, the case studies illustrate that overspeech can be used in the service of normatively good, normatively bad, and * Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center.
    [Show full text]
  • {PDF EPUB} This Town Two Parties and a Funeral Plus Plenty Of
    Read Ebook {PDF EPUB} This Town Two Parties and a Funeral — plus plenty of valet parking! — in America’s Gilded Capital by This Town: Two Parties and a Funeral--plus plenty of valet parking!--in America's Gilded Capital. Mark Leibovich, chief national correspondent for The New York Times Magazine, previously served for six years as a political correspondent in the Washington bureau of the Times. Earlier he worked for nine years at the Washington Post. Leibovich received a National Magazine Award in 2011. The author selected the title from a list including "Suck-up City:" "You'll Always Have Lunch in This Town Again," and "The Club." After working in Washington, D.C., for 15 years, he learned that This Town imposes on its "actors a reflex toward devious and opportunistic behavior, and a tendency to care about public relations more than any other aspect of their professional lives--and maybe even personal lives." This Town as Washingtonians refer to the place, festers "faux disgust and a wry distance--a verbal tic as a secret handshake." A play on the two-word refrain people in This Town frequently use, "This Town" functions as a cliche of "belonging, knowingness, and self-mocking civic disdain" Then there is "The Club" made up of This Town's city fathers, whose "spinning cabal of people in politics and media can be as potent in D.C. as Congress" The club itself has been known by various names: "Permanent Washington;' "The Political Class," "The Chattering Class," "The Usual Suspects," "The Beltway Establishment," "The Chamber," "The Echo-System:' "The Gang of 500," "The Movable Mass,' and others.
    [Show full text]
  • Mark Leibovich Chief National Correspondent New York Times
    Inspicio journalism Introduction to Mark Leibovich. 1:14 min. Interview: Raymond Elman. Camera: Lee Skye. Video Editing: Wesley Verdier. Production: Zaida Duvers. Recorded: 11/17/2018, Miami Book Fair. Mark Leibovich Chief National Correspondent for the New York Times Magazine, Author By Elman + Skye + Verdier + Duvers ARK LEIBOVICH (b.1965) is the chief national correspondent for the New York Times Magazine, Mbased in Washington, D.C. He is known for his profiles of political and media figures. He also writes the Times magazine’s “Your Fellow Americans” column about politics, media, and public life. He came to the Times in 2006 after 10 years at the Washington Post and three at the San Jose Mercury News. Leibovich got his start as a journalist writing for Boston’s alternative weekly, The Phoenix, where he worked for four years. In addition to his political writing, Leibovich has also written: The New Imperialists, a collection of profiles of technology pioneers; Citizens of the Green Room, an anthology of Leibovich’s profiles in the New York Times and Washington Post; and Big Game: The NFL in Dangerous Times, a behind- the-scenes look at the owners, and commissioner, of the National Football League. Leibovich also appears frequently as a guest on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, and Deadline: White House, NPR’s On the Media, and other public affairs programs. Mr. Leibovich grew up in the Boston area, and attended the University of Michigan. He lives in Washington, D.C., with his wife and three daughters. We divided our video interview with Mr. Leibovich into two sections: Life & Career NFL Football For the football discussion, we included Stephanie Anderson, who is the partner of a former NFL player suffering from CTE, the concussion-induced brain disease that has afflicted many NFL players.
    [Show full text]
  • How People Make Sense of Trump and Why It Matters for Racial Justice
    Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric, Vol. 8, No.1/2, 2018, pp. 107-136. How People Make Sense of Trump and Why It Matters for Racial Justice Will Penman Doug Cloud+ Scholars, journalists, pundits and others have criticized the racist, anti-queer, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, and xeno- phobic rhetoric that pervades the Trump campaign and presidency. At the same time, commentators have expended a vast number of words analyzing Trump’s character: why does he do the things he does? We ask, how do the latter (analyses of Trump’s character) help explain the former (Trump’s racist statements)? Through a close rhetorical analysis of 50 diverse examples of Trump criticism, we reveal four prevailing characterizations or “archetypes” of Trump: Trump the Acclaim-Seeker, Trump the Sick Man, Trump the Authoritarian, and Trump the Idiot. Each arche- type explains Trump’s racism in a different way, with significant consequences for social critique. For example, the Trump the Idiot archetype dismisses his racist statements as a series of terrible gaffes, whereas Trump the Authori- tarian explains them as an actualization of white supremacy. We trace the benefits and tradeoffs of each archetype for resisting white supremacy. Keywords: Donald Trump, white supremacy, identity, rhetoric, archetypes Read enough critiques of Donald Trump—the president and the candidate—and you’re likely to be struck by three things: 1) there are a great many of them, 2) they expend significant effort analyzing Trump’s character as a way of explaining why he does what he does, and 3) they are repetitive—certain characterizations surface over and over and become familiar as explanations (e.g., the idea that Trump does what he does because he is an incompetent idiot).
    [Show full text]
  • Burn Brightly in Search of Those Who Carry the Torch and Those Who Shine Brightest, We Uncover Campus Gems That Comprise a Sparkling Selection of LSA Brilliance
    Fall 2013 Burn Brightly IN SEARCH OF THOSE WHO CARRY THE TORCH AND THOSE WHO SHINE BRIGHTEST, WE UNCOVER CAMPUS GEMS THAT COMPRISE A SPARKLING SELECTION OF LSA BRILLIANCE. This rare papercut from China’s Cultural Revolution was almost lost forever, but now is available as part of a stunning collection for researchers worldwide. Turn to p. 16 for more. UPDATE Lighting the Way IT TAKES A LOT OF ENERGY to make something burn brightly. The same is true of an idea or a person. It’s easier to go along as one of crowd. The status quo is comfortable. It takes curiosity, stamina, and that all-important spark to kindle greatness, and it takes a Michigan Victor to keep the spark burning as a flame. Leaders and Vic- tors shine brighter than their counterparts because they have figured out how to burn — even amid shadows. But how do they ignite and feed their individual sparks? The Victors in this issue all exemplify one consistent theme: Their brilliance defies logical, run-of-the-mill thinking. Just as the massive secrets of the universe can be un- locked by the tiniest particles, Victors are brave enough to embrace the contradictory. Victors who help others get ahead. Those who serve others become leaders. Victors who give get the most back. Those who strive for deeper understanding throw out much of what they think they know. Leaders who have found a way to unleash their light didn’t just pull it out from under the bushel. They used the bushel itself to light a thousand other fires.
    [Show full text]
  • The Academy of Political Science 475 Riverside Drive · Suite 1274 · New York, New York 10115-1274
    The Academy of Political Science 475 Riverside Drive · Suite 1274 · New York, New York 10115-1274 (212) 870-2500 · FAX: (212) 870-2202 · [email protected] · http://www.psqonline.org POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY Volume 123 · Number 3 · Fall 2008 No part of this article may be copied, downloaded, stored, further transmitted, transferred, distributed, altered, or otherwise used, in any form or by any means, except: one stored electronic and one paper copy of any article solely for your personal, non- commercial use, or with prior written permission of The Academy of Political Science. Political Science Quarterly is published by The Academy of Political Science. Contact the Academy for further permission regarding the use of this work. Political Science Quarterly Copyright © 2008 by The Academy of Political Science. All rights reserved. Psychological Reflections on Barack Obama and John McCain: Assessing the Contours of a New Presidential Administration STANLEY A. RENSHON On 20 January 2009, either Barack Obama or John McCain will place his hand on a bible, swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, and become the forty-fourth president of the United States. The new president will immediately become responsible for the issues on which he campaigned, those that he ignored but for which he will nonetheless be held accountable, and all those unanticipated issues for which he will also be expected to de- vise solutions. Naturally, a new president and administration raise many questions. What will the successful candidate really be like as
    [Show full text]
  • Gedung Putih, Hari Pertama Obama
    Untuk Rachel Corrie gadis muda Amerika, aktivis perdamaian yang tubuhnya hancur digilas buldozer Israel Ucapan terimakasih untuk... Suamiku, yang tanpa dukungannya buku ini takkan pernah selesai. Anak-anakku, yang bersabar membiarkanku melewati puluhan hari untuk menulis buku ini. Orangtuaku, teman-temanku, dan semua orang yang mendorongku untuk terus menulis. QR Aliya Publishing, yang telah bersedia menerbitkan buku ini Prolog Obama: Tutankhamon Baru Dunia (?) The United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. (Pidato Obama di Kairo) 4 Juni 2009 Kairo, yang biasanya padat dan bising, pagi itu sangat sepi dan teratur. Ada tamu besar yang akan datang hari itu: Presiden AS ke-44, Barack Husein Obama. Beberapa jalanan utama yang akan dilalui Sang Presiden ditutup untuk umum dan dikawal polisi berseragam putih. Sebagian besar dari 18 juta penduduk kota itu memilih tinggal di rumah daripada berpergian di tengah jalanan yang diblokir di sana-sini. Bahkan terminal bus di dekat Mesjid Sultan dipindahkan supaya tak ada keramaian di mesjid kuno yang akan dikunjungi Obama itu. Tak heran bila Al Dastour, koran independen terbitan Kairo menulis headline, “Hari Ini Obama Datang Ke Mesir Setelah Mengevakuasi Warga Mesir”. Di pasar Khan Al Khalili, Kairo, toko-toko souvenir menjual plakat metal bergambar wajah Pharaoh (Firaun)1 dengan tulisan “Obama, Tutankhamon Baru Dunia”. Tutankhamon adalah Firaun terakhir Dinasti Kedelapanbelas Mesir, hidup pada tahun 1333-1324 sebelum Masehi. Konon dia raja yang berhasil memimpin Mesir melewati masa krisis. Dan agaknya, menurut versi pembuat souvenir itu, Obama adalah Tutankhamon baru yang memimpin dunia yang saat ini sangat dipenuhi oleh krisis, konflik, dan pertumpahan darah.
    [Show full text]
  • Fall 2015/Winter 2016 Highlights
    Highlights Fall 2015—Winter 2016 The 10th Anniversary Celebration In Washington, DC Here is a recipe for an off-campus program. Combine a full load of academic courses with a minimum of four days a week at work in an office in the nation’s capital. Secure the support of the provost, deans, department chairs, faculty and staff on campus and Michigan alumni in Washington, DC. Recruit undergraduate students from all majors. Provide financial aid. Find faculty, staff and graduate student assistants to teach a required research seminar and electives, prepare the students for their time away from campus, and process the paperwork. Find a place for the students to live in Washington. Match students with local alumni mentors. Invite guest speakers. Go on field trips. Throw dinner parties. Rejoice with the students when they are happy, and encourage them when they are stressed out. Send them back to Ann Arbor after 100 days. Debrief them. Put a red, white and blue cord over their black gowns when they graduate. Keep in touch with them forever. Repeat. More precisely, repeat 20 times. That is what the Michigan in Washington Program is celebrating in its 10th Anniversary year. 10th Anniversary, The First Day: Dinner for 150 at the National Press Club, Washington, DC Program Founder and Director Edie Goldenberg presided over a three-course dinner for 150 current students, former students, Washington-area alumni supporters, faculty, staff, current and former graduate student assistants, and well-wishers Friday evening, October 23, 2015 at the National Press Club, one of the largest venues in town.
    [Show full text]
  • LEAH WRIGHT RIGUEUR: So Thank You All for Joining Us Here Tonight, and Thank You, Mark, So Much for Braving the Polar Vortex to Come out to Cambridge Tonight
    LEAH WRIGHT RIGUEUR: So thank you all for joining us here tonight, and thank you, Mark, so much for braving the polar vortex to come out to Cambridge tonight. So I think it will be a really interesting and, hopefully, provocative conversation. But I thought we'd start off just a little bit by talking about your book. And I'm really interested in where this book comes from, why did you write it, and why this shift away from electoral politics into sports politics, of all things? MARK LEIBOVICH: Well, that wasn't the intent. The intent wasn't the sports politics part. I mean, essentially, I've been covering national politics for about 20 years, and after the last campaign, I needed a break from politics. So what better place to take a break from politics than into the NFL during the Trump years, right? So that didn't work out terribly well. I mean, this was-- look, football has been a great passion of mine for a long time. I'd written a magazine story on Tom Brady in 2015 and then the NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell in 2016. So I sort of had an annual side project of just one big magazine story a year on NFL figures, and that indicated to me that there was a lot more to that world that I wanted to get to know. And also, just there was not a great sort of body of literature of honest writing about the NFL. There's a lot of glorification, a lot of insider accounts, but this was more of an outsider account that frankly gave away some secret handshakes and caused some discomfort within the league, which I was happy to do.
    [Show full text]
  • Donald Trump, Clean Government Reformer?
    Donald Trump, Clean Government Reformer? Candidate Trump Used Campaign Rhetoric Promising to “Drain the Swamp” of Special Interest Influence. Will President Trump Keep His Good Government Campaign Promises? By Rick Claypool, research director for Public Citizen president’s office Nov. 15, 2016 – During President-Elect Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, the media personality-turned-politician called out opponents real and perceived as “dishonest and corrupt,”1 “hypocrites”2 and “liars.”3 Because Trump campaigned on contrasting his supposed trustworthiness with political opponents Republican and Democrat alike,4 the consistency between the politician’s words and deeds bear special scrutiny, in particular with regards to campaign promises about ethics reforms and anticorruption policies. This report documents statements made by the president-elect during campaign speeches, in the primary and presidential debates, on Twitter and elsewhere that political observers should bear in mind when weighing whether President Trump is meeting the expectations that candidate Trump raised during the campaign to persuade voters his administration would reduce special interest influence. 1 Kenneth T. Walsh, “Trump: Media Is 'Dishonest and Corrupt',” U.S. News & World Report (Aug. 15, 2016), http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-15/trump-media-is-dishonest-and-corrupt 2 “So many self-righteous hypocrites. Watch their poll numbers - and elections - go down!” Tweet via @realDonald Trump (10:12 AM - 9 Oct 2016) https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/785120729364922369 3 “The reason lyin' Ted Cruz has lost so much of the evangelical vote is that they are very smart and just don't tolerate liars-a big problem!” Tweet via @realDonald Trump (8:28 AM - 17 Mar 2016), https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/710442630207901696 4 Mostly notably “Lyin’ Ted” Cruz and “Crooked Hillary” Clinton.
    [Show full text]
  • MR. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: WHOM WOULD YOU NOMINATE?” Stuart Minor Benjamin & Mitu Gulati*
    “MR. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: WHOM WOULD YOU NOMINATE?” Stuart Minor Benjamin & Mitu Gulati* Presidential candidates compete on multiple fronts for votes. Who is more likeable? Who will negotiate more effectively with allies and adversaries? Who has the better vice-presidential running mate? Who will make better appointments to the Supreme Court and the cabinet? This last question is often discussed long before the inauguration, for the impact of a secretary of state or a Supreme Court justice can be tremendous. Despite the importance of such appointments, we do not expect candidates to compete on naming the better slates of nominees. For the candidates themselves, avoiding competition over nominees in the pre-election context has personal benefits—in particular, enabling them to keep a variety of supporters working hard on the campaign in the hope of being chosen as nominees. But from a social perspective, this norm has costs. This Article proposes that candidates be induced out of the status quo. In the current era of candidates responding to internet queries and members of the public asking questions via YouTube, it is plausible that the question—“Whom would you nominate (as secretary of state or for the Supreme Court)?”—might be asked in a public setting. If one candidate is behind in the race, he can be pushed to answer the question—and perhaps increase his chances of winning the election. * Professors of Law, Duke Law School. Thanks to Scott Baker, Steve Choi, Michael Gerhardt, Jay Hamilton, Christine Hurt, Kimberly Krawiec, David Levi, Joan Magat, Mike Munger, Eric Posner, Richard Posner, Arti Rai, Larry Ribstein, David Rohde, Larry Solum, Sharon Spray, Eugene Volokh, and Ernest Young for comments.
    [Show full text]