Elitist or Populist?

In this post of mine, I wrote the following about Obama's Kagan nomination:

But this much is for sure, Catholics and Jews are certainly very good at going to Harvard/Yale and becoming lawyers. How many people do you know that have gone to Harvard/Yale and become lawyers? That's who's deciding our laws. Comforting.

But this much is true, I wish I'd have gone to Harvard or Yale and become a lawyer (or Wall Street banker). It's the ticket to EVERYTHING.

Of course, I extended the argument beyond the Ivy League to the religious composition of America, but basically it was a similar argument.  I have to say that in writing that post, I felt like a member of the KKK or the No-Nothing or Nativist party of 100 years ago, although I also felt that there is normally a fairly good reason in fact--and not just anti-intellectualism and jealousy--as to why that kind of sentiment arises.

Then in yesterday's WaPo, Christopher Edley, dean of the Law School at Berkeley, wrote something similar:

Judges should be able to understand and empathize with just about anyone, because the law is about everyone. With that in mind, is what's good for Harvard and Yale good for America?

If Elena Kagan is confirmed, we will have an entire Supreme Court educated at Harvard and Yale law schools, demonstrating again the grip that academic elites have on the levers of power. Some worry this homogeneity is too anti-democratic, even for our most anti-democratic of institutions. I don't hear a claim that even knuckleheads deserve a spot on the court, but surely some brilliant possibilities attended, say, Berkeley? Or Tulane?

In confirmation battles, populist cred is at war with elitist credentials. Our political culture values a common touch, but our legal culture values uncommon smarts. Supreme Court nominations are a shotgun marriage of the two, but it should not be a marriage of equals.

The tension between elitism and populism is embedded in our national DNA because America rejected the model of a monarch ruling by divine right in favor of an iffy experiment in democratic self-governance. So now you are responsible for choosing your leader. Do you want someone like you or someone better than you?

Okay, I don't feel so bad now. He says in a more sophisticated way what I tried to say in my own inadequate way. But the point is made.  I do want very smart people on the Supreme Court, but I also want people who haven't forgotten their roots and will rule in such a way that helps the average person.  Unfortunately, I do think--and actually know from my exposure to elites--that they tend to think in 'class' ways and neglect the 'little people' in society.  And it is increasingly the case that many of them come from very well-to-do families and have never been a part of the 'hoi polloi', the common people of this world, who are increasingly being screwed by our messed-up economic system.

So I guess the common people deserve a representative of their own on such a select body as the Supreme Court that they can count on.  And so do Protestants, Asians/Muslims/Mormons and other often-discriminated-against peoples in our society.

So what person do I think might make a good nominee?  Good question.  I wouldn't mind an evangelical/charismatic/contemporary Christian, but it would have to be someone more like William Jennings Bryan, with a real populist flavor, than someone like Pat Robertson, whose religious and political conservatism ends up favoring the wealthy and well-connected.

Let's see...I'm thinking.  I'm only going to think of Senators right now, since I know more of them from their public comments over a period of time.  How about....Senator Richard Lugar?  He's Methodist, moderate, thoughtful, experienced, and an Oxford University graduate.  Heck, he's even Republican, if that somehow helps.   That sounds good.   But he could be a little too conservative/business oriented, so let me move on.

I like Senator Durbin of Illinois, who said recently that "Wall Street owns this town" which meant to me that Wall Street didn't own him.  Very good.  Unfortunately, Durbin is Catholic and that doesn't deal with that issue.

Let's keep thinking here.  Wait...how about Sen. Daniel Akaka of Hawaii?  He's Asian, a Protestant (UCC), clearly populist/liberal, former high school principal, graduate of Hawaii University, not a lawyer.  Sen. Akaka is almost perfect!!

Any others?  The following Senators would also fit the bill in my book:  Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia.  Okay, now do you believe me when I say that I'm not a Nativist or a No-Nothing populist?  These would make good Supreme Court justices, wouldn't be Catholic or Jewish, and wouldn't have gone to Harvard/Yale.

So there.