Earlier this week, a major German-speaking newspaper asked me to write an opinion piece (“Kommentar” in German) on the Supreme Court’s decision to end affirmative action and the recent rulings more broadly.
As someone who isn't the least bit aware of domestic German politics and only slightly aware of German news media (pretty much just DW and Der Spiegel), can I ask why their coverage seems to be weighted further right than US domestic news media?
As someone who lives in Germany and follows both German and US reporting about US politics, I can say, the reason that the German coverage is weighted further right is that - it's not.
Germany, like most other western EU countries, is far less politically polarized especially when it comes to cultural issues. E.g. take the issue of abortion: in Germany, abortion is legal in the first trimester after mandatory counseling. If you believe the polls, most Americans would be fine with such a compromise, but, as Yascha Mounk lines, out the political and social elites are for various reasons much more polarized in the US.
In total, the political poles are less extreme in Germany (except the far-right AfD which is polling about 20% right now), so I would argue German outlets have a more centrist bend.* However, since Thomas regards most centrists as a rightwingers in disguise, I guess he comes to the conclusion that German news media bend rightwards.
*) There is one issue where the German press is consistently to the left compared to the US one and that is criminal justice. The US justice system is extremely authoritarian for an industrialized country (death penalty, long prism terms, sex offender lists, private prison) and most of that would be plainly unconstutitional in Germany. Even parts the German populist right are more liberal than the median US citizen when it comes to criminal justice.
It appears that someone at the paper knows your work and values it. But actually trying to get your piece published has triggered a veto... perhaps from management or above?
This is a very reasonable and sober assessment of the U.S. Supreme Court’s history, direction, and recent decisions. The tenor of political discussion in Germany must be very anti-democratic to see your article as too “left” or inflammatory.
I read the piece (the English version) and I agree that there is nothing radical in its assessment of the US Supreme Court and its actions.
Critical and clear assessments of processes in the US should be welcomed in Europe, including Germany, if the European Union wants to build strategic autonomy and take its place as a major political superpower on the international stage.
You left out that white affirmative action, established by legacy admissions to the Ivies, remains under the court decision. As I read of the past and present use of courts to secure illiberalism or fascism here and in Europe, and the participation of the industrial elites in such a project, I sense a distinct foreboding of doom. I think you commentary caused frisson in the newspaper editor. Something was echoing in the hallways.
Not plausible isn’t necessarily the same as too extreme- they decided- belatedly- they don’t like your opinions and don’t want to give you a platform, or they don’t believe your analysis is accurate?
If only that German editor would read the dissents of Jackson and Sotomayor, or even just listen to what President Biden has said about this SCOTUS. Are these radical left wing voices?!
Professor Zimmer, the current make up the court can only be described as the best court conservative money can buy.
The court has been politicized by the right, #MitchMcConnell. It has been recently populated by a twice impeached, criminal president.
This all goes back to the elephant in the room - MONEY. Money used by billionaires to distort, divide and drive a ultra-conservative white agenda. Unless that faucet is turned off, nothing will change.
Given the current Congress, the (current) position of President Biden re: reforming the Court, and the inability to reform or get rid of the filibuster, actual Supreme Court reform seems a goal for the (hopefully not too distant) future. Given that, what should our strategy be right now?
Part of it certainly seems to be laying bare the hypocrisy and blatant politics of the right wing of the Court along with highlighting the corruption scandals. That tactic seems to be working at least a bit to delegitimize the Court in the eyes of the public (which should hopefully allow politicians to move in the reform direction). Anything else you can think of that stands a chance at working?
What you are suggesting--- a change in the focus of Supreme Court reporting--- is basically what critics of mainstream SCOTUS reporting have been saying: stop calling balls and strikes as if this were a competition between two good faith opponents, and talk about the larger forces that have shaped the majority and put them in power. See, e.g., Mark Joseph Stern.
After reading the English translation I am left even more baffled by the German newspaper's decision not to publish. The only reason left in my mind for such a decision is that the Overton distortion is now so thick that pointing out actual subversive minoritarianism is re-filtered as evidence of leftwing radicalism. It's bonkers and perhaps a dangerous pre-state to something far more dangerous.
It’s difficult for me to see what an objection would be to your article, which is in keeping with the clear-eyed analysis we’ve had from you these past years.
It appears to come down to a similar choice as that in your final paragraph: either be comfortable and ignore what the court is doing, or raise your head and look around. I’m sorry that the German press is staying shuttered.
As someone who isn't the least bit aware of domestic German politics and only slightly aware of German news media (pretty much just DW and Der Spiegel), can I ask why their coverage seems to be weighted further right than US domestic news media?
As someone who lives in Germany and follows both German and US reporting about US politics, I can say, the reason that the German coverage is weighted further right is that - it's not.
Germany, like most other western EU countries, is far less politically polarized especially when it comes to cultural issues. E.g. take the issue of abortion: in Germany, abortion is legal in the first trimester after mandatory counseling. If you believe the polls, most Americans would be fine with such a compromise, but, as Yascha Mounk lines, out the political and social elites are for various reasons much more polarized in the US.
In total, the political poles are less extreme in Germany (except the far-right AfD which is polling about 20% right now), so I would argue German outlets have a more centrist bend.* However, since Thomas regards most centrists as a rightwingers in disguise, I guess he comes to the conclusion that German news media bend rightwards.
*) There is one issue where the German press is consistently to the left compared to the US one and that is criminal justice. The US justice system is extremely authoritarian for an industrialized country (death penalty, long prism terms, sex offender lists, private prison) and most of that would be plainly unconstutitional in Germany. Even parts the German populist right are more liberal than the median US citizen when it comes to criminal justice.
It appears that someone at the paper knows your work and values it. But actually trying to get your piece published has triggered a veto... perhaps from management or above?
This is a very reasonable and sober assessment of the U.S. Supreme Court’s history, direction, and recent decisions. The tenor of political discussion in Germany must be very anti-democratic to see your article as too “left” or inflammatory.
I read the piece (the English version) and I agree that there is nothing radical in its assessment of the US Supreme Court and its actions.
Critical and clear assessments of processes in the US should be welcomed in Europe, including Germany, if the European Union wants to build strategic autonomy and take its place as a major political superpower on the international stage.
You left out that white affirmative action, established by legacy admissions to the Ivies, remains under the court decision. As I read of the past and present use of courts to secure illiberalism or fascism here and in Europe, and the participation of the industrial elites in such a project, I sense a distinct foreboding of doom. I think you commentary caused frisson in the newspaper editor. Something was echoing in the hallways.
Um welche Zeitung handelt es sich? Which Journal? asks a German reader
"We'd like your opinion, unless, in our opinion, we don't like your opinion." Pathetic!
Not plausible isn’t necessarily the same as too extreme- they decided- belatedly- they don’t like your opinions and don’t want to give you a platform, or they don’t believe your analysis is accurate?
If only that German editor would read the dissents of Jackson and Sotomayor, or even just listen to what President Biden has said about this SCOTUS. Are these radical left wing voices?!
Your essay is spot on.
Professor Zimmer, the current make up the court can only be described as the best court conservative money can buy.
The court has been politicized by the right, #MitchMcConnell. It has been recently populated by a twice impeached, criminal president.
This all goes back to the elephant in the room - MONEY. Money used by billionaires to distort, divide and drive a ultra-conservative white agenda. Unless that faucet is turned off, nothing will change.
Given the current Congress, the (current) position of President Biden re: reforming the Court, and the inability to reform or get rid of the filibuster, actual Supreme Court reform seems a goal for the (hopefully not too distant) future. Given that, what should our strategy be right now?
Part of it certainly seems to be laying bare the hypocrisy and blatant politics of the right wing of the Court along with highlighting the corruption scandals. That tactic seems to be working at least a bit to delegitimize the Court in the eyes of the public (which should hopefully allow politicians to move in the reform direction). Anything else you can think of that stands a chance at working?
What you are suggesting--- a change in the focus of Supreme Court reporting--- is basically what critics of mainstream SCOTUS reporting have been saying: stop calling balls and strikes as if this were a competition between two good faith opponents, and talk about the larger forces that have shaped the majority and put them in power. See, e.g., Mark Joseph Stern.
After reading the English translation I am left even more baffled by the German newspaper's decision not to publish. The only reason left in my mind for such a decision is that the Overton distortion is now so thick that pointing out actual subversive minoritarianism is re-filtered as evidence of leftwing radicalism. It's bonkers and perhaps a dangerous pre-state to something far more dangerous.
It’s difficult for me to see what an objection would be to your article, which is in keeping with the clear-eyed analysis we’ve had from you these past years.
It appears to come down to a similar choice as that in your final paragraph: either be comfortable and ignore what the court is doing, or raise your head and look around. I’m sorry that the German press is staying shuttered.