Via E.D.’s True/slant blog, I agree that Conor Friedersdorf did yeoman’s work on this piece demonstrating the wide difference between what movement conservatives think the ACLU does and what the ACLU actually does. I don’t want to revisit the whole epistemic closure thing in depth here. Suffice to say that I think Conor’s post is important enough on its own because it shows how valuable an organization the ACLU is and how conservatives’ caricature of the ACLU as nothing but a left-wing bogeyman can actively damage the very people whose interests conservative leaders claim to represent.
Perception vs. Reality
Mark is the Managing Editor of The League of Ordinary Gentlemen.
Previous post: It’s the Most Onionful Time of the Year
Next post: Plato, Phaedo and the ‘death’ of Socrates
Russell Saunders 
Jonathan McLeod 
Amy Tuteur, MD 
Kimmi 
Nora doula
{ 39 comments }
So the ACLU sides with the Right on this one case, so what? That would be say, one case of every hundred or more?
@Scott, Read Conor’s whole post. The ACLU sides with the Right quite frequently.
@Mark Thompson,
I did read it and the article cites three other instances, just three. I guess you idea of “frequently” is a bit different.
@Scott, the point isn’t whether the ACLU sides with the right or the left, and what the percentage is — the point is that the ACLU defends infringements of civil liberties. Whether those infringements come from a conservative or a liberal point-of-view doesn’t matter: they defend civil liberties, not political ideologies. Sometimes it’s trying to get the 10 Commandments off of courthouse lawns, and sometimes it’s defending the Klan’s right to march. I don’t understand what’s so controversial about it — I’d think that conservatives would love that.
@Aaron, Exactly. Now Scott’s going to point to the yahoo in Arizona that complained about not getting help from the ACLU as proof that the ACLU isn’t really interested in defending civil liberties over political ideologies. This one instance will be viewed as proof of ACLU’s ill motives far more than the multiple instances cited in Conor’s post are proof of the ACLU’s dedication to civil liberties. That said yahoo seems to have gone out of his way to personally antagonize the relevant local ACLU will be ignored. That he also was apparently nonetheless given pro bono assistance in his case from another organization (thereby rendering assistance from the ACLU moot) will likewise be ignored.
@Mark Thompson, Also to be ignored will be the work the ACLU has done with radical left-wingers Dick Armey and Bob Barr, working with the latter beginning in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing.
@Mark Thompson, Hey, the ACLU didn’t do Mr. McVey any good, now did they. That dude’s execution was like….fast! Whas up wid dat?
@Aaron,
“the point is that the ACLU defends infringements of civil liberties.”
Yes the ACLU defends what it defines as civil liberties which may or may not be in agreement with the views of the Right but are not “frequently” so.
@Scott, the “Right’s” definition of civil liberties tend to be identical to that of the “Left’s”.
“I have the right to never, never, never ever be offended and you have the right to get a thicker skin.”
@Scott, huh? Is this supposed to be a refutation of some kind? Because from where I’m sitting, that looks like a totally anodyne statement. “The ACLU and some conservatives disagree about priorities!” Oh no, stop the presses! The point is not that the ACLU (an organization with limited resources) chooses which battles it wants to take on, and that sometimes (perhaps even often) conservatives will disagree with the choices. The point is that the thing that conservatives describe when they describe “the ACLU” is not what the actual ACLU that the rest of us see does.
Talk Radio Host A creates a strawman about an organization that annoys him. His listeners accept that conception of the organization regardless of its actual relationship to the organization in question. Conservative Talk Listener 1 and CTL2 can talk balk and forth all they want about this imaginary institution, asking rhetorical questions and scoring imaginary points, but the point is that they look like fools. They are not talking about something that anyone else can see.
@Aaron,
So then you would agree with Mark’s statement that “the ACLU sides with the Right quite frequently?” If not, then what percentage of the time do you really think the two agree?
Why is it surprising to say that the Right believes that the ACLU takes up left wing issues more quickly, more often and fights much harder for left leaning causes than for right leaning ones and that this belief breeds contempt for an organization that claims to fight for all “civil liberties?”
“The point is that the thing that conservatives describe when they describe “the ACLU” is not what the actual ACLU that the rest of us see does.”
Who is this “rest of us” you speak of? Is there some silent majority out there who feel the ACLU is being mischaracterized?
@Scott,
So because the ACLU doesn’t frequently enough defend the type of cases that you happen to prefer… that justifies lying and saying they aren’t working on a case that you happen to like?
If that’s how you treat your friends, wow. Just wow.
There’s no excuse for railing on the ACLU for failing to take action on an issue on which it has taken action.
That being said, I will take the ACLU as true guardians of liberty when they take the Second Amendment a quarter as seriously as they take the First. And when they stop being squishy on campaign finance reform. Until then, I see them as a liberal group with an independent streak rather than a really independent group.
Realistically, though, the ACLU knows who butters its bread. Even if they did take the conservative-friendly stances on guns and CFR, it’s not as though conservatives would be lining up to join. Meanwhile, while they can get away with taking positions that liberals don’t agree with, they can’t afford to actively alienate liberals by taking oppositional stances on issues that liberals are extremely excited about.
Even if it’s a utilitarian stance (or non-stance), hat’s not a knock against the ACLU. In their (reasonable) view, they can do better work when they have the funds to do so.
Whether they truly have a blind spot in favor of some civil liberties over others or whether they’re looking out for their selves, or more likely a bit of both, it does make some of the conservative skepticism of the group understandable.
@Trumwill,
Realistically are they needed on the second amendment? The NRA appears to have that more than covered.
I think conservatives hate the ACLU for their actions not their in-actions. They hate the ACLU because they stand-up for the rights of religious and non-religious minorities. “Prayer in school” is one of the bigger bugaboos. The right hates the ACLU because they help enforce the separation of church and state.
@ThatPirateGuy, I don’t disagree with you as to why conservatives hate the ACLU. Or at least many or maybe most conservatives do. That doesn’t mean that conservative perceptions of the ACLU are all wrong, though. Or that liberal perceptions are all correct.
Are they needed on the second amendment? Not right now, though in the late 90′s they needed all the help they could get. Even if they don’t need the help, that’s reason for the ACLU not to aggressively oppose gun control. It’s not a reason for the ACLU to go on record opposing the Heller ruling.
@Trumwill,
Good point about the DC v Heller case. The day that case came out is the day I stopped caring about the gun control issue entirely. I used to be ambivalent, but that ruling made me see all further argument as irrelevant. It has been decided you can have your guns, no-one can take them away now, so stop pestering everyone and freaking out.
As far as I can tell though the ACLU is on the side of angels most of the time. The times they aren’t bounce off of me in light of what they do right. I can get on board with rapping them on the knuckles where they get it wrong but I’d rather have them than any other organization.
@ThatPirateGuy,
Heller may be the law of the land but try getting a gun in D.C. or Chicago. But the ACLU doesn’t give a rat’s b/c the 2nd isn’t a pet liberal cause.
@Scott, Virginia? The rest of Illinois?
@Trumwill,
What about VA and IL?
@Trumwill, places you can buy guns, no?
@Trumwill,
Yes but so what? Don’t the city folk deserve to be able to protect themselves?
@Trumwill, sure, but so what if they have to drive out of town to get them? Sometimes you have to drive places to get what you want. That’s why I mention Virginia and the rest of Illinois. Places that residents of DC and Chicago can go.
@Trumwill,
Without getting into a too detailed explanation, the answer is no they can’t.
@ThatPirateGuy, “The day that case came out is the day I stopped caring about the gun control issue entirely. ”
Reread Castle Rock v. Gonzales.
@Jaybird, what am I looking for? That was a case about restraining orders, wasn’t it?
@Trumwill, it was a case that said that the police are not required, by law, to enforce them. A guy killed his three daughters in violation of a restraining order, you see.
The court found that enforcement of restraining orders is not mandatory.
It’s a case that makes me care about gun control despite Heller.
@Trumwill,
It is one of along line of cases that say that the police don’t have a legal duty to protect you.
Jaybird, Gotcha. That’s why I care about the gun control issue as a whole (well, that and the Constitution I suppose). I’ve always been against gun control in the abstract, but what really shifted my views to the right was Katrina and the breakdown of society that occurred afterward. But if Heller does in fact guarantee us the right to possess guns, I have less to worry about.
@ThatPirateGuy, the ruling has the potential to be greatly beneficial to the gun control movement. If I don’t have to worry about the government banning guns entirely, I am more amenable to things like national gun registries and the like (which before I opposed because they were an easy step towards confiscation). If the ruling sticks and the gun control folks don’t find a loophole, my views on incremental gun legislation become much more nuanced.
Despite my comments here, I am quite glad that there is an ACLU. As with the EFF, I don’t support everything they stand for (and with the ACLU I get annoyed by some inconsistencies), but they add a much-needed voice to the discussion.
@Trumwill, I don’t care for the ACLU because they’re a bunch of baby killing communists….though I try to be even handed, so there!
@Bob Cheeks, how I’ve missed you.
Where have you been?
@Jaybird, Just last night I wondered to myself what Bob was up to.
@Rufus F., This is why I come to the League. As lefty as I am, I am not so lefty as to suspect whether the Paleos are not sent from Jesus to be my conscience.
Joe McCarthy died for his own sins, not for mine.
@Rufus F., Nice Patti Smith reference.
@Jaybird,
Geez, JB the feelin’ mutual of course. Been down on the TExas border dealin’ with the illegals and eatin’ their food…I don’t ever want to see another taco, though I gotta say I do like the Mexicans and the Tex-Mexicans..for one thing they don’t kill their babies. My daughter and her husband had a son, my grandson, Liam Patrick. So all you guys out there tonight I want you to hoist either a decent brewski or two fingers of a respectable burbon to my babies and shout, “Lock Heim” or however you spell it! Say 9 PM EST!
@Bob Cheeks, after 10 years of smoking, Mexican food is pretty much the only food I’m guaranteed to taste anymore.
Jesus God, you have no idea how much I miss smoking.
A grandson! A MITZVAH! That is wonderful news! We need more children that are loved by parents and grandparents.
I am glad you are there and, selfishly, I am glad you are back.
I will life some wine (red) and wish that there was a God for you and your grandSON tonight, Bob.
I hope that the world he lives in is better than mine.
And welcome back. You have been missed.
@ThatPirateGuy, I forgot to mention, I think that the prayer-in-school is only part of the story for conservatives. The other part (and the bigger part, when it comes to the more general conservative population) is protecting the rights of the accused. My friend and coblogger not-so-playfully calls them the American Criminal Liberties Union. This is, I should say, where I think the ACLU’s actions are most important.
JB, God’s there alright, talked to Him this morning, and saw Him in the baby’s eyes, and, dude, I got your back! Talk to me about smoking. There’s nothing I’d care to have more than a decent Honduran/Dominican wrapped in a grand Conn, leaf, two fingers of Maker’s Mark, and an intelligent Communist to argue with.
Comments on this entry are closed.