SUVs and the Security State

Some thought higher gas prices would once and for all end the popularity of SUVs, but the demand for SUVs remained high during 2011. Sales totals for Ford’s Explorer and the Chrysler Groups’ Grand Cherokee, to cite only two SUV models, were higher than in 2010. How might one explain the continuing popularity of these gas-guzzlers which are so prone to rollovers and braking failures?

Studies suggest Americans’ continuing fears about international, domestic, and personal security are part of the answer. Market researchers have in the past found SUV and van purchasers tended to be demographically similar (relatively affluent married couples in their forties with children), but the researchers also discovered that on average SUV purchasers were edgier, less social people with strong fears of crime. It also appears SUV purchasers had less sexual confidence than van purchasers! While SUVs are often advertised as off-road vehicles, few SUV owners drive their vehicles off-road. Instead, SUVs seem to provide many owners with presumably secure private sanctuaries where they might tend to their fears. (See Keith Bradsher, “Delving Into the Pysche of SUV and Minivan Buyers,” Financial Post, July 18, 2000, C3.)

To some extent, the Hummer was the ultimate SUV. A military vehicle used by the armed forces in the First Gulf War, the Hummer was redesigned as a civilian family vehicle, albeit one that maintained its militaristic panache. The recession spelled the end of the Hummer what with its ten-miles-per-gallon fuel efficiency, but Hummers on the streets of American cities at the turn of the century wonderfully suggested the bourgeoning security consciousness. Huge numbers of Americans have a bunker mentality. They are afraid of terrorists, crime, and often social life in general.

Continue ReadingSUVs and the Security State

American Restrictive Covenants and Israeli Community Exclusions

Controversies in the United States during the 1940s and 1950s regarding restrictive covenants related to race foreshadow current controversies in Israel regarding community exclusions of Arab citizens. Both controversies illustrate how difficult it is to maintain equality in a pluralistic society and underscore the importance of freedom to choose one’s housing in that effort.

In the United States, zoning according to race had been found unconstitutional in the early twentieth century, but segregationists turned instead to private restrictive covenants to keep African Americans and members of other minority groups out of white towns and neighborhoods. Fortunately, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) that a court enforcing such a restrictive covenant was denying equal protection of the laws and therefore acting unconstitutionally. Would-be segregationists then attempted to sue private parties for breaching the covenants when they sold or rented properties to African Americans, but the United States Supreme Court said that any court entertaining these suits was also acting unconstitutionally.

In Israel, starting in the 1970s, Jewish nationalists began settling in the sprawling exurbs of northern Israel, where membership committees often decide who can buy local homes. When Jewish-only communities emerged in the Negev and in Gallilee, Arab citizens sued, arguing they were being excluded. The Israeli Supreme Court barred the exclusion, asserting that “equality is one of the foundational principles of the State of Israel.” However, just this year the Knesset in effect overruled the judiciary by enacting a law that allows local membership communities to reject potential residents who did not fit the “social-cultural fabric.”

Both extended controversies suggest that equality is impossible if citizens of different races and religions are not free to live where they want. One’s home and one’s ability to choose it are a base for one’s sense of equality, not in the Blackstonian sense of each man’s home is his castle but rather as a starting point for civic self-actualization. How can one understand oneself as equal without the same freedom as others to decide where to live?

Continue ReadingAmerican Restrictive Covenants and Israeli Community Exclusions

A.B.A. Rejections of Obama Judicial Nominees

Speaking through its judicial vetting committee, the A.B.A. has rejected fourteen of President Obama’s potential nominees for the federal bench. The overall rejection rate was 7.5 percent, a rate three and a half times that for the eight-year administrations of both President George W. Bush and President Bill Clinton.

Why has the A.B.A. been less enthusiastic about the Obama judicial nominees? One simple theory is that the organization is more conservative than many think. It used to be assumed the A.B.A. had a liberal bias, but the rejected nominees are Obama-style liberals.

Another theory involves the experiences and career paths of the nominees. Most were government lawyers and academics, but the A.B.A. apparently wants significant trial experience. The A.B.A., like the general public, may think that “true” lawyers are litigators.

The most troubling theory for the high rejection rate is that the A.B.A. continues to imagine a white, male federal judiciary. Eight of the fourteen rejections are African American or Hispanic, and nine are women.

President Obama could still seek Senate confirmation for his nominees, but regardless of what he decides on that score, the rejections provide new perspectives on the A.B.A. The emerging image is hardly attractive.

 

Continue ReadingA.B.A. Rejections of Obama Judicial Nominees
Newer Posts
Older Posts