Unpublished Grand Rapids Press editorial

This was written in regards to the Rehnquist controversy. For more information see this post here.
In a guest editorial of the Grand Rapids Press, May 19, 2001, a fellow by the name of David Kamm slammed those of us at Calvin who were protesting the Chief Justice. It was such a bad editorial that for a couple days all I could think of was how many ways this guy didn't know what he was talking about. Mike Buma in particular was mentioned by name, so I told him he should probably make a reply. Mike called up the GR Press and asked for space to reply, and they said he could.
Buma wrote the bulk of this (as anyone who recognizes his distinctive style should be able to quickly tell). I was breathing down his neck the whole time and bugging him to make sure to include this or that point so Mike ended up submitting it with both of our names on it.
For whatever reason, the Press never ran it. It could have been too inflammatory, it could have been too formal, it could have been too insular, or it could just have been a communication error. We never did get a reason.
It was somewhat unfortunate, because I think this could have cleared up a lot of misconceptions readers of the press apparently had. The Letters to the Editor column was filled up for the next couple weeks with opinions similar to Kamm's. Eventually, however, the Press did run an article by Professor Jelks which had most of the same points as our piece. So the message did eventually get out there.

I am writing in regards to “Calvin College Liberals Show Intolerance by Protesting Chief Justice’s Invitation” (05/19/01) by David Kamm. I was greatly troubled by Kamm’s blithe misunderstanding of the Rehnquist issue, and by his subsequent misrepresentation of the so-called “Calvin liberals” he attempts to malign.

Kramm’s tendency towards a partisan understanding is regrettable. He makes the unsubstantiated assumption that were Angela Davis giving the commencement address rather than the chief justice, “these objecting students and faculty would probably fall all over themselves.” First of all, it should be noted that Calvin would never entertain the notion of hosting a speaker with connections to black radicalism. Secondly, Kamm’s reasoning seems to be that ‘liberals’ at Calvin align automatically with any ill-considered ‘liberal’ cause. Aside from slighting the diverse array of opinions represented by the dissenting members of the Calvin community, Kamm has reduced the issue into an uncomplicated polarity. The charges of racial insensitivity made against Rehnquist go beyond the traditional left/right debate (unless of course conservatives want to concede that racial equality is a liberal issue).

Also in regards to his reductionist partisan viewpoint, Kamm attempts to cast the issue as a civics lesson in free speech. No one at Calvin is arguing against the chief justice’s right to express his opinions, or against the university as a proper venue for considering a diverse array of viewpoints. The Calvin faction dissenting from Rehnquist’s presence did so because of the nature of the occasion. Rehnquist would have been an entirely appropriate lecturer at the January Series, or at some other academic venue; however, commencement is the one event in which the speaker’s views have traditionally been reflective of the larger views of Calvin as an institution and Christian community. Rehnquist’s record is undeniably cause for alarm (a point which I will expand later), and his invitation as commencement speaker was problematic for an institution which purports to be anti-racist. Not to mention, Rehnquist’s actual commencement address was almost entirely unreflective of Calvin’s goals and mission statement, making sparing references to the Christian faith, and none whatsoever to the Reformed tradition of Christianity.

In my four years as a Calvin student, there have certainly been no shortage of conservative speakers (such as the entire GOP primary last year). The fact that these speakers could come to campus without so much as a raised eyebrow should have indicated to Kamm that there was something different about the Rehnquist case. However, most troubling is Kamm’s lack of research. Kamm apparently has used past articles from the Grand Rapids Press as his only insight into the controversy. Therefore because the Press had not articulated on a point by point basis the objections some of us have to Rehnquist, Kamm assumed that there were no reasonable objections. Those of us writing for Calvin’s student newspaper actually took the time to research the controversy before staking out our positions. It would be nice if the Grand Rapids Press held its writers to the same standard.

Background research into Rehnquist’s past would have revealed that the chief justice has consistently hidden behind a strict constructionist judicial philosophy in his failure to aid the abolition of racial injustice and oppression. In the past, Rehnquist has used Jim Crow laws to prevent minorities from voting. He has lobbied against an ordinance that would require restaurants and hotels to serve all persons regardless of race. He was a vocal protestor of school integration in Phoenix. He has ruled repeatedly against affirmative action cases and Native American land claim settlements. In addition to this, Rehnquist has demonstrated incessant unwillingness to hire non-white law clerks. Even if one is content to dismiss all of this as permissible in light of his constructionism, it should be noted that the chief justice has departed with his judicial philosophy on several issues he feels strongly about, such as flag burning.

The most interesting part of Kamm’s article was his condescending reference to an old Bob Dylan protest anthem in regards to the Calvin dissenters. Yes, Mr. Kamm, the times they are a-changin’, but not thanks to people like Justice Rehnquist. This was the necessity of dissent: to tangibly illustrate that the views and actions of Justice Rehnquist are not necessarily those of Calvin College. I applaud every individual who raised their voices to make this known.

Unpublished Chimes Articles: Election

Commentary: I can't say I blame Chimes for taking a pass on this one. It was pretty stale. But prosaic problems aside, I do still agree with my thesis. I think this country is a lot more liberal than people realize.


It is well known that elections in this country are usually decided more by image then by issues. Both the right and the left have a solid block that can be counted on to vote predictably, but the difference is made by those who reside in the middle. A good deal of these centrist voters, either consciously or unconsciously, will tend to vote for whatever candidate has the more appealing personality.

But I trust I’m not saying anything new here. We all know that Kennedy won against Nixon primarily because Kennedy looked better on the television screen. It is common knowledge that Reagan was as popular as he was in part because he played to cameras so well. And Clinton’s win in ’96 was largely due to Dole’s wooden personality.

Of course, this causes one to wonder why Al Gore did so well in the recent election. In terms of personal charisma, Al Gore had a losing hand from the start. He struggled all through the campaign to over come the perceptions people had of him as being flat, cardboard, whiny, and monotone. He was described as having a personality that grated on voters. He was expected to shine during the debates, but instead dropped in the polls after the first debate despite the fact that most people thought he won. Voters thought he was a bully, overly aggressive, and annoying. Al Gore reinvented himself for the second debate, but still couldn’t find a personality that appealed to voters. One political analyst, after looking at Gore’s polls before and after the debates, remarked, "Milosovic didn’t drop this fast."

It is also extremely unusual for a sitting vice-president to be elected President. George Bush did it in 1988, but that was the first time such an event had occurred since 1836. And Al Gore could hardly have picked a worse administration to be part of. The Clinton administration was bursting at the seams with scandals, whether real or imagined. President Clinton was even impeached, the first President given this honor in almost a 150 years, and only the second President impeached in American history. Gore tried to disassociate himself from Clinton, but after standing by Clinton’s side for 8 years, this proved to be an impossible task.

But Gore also had problems of his own. He flip-flopped on the issues just like Clinton did, changing his position on several items between January and November. He had numerous problems with telling the truth, causing people to wonder if he could ever be trusted. He even had a few fund raising scandals of his own before he even got to the oval office. And if you think all of this doesn’t matter to people, just listen to some of the conversations on Calvin’s campus, or turn on some talk radio.

In contrast, Bush had a warm smile, a handsome face, and a laid back personality. It was everything the GOP could have hoped for in a candidate.

When all this is added together, it would have been surprising if Gore had done half as well as Bush had in the election. Instead, Gore not only gave Bush a run for his money, but he actually won the popular vote. Did Gore attract all these swing voters based on his personal appeal or trustworthiness? Impossible. I can only conclude that Gore did as well as he did because voters agreed with him on the issues.

The issues in this election were few, but they were present. And the majority of voters clearly sided with Al Gore. These voters felt strongly enough on these issues to vote for Al Gore despite his questionable past, and the issues had broad enough support to attract the swing voters despite Bush’s warm smile. Voters felt that the environment should be protected even at the expense of industry, that abortion rights should be preserved, and that saving social programs was more important then a large tax cut to the rich. In addition 2.5 million, or roughly three percent of voters, didn’t think Al Gore was liberal enough, and voted for Ralph Nader. I hope George W. Bush and the Republicans will keep these facts in mind before claiming that their views have the support of the people.

Bonus: Two entries here for the price of one. Below is an unpublished and unfinished Chimes article written at the same time. I was going to write this article, but then changed themes to the article above.

Whether you like Bush or Gore, I think we can all agree on one thing: Nader was the coolest candidate. Easily. Did Bush get endorsed by Pearl Jam? Did Radio Head hold up pro-Gore signs? How many presidential Candidates have had the support of Rage Against the Machine? When it comes to being endorsed by the hip rock stars, Nader comes away the winner.

However, with all the fuss over Nader and Buchanan, we’ve forgotten about the other candidates. No, I’m not talking about Bush and Gore. They’ve gotten more attention this year than O.J. did when he was on trial. I’m talking about the other 3rd party candidates. And so, this is my salute to men and women (well, mostly men I guess) who wanted your vote but didn’t make the headlines. These are the candidates you didn’t hear about:

David McReynolds (Socialist Party):
You have to feel a little sorry for the Socialist Party. There was a time when they were THE major third party. Back when Eugene Debs got 920,000 votes for President well he was in prison, it seemed like the world was going their way. Now, they don’t even register on the political radar (pardon the cliché). David McReynolds, like Nadar, has a long history of activism that puts him above reproach. Even if you don’t like Socialism (and I suppose polls show that the majority of Americans don’t), you have to admire a man whose spent his whole life fighting for his ideals of pacifism and democratic Socialism.

Awards: Most under-rated Candidate, Most Respectable Candidate, and the Socialist Party as a whole gets points for still running candidates after so many, many failures.

Monica Moorehead (The Workers World Party)

You’ve probably heard of Monica Moorehead, you just don’t know it yet. Remember when Bush spoke at the NAACP this summer, and six protesters had to be removed before he could begin? That was her work. She’s also been actively involved in the demonstrations against the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund, as well as the protests at the Democratic and Republican conventions this summer.

Unfinished Article about 3rd Party Candidates in the 2000 Election

[Not only was this article never published, I didn't even finish writing it.  But this was something I toyed around with submitting to Chimes for the November 2000 election.]

Google: drive, docs, pub

Whether you like Bush or Gore, I think we can all agree on one thing: Nader was the coolest candidate.  Easily.  Did Bush get endorsed by Pearl Jam?  Did Radio Head hold up pro-Gore signs?  How many presidential Candidates have had the support of Rage Against the Machine?  When it comes to being endorsed by the hip rock stars, Nader comes away the winner.

However, with all the fuss over Nader and Buchanan, we’ve forgotten about the other candidates.  No, I’m not talking about Bush and Gore.  They’ve gotten more attention this year than O.J. did when he was on trial.  I’m talking about the other 3rd party candidates.  And so, this is my salute to men and women (well, mostly men I guess) who wanted your vote but didn’t make the headlines.  These are the candidates you didn’t hear about:

David McReynolds (Socialist Party):

You have to feel a little sorry for the Socialist Party.  There was a time when they were THE major third party.  Back when Eugene Debs got 920,000 votes for President well he was in prison, it seemed like the world was going their way.  Now, they don’t even register on the political radar (pardon the cliché).  David McReynolds, like Nadar, has a long history of activism that puts him above reproach.  Even if you don’t like Socialism (and I suppose polls show that the majority of Americans don’t), you have to admire a man whose spent his whole life fighting for his ideals of pacifism and democratic Socialism.

Awards:  Most under-rated Candidate, Most Respectable Candidate, and the Socialist Party as a whole gets points for still running candidates after so many, many failures.  

Monica Moorehead (The Workers World Party)

You’ve probably heard of Monica Moorehead, you just don’t know it yet.  Remember when Bush spoke at the NAACP this summer, and six protesters had to be removed before he could begin?  That was her work.  She’s also been actively involved in the demonstrations against the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund, as well as the protests at the Democratic and Republican conventions this summer.