George Will does his part for the new Republican minority outreach program by penning a column that compares our nation’s first black president to George Wallace. I guess Nathan Bedford Forrest was a bridge too far. What does George Wallace have to do with the National Labor Relations Board? Well, nothing, but that’s not the point. The point is that the NLRB wants employers to post information alerting their workers of their right to form a union. According to Mr. Will, this is roughly as Maoist as compelling restauranteurs to post reminders about hand-washing in their restrooms, and clearly an unconstitutional violation of our oligarchs’ right to be silent. What’s more, Mr. Will is under the firm impression that when the DC Circuit of Appeals makes a ruling, that is the end of the matter and no appeal is possible or necessary before the government must comply with that ruling. So, for example, when the DC Circuit ruled that the president improperly made recess appointments to the NLRB when the Senate was not in fact in recess, that meant that the administration had to immediately agree with that ruling and disband the NLRB for lack of a quorum. And his failure to do so is exactly like when George Wallace “stood in the door of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama to prevent two young blacks from registering as students.”
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
Yes, indeed, Gov’nor Wallace was refusing to obey a unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court and Obama has disagreed with and appealed a (divided) opinion of one of the (13) US Courts of Appeal—which the Supreme Court has already taken up, I think. But the two men show an identical disrespect of the law! Lawless tyrants! (Now Wallace is a tyrant in “conservative” mentality? What happened to the patriotic nullification doctrine?)
Of course, “conservative” dean Will knows all this, and is simply engaging in the modus operendi of all “conservative” intellectuals—intellectual dishonesty and bad faith. That’s been Will’s stock in trade for decades now. He’s so rancid at this point the stench is unbearable.
And yes, one would have to work hard to come up with a more intentionally insulting (phony) comparison. Which is just more evidence that the “conservative” Repub blabber about Outreach! is also in bad faith and fundamentally dishonest. A movement of schemers and liars.
Can’t imagine that it would be possible even if one toiled at it for a few months.
I feel badly for the Cubs.
George Wallace had a kind of revelation about racism later in life. That apparently hasn’t happened to George Will yet.
Whoops, we’re not supposed to compare Wallace to Will, are we?
Sure we can. Will’s a racist, all right. This is not the only example. He avoids crudity in his expressions of prejudice, but it’s there.
He’s also an intentionally obtuse asshole on the NLRB situation. I heard him on a recent Sunday blathering on about how “The NLRB wants to force employers to post signs stating their employee’s right to join a Union, but the NLRB won’t post a sign stating the employees’ right not to join a Union.”
So, you’re working at a job site and there’s no Union representing you and your fellow class of workers. In Will’s world, there should be a sign which says you have a right to continue to not have Union representation.
He isn’t even trying to be intellectually honest.
my favorite part of the DC circuit free speech-NLRB posting case is how the court finds the requirement that employer’s post notices informing their employees of their rights to unionize a horrific infringement on the right to free speech, the court is fine with the legal requirement that labor unions post notices informing their members of their right to resign from the union and object to the payment of union dues. i guess that’s not free speech for some reason.