Timothy Sandefur over at Postive Liberty points out a Slate piece (Jack Shafer) which accuses Rehnquist of Placidyl addiction in the late 70′s. It is seems well researched, but regrettably has not responded yet to my with for links to all the authors notes and research used to produce the article 
. Why is this news? Rehnquist is only weeks in the grave.
Mr Shafer defends the regrettable topic of his piece with two arguments. First, that we don’t have any method for judging the mental competence of our jurists. And secondly, that there is a double standard between the rich and powerful and the poor with respect to the law. Mr Shafer alas, has no suggestion at all as to what Constitutional revisions he might wish to begin start such a measure for mental competence. So what is the point of his first argument, I guess there is at the core … none. As to the second, well the only reasonable comment one can make is … duh. Let’s see, historically speaking exactly what point in Mr Shafer’s Utopian view has the poor not been given the short shrift. Does he imagine this will change? What brand of Kool-Aid does he imbibe, one might inquire? I think the case might be made that this era (and our fair country) is probably historically one of the best ever in this respect. I wonder if he might agree with that?
In the few decades the expose’ has become the rage. Jefferson had a child by a black slave. Lincoln might have been gay. This person did this that and the other … and so it goes. The vast majority of the people so reviled and exposed are dead and gone. When I was a child, I was taught not to speak ill of the dead. Alas, I fear I still feel that this maxim holds true. To what cause do we violate this maxim of old? Mostly I fear it is for “fun and profit”. For the journalist or historian it a moral equivalent with the sordid tabloids, which mostly speak ill of the living and hide behind slander laws. These historical/journalistic paparazzi descend to tweak, to titillate, and to despoil the good name of those long (or recently) dead. Like in our example of Mr Shafer above, is any real purpose served? But sin, sex, drugs, and human failings sell. We enjoy to see that Great Men have feet of clay.
To my way of thinking, there is not a very fine line dividing real history from this crap. Real history (from an amateurs perspective admittedly) involves searching for historical causes, tracing ideas through history, trying to unearth and explain the world-view of people who lived centuries ago, and to give us insight into how we became who we are and as well insight into what it means to be human. Are any of these purposes served by Mr Shafer’s example? Hmm, it seems not.
There was a time when a man’s good name meant something. It might be that with the passing of this age, small men with small spirit find profit in despoiling the name of a man once he has passed this mortal coil. All of course in the name of digging up “the truth” behind the “wall of silence”. There is I deem a link between the loss of regard for my (and my families) name, and the willingness of such men to speak ill of the dead. Perhaps someday there will be a time when a man’s name (and his word) mean more than nothing. However, it will probably have to wait until the easy anonymity of our era has passed for I think the two facets are linked.
Did you know that King David was an adulterer? That a drunken Lot slept with his daughters? That Moses murdered an Egyptian before leading Israel to the Promised Land? Yellow journalism at its finest, all compliments of… The Old Testament!
Jim,
Those stories were told when those particular gentlemen you mention were still alive. In fact, paying the piper for those crimes was part of the story told. Recording oral history is not the same as muckraking for the feet of clay of dead men.
Now it may be that there are examples of people getting away with crimes and nobody being the wiser until after their demise in the Bible, but alas, I can’t think of one.
“Those stories were told when those particular gentlemen you mention were still alive.”
So were stories of Rehnquist’s addiction. The Slate article was quite clear about it.
My point, though, is that after their death, no one thought it necessary to gloss over their failings. Perhaps it was a way to keep us from idolizing “great men.”
Jim,
But the point of the article in question was that this information was “covered up” and quieted down until after his death, unlike the two stories you quote. It seems to me, that if you want to make a point that the rich and powerful can cover up legal difficulties … there were two and a half decades to bring this story to light. Waiting until he is dead is IMHO inappropriate. It’s the timimg of bringing this to light I question not that fact that it has been done.
Ed,
My position is certainly not as abolute as you imply. And I don’t think the line between tabloid/sensationalist biography and doing good history is hard to judge.
In the case of this particular piece, the claim is that it was brought up to point out the disparity of how justice is served differently between rich and poor and that perhaps we need competency tests for our jurists. As I stated above, as to the first one could certainly point to copious examples of men who have not passed on and the very fact certainly shouldn’t be news to anyone.
As to the second, I think that was something of a side remark, because the article certainly does not entertain ideas of how one might implement competency tests for jurists, term limits, or any such things much less the advisability and the ramifications of starting such practices.