people really really overestimate the power of their agreement with each other to create reality. so there's nothing a 'scholar of the law' takes to be a more devastating refutation of an opponent's position than 'outside the mainstream': they say it autonomically, just exactly as though they are unconscious. here's a nice little application of the idea, with regard to newt's wonderful notion of getting rid of whole federal circuit courts whose decisions he doesn't like, or calling judges before congress to explain their decisions:
“Overall, he’s racing towards a cliff,” said Bert Brandenburg, executive director of the nonpartisan Justice at Stake campaign, which advocates for an independent judiciary. “It may be expedient to appeal to specific voters in primaries or caucuses, but it’s a constitutional disaster. Americans want courts that can uphold their rights and not be accountable to politicians. When you get to the point where you’re talking about impeaching judges over decisions or abolishing courts or calling them before Congress, it’s getting very far away from the American political mainstream.”
now, brandenburg's concession that it works with caucus voters might start to get him worried about how 'outside the political mainstream' it really is. at any rate, it might be perfectly within the political mainstream the day after tomorrow, or during the gingrich administration.
or let's try this from holland cotter:
The Museum of Modern Art offered two classics. “De Kooning: A Retrospective” (through Jan. 9) surprised no one and thrilled everyone: we knew it would be great; it turned out to be better than that.
the last thing you want to do is use what 'everyone knows' as a guide to critical judgment. people have been doing that specifically with de kooning for decades, and the enforced unanimity hasn't actually made the paintings any less repulsive or any more meaningful. look, with your own goddamn eyes.
