Obviously, my standards for non-fiction are different from fiction. I am more interested in learning something from a non-fiction essay, than in how it's written. My goal for Fight of the Century was to learn more about the issues involved in the case, its participants or its impact. The essays I favored were the ones that I considered the most eye-opening. Other readers may be better informed about a particular issue than I am. The reverse may also be true. There could be readers who are less informed than I am about the subjects of an essay that I considered a re-hash of familiar points. These readers will probably have other choices for the best contributions to this anthology.
I admit to being prejudiced against bestselling authors. This is based on my experience of bestsellers. With a few exceptions, I have found them superficial and poorly written. This is the reason why I haven't even looked at Scott Turow's legal thrillers. After having read his essay in Fight of the Century , I am thinking that I ought to try one of them. Testimony seems to be the most aligned with my interests.
Turow's contribution to Fight of the Century, "Spending Money Isn't Speech", astonished me because I hadn't known that the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) actually supported what I, and many others, consider to be among the most harmful Supreme Court decisions of the first decade of the 21st century. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) has made it nearly impossible to legislate against the interests of powerful corporations and has led to the current situation in the United States in which democracy is in jeopardy.
Turow actually wasn't writing in response to Citizens United. His essay deals with a key legal precedent that buttressed the Supreme Court's decision on Citizens United, Buckley v. Valeo (1976), which eliminated any limitations on how much a political campaign can spend. The ACLU also supported that decision, saying that campaign spending limitations violated free speech. It seems to me self-evident that the reverse is true. Without any limitations, the costs of campaigning have skyrocketed. This means that candidates who are wealthy have the advantage. This can lead to the suppression of candidates who represent less monied interests. The ACLU claims to support the public funding of campaigns, but Turow points out that unlimited spending makes public funding of elections unworkable. He argues that in order for it to be viable, either all campaigns must rely solely on public financing, or public financing must be able to match privately financed candidates. This is impossible when billionaires with unlimited funds are pouring money into elections.
Turow then brings Citizens United into his discussion of Buckley v. Valeo. Citizens United allowed anonymous corporations to fund PACs (Political Action Groups). This is called "dark money" because the sources of that money are unknown. Turow states that this facilitates illegal foreign interference in American elections since foreigners can own corporations. I actually hadn't made that connection. I feel that campaign finances are an urgent issue. This is why I rated Turow's essay highest. I gave it an A+.
There are three other essays that I rated A which I want to bring to the attention of my readers.
I have read contributor Dave Eggers' non-fiction book, Zeitoun, and was very impressed with it at the time I read it. I have since learned that Abdulrahman Zeitoun, who was portrayed as heroic in Eggers' book, was a wife abuser. He was convicted of felony stalking of his former wife, Kathy Zeitoun. She revealed the abuse some time after the book's publication. So I don't hold Eggers responsible for not mentioning it, but I do now feel highly ambivalent about his book. See the Aftermath section of the Wikipedia article on Zeitoun for further information.
Eggers' essay in Fight of the Century is "Legal Counsel at the Moment Most Crucial" which was about Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), a case which allowed suspects to have a lawyer present when they are interrogated by police. Eggers has researched the problem of forced confessions during police interrogations. I wasn't aware of the extent and seriousness of this issue before reading this essay. Readers who are interested in justice reform will find it as important as I did.
The reason why I am calling attention to "Loving", Aleksandr Hemon's essay on Loving v. Virginia (1967), is because of Hemon's perspective on the case. Many readers might wonder what someone who was born in Sarajevo could bring to discussion of a Supreme court ruling that declared racist laws against miscegenation unconstitutional. How is Hemon's experience relevant? The attitude in Sarajevo toward marriages in which the partners were from two different ethnic groups changed radically as a result of the tragic civil war that took place in Bosnia. Hemon discusses his feelings about this issue in the context of the social upheaval in his country of origin. He also mentions his own twelve year marriage to an African American woman. I felt that the way Hemon addressed Loving v. Virginia was moving and highly appropriate.
"You've Given Me A Lot To Think About" by science fiction writer Charlie Jane Anders genuinely did give me a lot to think about regarding the case of Schroer v. Billington (2008) in which a transgender woman experienced employment discrimination. It was an opportunity for me to clarify my thoughts on this topic. It also reminded me to read Anders' novel The City in the Middle of the Night.
This was a provocative anthology. A number of the court cases dissected in this volume continue to be subjects of controversy that divide American society. I predict that Fight of the Century will be regarded as a valuable reference book to be cited in the ongoing debates that are central to my nation's politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment