Ideology, moi?

Roger Clegg notes an intersting exchange between Senator Schumer and Justice Department official Brad Schlozman. Schumer was grilling Schlozman about the recruitment policies of the Civil Rights Division. Schlozman testified that the Division recruited at the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society, but also with liberal groups.
Pressed by Schumer for the names of such groups, Schlozman cited MALDEF [Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund] and NAPABA [National Asian Pacific American Bar Association]. Schumer responded:

MALDEF is not the equivalent of the Heritage – the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society have an ideological hue to them. These others are Native American organizations, Hispanic American organizations. Those are different.

But, as Schumer surely understands, the fact that MALDEF is an Hispanic American organization does not mean it lacks “an ideological hue.” The ideology of an organization, if any, is determined by the views it espouses (and arguably the views of its members), not its racial or ethnic composition. MALDEF has consistently espoused left-liberal positions. The Federal Society, by contrast, does not espouse any views, and the views of its members are probably more ideologically diverse than those of MALDEF.
Schumer is playing an old and intellectually dishonest game — ascribing an ideological agenda to his opponents while denying that his allies have one. It’s a game favored by some modern liberals, but one that suggests a totalitarian mindset.


Books to read from Power Line