I suppose this is about being an honorable combatant in the middle of a culture war, which entails seeing the humanity of your perceived foe and, in the seeing of it, preserving your own.
The story, which you’ve already heard, is that a left-wing activist who calls herself an “advocacy journalist” went to the June 3 dinner of the Supreme Court Historical Society, a 50-year-old organization whose declared mission is to unearth and preserve the court’s history. During what appears to have been the drinks portion of the evening the activist, called Lauren Windsor, secretly taped private conversations with Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Alito’s wife, Martha-Ann. Ms. Windsor dishonestly presented herself as a conservative Christian. She goaded and baited the Alitos, hoping to get them to say extreme and stupid things, which she would later disseminate on social media.
Mrs. Alito, as appears to be her way—she is commonly described by friends as “a pistol”—said some spirited things. She has been under siege. Her husband wrote the Dobbs decision; she is by extension a target of hatred; she has been verbally confronted in her neighborhood and accused of inappropriate flag flying. Half the accusation—that after words with a neighbor she flew the American flag upside-down—was legitimate. It was a weird choice for the spouse of a justice in a time of tension. The other half—that the old Appeal to Heaven flag was flown at her vacation home, secretly signaling allegiance with the rioters on Jan. 6—was absurd. People on 1/6 carried Bibles and Bic pens too. Should we ban them? Slime those who use them?
The tone of the edited six-minute tape of the conversation with Mrs. Alito is at variance with news reports. Ms. Windsor comes across as a pushy and vaguely hysterical fangirl meeting an idol. Clearly she was acting out her idea of a Christian and conservative, which is a revved-up nut. Mrs. Alito’s mistake was responding in an egalitarian manner and not breezing past the nut with a quick, false smile.
Ms. Windsor introduces herself: “I’m a huge fan of your husband, and everything you’re going through, I just wanna tell you—”
“It’s OK, it’s OK,” Mrs. Alito says.
Ms. Windsor: “It’s not OK, though! It’s not OK!” Mrs. Alito offers a vow: “If they come back to me, I’ll get them. I’m gonna be liberated and I’m gonna get them.”
Ms. Windsor perks up. A threat! “What do you mean by ‘they’?”
Mrs. Alito answers: “The media.” The press made fun of her from the day she arrived in Washington, at the sparky confirmation hearings for her husband. She implies that when all this is over she’ll be giving them a piece of her mind. Everyone in Washington has this fantasy.
Ms. Windsor says the Appeal to Heaven flag flap was nonsense, and begins to swear excitedly. “Right,” says Mrs. Alito. “But, like, I have the same flag!” Ms. Windsor says. “Yes, I know,” says Mrs. Alito.
“But a lot of people fly that f—flag!” Ms. Windsor says. Mrs. Alito, in what sounds to my ears like a comforting tone: “Don’t worry about it, baby.”
Ms. Windsor says Mrs. Alito is being persecuted as “a convenient stand-in for anybody who’s religious.” Again Mrs. Alito says it will be OK—she’s German and tough. “You come after, me I’m gonna give it back to you.” This part had a “Real Housewives” flavor. “Don’t worry about it.” Mrs. Alito says, read Psalm 27.
Ms. Windsor changes tack, quoting something she had said to Justice Alito. “So I met him last year at this dinner. And I said to him, like, ‘This country is so polarized, how do we repair that rift?’ And he was like, ‘I don’t know, I don’t know, that’s not our role.’ And I told him this year, I’m like, ‘You know for the past year I remembered our conversation and I looked at what happened to you and your wife, and I’m like ‘How is there any negotiating with the radical left?’ ”
Mrs. Alito agrees there isn’t. “There’s not!,” says Mrs. Windsor. “You cannot negotiate with the radical left!” “You have to just win!”
It’s like Sean Hannity on meth.
Ms. Windsor: “No, but you have to win! And if we want to take this country back to, like, a godly place, to a moral place, that means that we actually have to just—”
By now Mrs. Alito is all in, blowing off steam. She’d like to put a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag up across from a pride flag. “Oh, please don’t put up a flag,” her husband says, and she won’t, but after he leaves the court, “I’m putting it up and I’m gonna send them a message every day. Maybe every week I’ll be changing the flags. They’ll be all kinds!”
One believes her.
The edited tapes made front-page news, which was odd in a mainstream media that regularly and rightly scorns the right-wing secret-sting-tape-maker James O’Keefe for deceptive reporting.
As to the contents of the Roberts and Justice Alito tapes, the chief justice didn’t take any bait or any nonsense. Of making America more godly, he said, “Would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path? That’s for people we elect. That’s not for lawyers. . . . It’s our job to decide the cases the best we can.”
Justice Alito gave Ms. Windsor more patience, but I agreed with the New York Post editorial that he seemed like someone gently trying to shake off a political obsessive. He agreed that polarization is real, and that for it to end, “one side or the other is going to win. I don’t know. I mean, there can be a way of working—a way of living together peacefully. But it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised.” Still, the court can’t solve polarization. “We have a very defined role, and we need to do what we’re supposed to do.”
The Alitos and Chief Justice Roberts didn’t do or say anything wrong. But there was something quite inhuman in what the left-wing activist did. She treated human beings as if they were mere means to her end. She acted out admiration to perform reputational harm. She presented herself falsely to inflict damage. That the content she produced was disseminated by honest grown-up journalists is to their discredit.
She claims to oppose polarization but fans it, further alienating those who already lack trust in institutions like the court and professionals like journalists. She presents another warning to those who hold or are adjacent to high office: You can’t assume good faith on the part of fellow citizens who seek you out.
More than that, it is deeply Stalinist. In Stalin’s time private life was dead, and private comments too. Neighbor spied on neighbor and reported back subversive comments to the Central Committee. People became spies, rooting out ideological error.
And, if you’re serious, what does it even get you? You persuade nobody. Your ideological friends like it that you owned the cons. Your foes are hardened. You get attention for yourself. So what? You’ll always be the person who got attention that way.