Written by John Turner   

This is not about the new year.

I have resolved to stay away from name calling. I’m not so prissy as to avoid descriptive terms which are less than complimentary, that is if they convey truth. But titles that are nothing but insults strike me as both ineffective and unmannerly. That’s my stance, but, then, along comes Haley Barbour.

I try, and try, and try, but every time I read or hear his name, a term which has to do with the material of which his head is composed possesses my mind.

Bob Herbert calls him merely “low.” That’s not bad but somehow I don’t think it fully captures Haley’s essence.

It didn’t bother me, particularly, when the Mississippi governor said that the Citizens’ Councils of the 1960s were simply groups of community leaders who were insuring that order prevailed. That’s what I would expect him to say. I’ve heard dozens of people of Haley’s general disposition say the same thing. Mostly they’re just persons of such diminished empathy they can’t imagine the suffering of anyone who’s slightly different from themselves. You can think of them as handicapped.

When we come to Barbour’s words and behavior towards Gladys and Jamie Scott, however, I think we’ve moved beyond common intellectual disability into something I don’t have a name for because I don’t believe in evil.

I know, Barbour has supposedly been merciful to the sisters by suspending their life sentences for the hideous crime of luring a guy down a street where some teenagers robbed him of eleven dollars. They have been in prison now for sixteen years (the guys who did the robbery got quite short sentences) and though the governor didn’t say that was enough, he did say they don’t any longer pose a threat to society. Besides, one of them is very sick and it’s costing the state quite a bit of money to look after her.

Jamie has suffered kidney failure and needs a kidney transplant. So the suspension of sentence has been made dependent upon Gladys’ donating one of her kidneys to her sister. It’s true, she wants to do it anyway. But doesn’t it seem just a bit peculiar that the governor of state would require someone to give up a body part in order to get a suspended sentence? What sort of option does this open for Mississippi governors of the future?

I understand that the justice system of Mississippi is based upon metaphysical, and perhaps theological, propositions that have flown far beyond the grasp of those of us who haven’t been graced with the transcendental experience of living in the state. Even so, I can’t help wondering how the requirement of a body-part donation comports with the Constitution of the United States. What would Justice Scalia say about that? Do you suppose the founders had that possibility in mind? I guess Scalia would find the choice adequately covered by the Tenth Amendment.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m happy that Gladys and Jamie are getting out of jail. I also applaud their apparent decision to get out of Mississippi when they are released, even though the Medicaid fund for Mississippi will be relieved of the burden of paying for the transplant.

Mr. Barbour has often been included in lists of persons who may attain the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. My sense is he’s fully qualified -- for the nomination that is. I doubt, though, that he’s going to get it. And it may be that his actions with respect to the Scott sisters will damage his prospects. From the perspective of Mississippi metaphysics, that would be profoundly unfair.

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo says there is no chance of Haley’s gaining national office so long as the nation retains any memory of Boss Hogg. Marshall is probably right about that.

In the meantime, I am faced with the task of restoring my resolution, which I’ll try to do, even if Haley’s face keeps popping up on my TV.