The Citizens

Bell Curve

The Law Talking Guy

Raised by Republicans

U.S. West

Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

That's Some Catch, That Catch 21

Senate minority leader, Harry Reid (D-NV) invoked "Rule 21" which cleared the Senate of all cameras and everyone not actually elected to the Senate. He did this to protest footdragging by the Republican leadership on the investigation of the Plame/CIA leak. While a dramatic gesture and one that will embarrass the Republicans greatly, I doubt it will really force any accountability on the White House. The Republican base will be just as energized by this as the Democratic base. So Republicans will be ready to fight this. But at least the Democrats are trying. That could get the vote out in 2006.

America's Left Wing Universities

At Bell Curve's request let's open a discussion of the disproportionately left wing politics of American universities.

I used to thing this was grossly overblown and I still think it's exaggerated. However a few years ago I was involved in an interdisciplinary course on globalization involving an economist, a political scientist, a geographer and a comparative literature professor (sounds like a joke where they all get stranded on a desert island somewhere).

The economist and political scientist clearly had less politicized and more empirical approaches to studying globalization. If a normative political bias could be attributed to them it would be that they were centrist. The geographer was openly Marxist but he tried to use data to support his positions and when data didn't support his predictions he reported it anyway. The comparative literature professor however was beyond the pale. I was shocked at how openly and radically left wing his lectures were. There was complete absence of data of any kind and his lectures never discussed how the world actually is so much as how he thought the world should be.

I looked into the English department and Comparative Literature departments in that university and found that many of their courses were portrayed as courses about politics. As a political scientist I was very uncomfortable about it. Students were taking courses of untrained polemicists and coming out them thinking they actually learned something about political science. I don't have a problem with an English professor having political views. I don't even have that big a problem with them shooting their mouth off in class. But I don't like the false advertising.

Since that experience I've been more open to criticisms from the right that universities are bastions of left wing bias. I now only correct them by saying, "It's not the whole university. It's the humanities, in particular it is post-modernists." There are political scientists who are post-modern but they are (thankfully) becoming fewer and being relegated to those departments that do not train new political scientists.

This isn't to say that people with PhDs in the natural sciences or social sciences aren't more likely to be Democrats. They are (and that so many educated people dislike right wing ideologies should give Republicans pause). But they are less likely to make their political affiliations the foundations of their teaching and research.

A big reason I got involved with this blog (and the main reason I keep my identity obscured), is because as a professional political science educator, I have to keep my personal views separate from my professional research and teaching. I make a great effort to be objective and not preach to my students about my own views (even though I'm often tempted). This blog let's me blow off steam without introducing bias into my teaching. It also allows me to be considerably sloppier in my arguments and evidence than I would be professionally.

OK, that's what I think. What do you all think?

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

What is going on at the Air Force Academy?

OK gang,

This is a little late in coming (the story first broke on Oct 26) because when I heard it, I assumed it was a history retrospective about something that happened 20 or 30 years ago. Last week the head football coach at the US Air Force Academy announced that the reason his team is not successful was that they did not have enough African American players. To make matters worse, he referred to African Americans as "Afro-Americans." (you see why I thought this was a report from some 70's or 80's retrospective?).

There is a big debate out there among sports writers about whether this guy should be fired or not. I'll just suggest that we see this in the context of the overall culture at the Air Force Academy. There is the problem with evangelical conservatives dominating the religious culture of the Academy. Then there was the rape epidemic that broke out there.

So what we have is a US military academy in which violent misogynists and racists are running around being told they are God's chosen warriors in an apocalyptic conflict between good and evil. And oh by the way the people doing the raping and making the racist comments are the "good guys" according to the evangelicals. I've said before that the Religious right is just the Old South rising again. I think this ongoing mess at the Air Force academy is another little piece of evidence in support of my view.

Monday, October 31, 2005

WWAD?

In a unanimous decision in Alaska CLU vs. State of Alaska, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled on Oct 28, 2005, that it is unconstitutional for the state to deny lesbian and gay state employees and retirees equal benefits for their domestic partners.

The suit was filed shortly after Alaska's voters passed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in 2000. The plaintiffs did not seek to overturn the ban on marriage; instead, they argued successfully that same-sex couples could not be denied equal benefits merely because they could not marry. The denial of benefits, the court said, "cannot withstand minimum scrutiny."

The state had argued that denying gay employees domestic partner benefits furthered the state’s interest in promoting marriage, but the court firmly rejected that argument, stating: "Denying benefits to the same-sex domestic partners who are absolutely ineligible to become spouses has no demonstrated relationship to the interest of promoting marriage."

The court also noted that, "Many same-sex couples are no doubt just as 'truly close[ly] relat[ed]' and 'closely connected' as any married couple, in the sense of providing the same level of love, commitment, and mutual economic and emotional support, as between married couples, and would choose to get married if they were not prohibited by law from doing so." Yes, even in conservative Alaska, the courts are coming around to view same-sex relationships as a normal part of the American landscape.

Quoting Lawrence v. Texas, the Alaska Supreme court wrote, "It is the duty of courts 'to define the liberty of all, not to mandate [their] own moral code.'" You will be hard-pressed to find a clearer rejection of "judicial activism" anywhere. Makes you wonder... what would Alito do?

"Il duce" Alito

Got only one thing to say about this right-wing ideologue:
filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster filibuster...

Saturday, October 29, 2005

New Fed Chair

This story got somewhat overshadowed by the Wilson Affaire (that's for you LTG) and the Miers withdraw. But I think we should pay some attention to this. In fact, I wonder if the most powerful man in the world is really the US president. My money (pun intended) goes on the Fed Chair instead. Ben Bernanke, according to the Economist, was a favorite pick of online betters by a wide margin. He is former fed governor and reputed to be a respected monetary economist. He is Republican and currently serves as chair of Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, however, it is said that his politics do not affect his economic decisions.

The Washington Post reports that Bernanke does now believe that there is a national housing bubble; the 25% increase in home values over the last 2 years is reflecting the "strong economic fundamentals" of the US economy. He sites strong job growth, incomes and increasing numbers of households as proof of the strong economic situation. Does it feel like incomes are rising and that we have strong economic fundamentals? When everyone is living off of credit cards, holding risky home loans, and failing to save, how can policy makers ethically continue to promote consumer spending?

Bernanke, like Greenspan, would not take action to spare individual homeowners should housing prices fall. In fact, he believes that the Fed should only take action if stock or housing prices start to affect inflation rates and/or economic growth rates. So he will more than likely continue Greenspan's policies.

What do the Citizens and their guests think of the new Fed Chair?

As a side note on inflation: I recently went to my local bagel shop and I noticed that they are now charging me 5 cents to slice my bagel and 10 cents to toast it. That is, in effect, a 15 cent increase in price for nothing. My hotel in Washington found all sorts of reasons to charge all of my colleagues different room rates for the same type of room. And room tax was outlandish. My DSL company is always trying to nickel and dime me. These are hidden charges that have an inflationary effect on consumers, but are never counted.

Friday, October 28, 2005

All the Vice-President's Men

The NY Times has a fascinating transcript of Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald's press conference today where he outlines the charges against Libby in detail. They are neither trivialities nor technicalities. Fitzgerald said Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice were "very, very serious" crimes.

When asked why he did not indict Libby with the underlying charge of intentionally revealing the name of a CIA agent, Fitzgerald said:

FITZGERALD:The whole point here is that we're going to make fine distinctions and make sure that before we charge someone with a knowing, intentional crime, we want to focus on why they did it, what they knew and what they appreciated; we need to know the truth about what they said and what they knew.

QUESTION: Does that mean you don't feel that you know the truth about whether he intentionally did this and he knew and appreciated it? Or does that mean you are exercising your prosecutorial discretion and being conservative?

FITZGERALD: Well, I don't want to -- look, a person is charged with a crime, they are presumed innocent, and I haven't charged him with any other crime. And all I'm saying is the harm and the obstruction crime is it shields us from knowing the full truth.

I won't go beyond that.

Read between the lines. Libby prevented Fitzgerald from being able to prove what happened, and Fitzgerald knows it. The cover-up was successful, so he can only prosecute the cover up.

Fitzgerald also made a fascinating analogy to baseball.

I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something. If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that. And you'd wonder whether or not the person just reared back and decided, I've got bad blood with this batter... I'm just going to hit him in the head as hard as I can.

You also might wonder whether or not the pitcher just let go of the ball or his foot slipped, and he had no idea to throw the ball anywhere near the batter's head. And there's lots of shades of gray in between...

In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us. And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused? Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?

And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice [is] the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view. As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you... the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make. I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge.

Finally, when asked whether he knew the identity of the "senior official" (still not known) that told Novak about Plame, Fitzgerald said,

I'll explain this: I know that people want to know whatever it is that we know, and they're probably sitting at home with the TV thinking, I'm want to jump through the TV, grab him by his collar and tell him to tell us everything they figured out over the last two years. We just can't do that. It's not because we enjoy holding back information from you; that's the law.

When asked again about it, he said he would just repeat his earlier answer, "so I don't misstep and give you anything more than I should." So there is someone else, and Fitzgerald knows who it is.

The grand jury has expired but Fitzgerald's work will continue, although he said one would "very rarely" file more charges in such a situation.

Libby Cheney and the Presumption of Innocence

Hi Everyone,

Scooter Libby has been indicted (so far) for 5 counts of perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice. He resigned. VP Cheney expressed his "deep regret" and said that Libby should be assumed to be innocent. I'm struck at the difference between Cheney's attitude towards Mr. Libby's presumption of innocence and that principle when applied to Jose Pedilla. Imagine an Arab American in Dearborn, MI who is accused of leaking (or covering up leaking) the identity of a CIA field operative with expertise in weapons of mass destruction. Would such an accused person be presumed innocent by Mr. Cheney and his compatriots in the Bush administration? Or would the unfortunate accused be rotting in a dog cage in "Gitmo?"

I'm sure more detailed posts will be forthcoming as this story develops. The special prosecutor is saying that the investigation is not over.

If the Democrats had control of either House, this would be grounds for a major investigation of the entire administration. It would be THE top story on every newspaper. But because the Republicans control all three branches of government accountability in this matter is extremely limited.

Iran Doing Favors For Bush

What is it with Iran and cooperating with America's far right? First it was "Iran-Contra" where the Iranian government bought weapons on the sly to help pay for a right wing insurgency in Nicaragua. Now, Iran's theo-fascist President is making public statements about how Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth (oh, and he wants the USA wiped out too but that's not being taken as seriously for some reason). This is providing American "Neo-cons" with a real "I told you so" moment. What's worse, this regime actually DOES have an active nuclear program.

One reason I was opposed to invading Iraq was that Iraq was a paper tiger. And if they weren't, they were deterrable. I still think that about Iran. But when the President of Iran makes statements like this is makes it harder for people who think like I do to convince people who want to invade them.

Now, if it's Iran that has the really aggressive agenda (Iraq's aggression was largely contained) and the active nuclear program why did we invade Iraq instead of Iran? I think it was like the old story about the man looking for his keys under the street light even though he lost them in the shadows. When asked why he was looking under the light, he said "because this is where I can see." In other words we invaded Iraq because we could and didn't invade Iran because we couldn't. Iran's conventional military is bigger and more popular with the people than Iraq's. Iran is a much larger country too, with population more widely distributed and with a more mountainous terrain.

So what does all this mean? I think the Egyptian government hit the nail on the head. Their official statement said that these statements indicate the weakness of the Iranian government. It is all too common in the Middle East for governments to whip up anti-Israeli feelings and anti-American feelings when their support wanes. Iran could be doing a similar thing here. For Iranian officials calling for the extermination of Israelis and Americans could like Stalin showing the film Aleksandr Nevsky to whip up nationalism in anticipation of an invasion by Germany. So is Iran trying to provoke a US invasion? No. They think it's coming regardless of what they do. So they are trying to play to their biggest military asset - popular support. But they're doing it out of fear (like Egypt implied).

The bad news is that Iran is a big dangerous country that feels (rightly) that they're boxed into a corner. The good news is that we don't necessarily need to invade them to fix the problem. If we back off they probably will too.

OK, that rambled a bit. Sorry.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Yet Another Republican Indicted

Hi Gang,

A Republican fund raiser in Ohio has been indicted for violating campaign finance laws. He was kiting money back and forth between accounts with the aid of several other Republican donors to enable him to exceed federal political campaign limits by tens of thousands of dollars. This man, Thomas W. Noe, is also under investigation for $13 million missing dollars from the Ohio state employees pension fund which he invested in a shady rare coin deal. That investigation led to the indictment and conviction of Ohio's Republican Governor, Robert Taft (the great grandson of President and Supreme Court Justice William Howard Taft).

In the context of the De Lay indictment for the same type of violation and the Frist investigation, the Rove and Libby investigations this development is a reminder that the Republican Party as an organization is deeply flawed.

Possible Replacements?

Let's run down the list of possible replacements. TheWashington Post has their short list, but I think we can pare it down even further. Here's my list: Alito, Garza, Gonzales, Jones, Luttig, McConnell, Olson, Owen, Estrada, Clement, Brown, Batchelder and Cornyn. Of those, McConnell is my clear favorite. Olson and Clement, I think, would sail through the confirmation process. Alito and Garza don't necessarily make me want to throw up. That's about all the good I have to say.

The radical right wing would not approve of Gonzales, so I think we can throw him out.

This article tells you all you need to know about Priscilla Owen. I think there's no way she gets through without the nuclear option.

Most of the criticism of Janice Rogers Brown (whom the wingers adore) comes from this speech. You can find an analysis of it here if you don't want to slog through it. Frightening stuff.

Even more frightening (possibly) is Luttig's opinion in Padilla v. Hanft that LTG referred to below. It basically says that the President can throw any American in Gitmo indefinitely for no good reason.

I just wanted to get the ball rolling. Other thoughts?

Miers Withdrawal is a Major Political Defeat

I was blown over by the news this morning. This is a major political defeat for the president. Virtually every court watcher and Senate observer believed that if Bush stuck to his guns, the Republicans in the Senate would not hand their own C-in-C a massive defeat. He, and I mean by "he" Karl Rove, must have had no stomach for a fight. Why? The Plame-Leak CIA Grand Jury. That's right: after tomorrow's expected announcement of indictments, Bush and Rove may have found the Republican senators unwilling to go to the mat for him, or at least demanding, in return, a heavy price that he would have to pay (such as distancing himself from Rove, or even Cheney). Bush cannot be fighting the conservatives in his own party when he needs their support to call the indictments (a la Delay) "politically motivated." Since he can't fire the grand jury, he fired his other liability: Miers. Bush now has a carrot to offer his party for their support when his administration gets slammed by the grand jury: a nominee to their liking, a right-wing ideologue like Luttig, for example (the man who recently wrote that in the perman ent war against terrorism, there can be no limitations on the president's ability to lock up someone indefinitely, without trial, whom he accuses of being a member of Al Qaeda, including American citizens apprehended on American soil, i.e., you and me).

Personally, I think Miers should have refused to withdraw her nomination. She should have been self-interested and told W that he should be loyal to her, no matter what, as she had been to him all along. He said she was the "best qualified" person for the job, and she could have, and should have, made him stuck by it. In the end, I still believe that the Senate Republicans would not have dared defeat her nomination, and she would be on the court. If Miers remained the nominee, they would have confirmed her, and exacted as their price that Bush rid himself of the Plame Leak Scandal by ditching Scooter and Karl. And I think Bush would not have dared withdraw Miers against her will, because that would be even a graver defeat. In other words, Miers could have forced Bush to pick her over Rove. I'm sorry she didn't, for her sake.

FYI, a close relative in Dallas Miers fairly well, and they used to belong to a church together in the 1980s. According to this source, Miers helped out with a "no questions asked" STD clinic run by that church. Now she attends a more evangelical/fundamentalist church. But this relative says that Miers is every bit as intelligent and nice as we have been led to believe by Harry Reid. All moot now.

Miers Nomination Withdrawn

One of the really cool things about being in Washington is that I can scoop all the other Citizens! Gotta love the time zones!

Miers has withdrawn her nomination. Surprise, Surprise. What is interesting to me is something in her statement. She says that she strongly believes in the independence of the branches of government. And then she goes on to say that her hearings would jeopardize . . . wait for it . . . the independence of THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH . . . because it would require the White House to turn over protected documents. That is very telling of her priorities.

And then, take time to listen or read Harry Reid's comments. He actually sounds genuinely sad to see Miers withdraw. His statement sound almost like he favored her nomination. He said that he was pleased that she was not an Ivy League lawyer and that she was the type of person that the Senators wanted. WHA???? Check out this from Oct 3 Harriet Miers- Initial Reaction
He goes so far as to say he suggested Miers as a nominee! And then he says it was the far right that killed this nominee. The implication is clear. It wasn't the Democrats. It was your own fault for pandering to the extreme right. He says as much. He even mentions sexism of the far right as part of the reason. I have mixed feelings about his statement. I think that part of the reason is how contrite he sounded.

And the timing is great. Washington now will burry the story of the indictment of White House Aids in the Wilson affaire.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Can you say "Litmus Test"?

GOP senator wants written evidence that Miers is conservative

"What I am suggesting is that I'd love to see more written material that predates the nomination," said Vitter after an early morning meeting with Miers, the White House counsel.

When asked how important getting that material was to his vote, he said "It's extremely important. I don't know how to put it in a numbers term, but it's extremely important."

... oh, and this is just plain brilliant.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

We're Gunning for you, Syria

If you look at the rhetoric that surrounds Syrian cooperation (or the lack of it) in the investigation of the death of former Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri, it sounds a lot like the rhetoric we used before the Iraq war. Today the US and France announced joint support for a U.N. report implicating Syrian officials in the assassination of Rafik Hariri, former Lebanese Prime Minister. Reports are that the US and France are also working on a joint resolution that will demand Syria's cooperation as the inquiry proceeds. The US has already levied sanctions against Syria. France is not yet in favor of sanctions. But concerns in France about being a terrorist target and memories of its own history in the Levant may lead them to follow the US lead should Syria fail to cooperate.

What we are witnessing is a growing crisis that will have huge consequences. Syria may well fall into chaos and revolution. There is growing opposition to the ruling regime inside Syria. And this opposition in emboldened by the UN investigation. Proof that something is afoot came last week when Syrian interior minister, Ghazi Kanaan turned up dead. He was a nasty guy, a member of the ruling elite (i.e. read minority group and Baathist party official), known to be ruthless. He was quite unloved by the Lebanese because he was a key player in turning Lebanon into a Syrian satellite state. UN investigators were swirling around him in the Hariri investigation. An hour before he was found dead, he called a Lebanese radio station claiming that he hadn't passed files over to the UN and ended the call by saying, "This may well be the last statement I give." So no doubt someone took him out. The question is who and how much closer to President Assad will the UN investigation get.

This weakens an already seriously undermined government. Bashar Assad sits hemmed in by the US on one side and Israel on the other. Its Arab partners are fed up with it. Lebanese opposition is crystallizing. At home, there is growing resentment of Assad's clan. And you have some of the same players in Syria as in Iraq and Lebanon that would love to start a revolution. There are Kurds, Druz, and possibly Sunni terrorists groups that are now turning their activities onto Syria.

Stay tuned because we could be seeing the fall of yet another Arab regime, a fall no doubt hastened by covert US and Israeli action. And then we will be in another Iraq spiral where there a huge power vacuum with either the military ready to step in or civil war.

Welcome to US West

Hi Everyone,

Frequent visitors already know US West from her insightful comments on our posts. Please join me in welcoming her to The Citizens!

USA Not Alone In Having Religious Right Problems

Hi Folks,

A couple of days ago Poland elected a right wing, Catholic conservative, nationalist (Lech Kaczynski) to be their President. His main opponent, Donald Tusk, was a classical Liberal (see many previous posts by me about how Americans don't know what Liberals really are).

This man (and the Prime Minister, Jaroslaw Kaczynski - they are identical twins) support radical reform of Polish politics to emphasize/preserve state intervention in the economy, Catholic-nationalism and social conservatism. Support for their party is dominated by rural Poles who are fundamentally anti-modern and opposed to Polish participation in the world economy. When Poles slip towards fascism this is what it looks like.

However, lest we in the USA get too judgmental of our Polish friends, we should be aware that Poland is only following our lead. Bush and his crowd have a very similar ideology to the Kaczynski brothers and their support comes from the same type of voter (anti-modern, rural nationalists).

Hopefully Poland's membership in the European Union will constrain some of the nuttier ideas these brothers have. They could turn out to be the Catholic-nationalist versions of Margaret Thatcher's orthodox free-marketeering. We'll find out soon enough.

"Tired of Giving In"

The LA Times has a nice piece on Rosa Parks, as do many newspapers this morning. On that fateful evening of December 1, 1955 when she was arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a bus to a white man, Rosa Parks had not intended to get herself arrested nor was she even planning to take a stand that night. In fact, she had been going home to help plan a workshop for teenagers for the weekend. She was not a "plant" by the NAACP--as some have said to try to discredit her--but neither was she more tired than usual. "The only tired I was, was tired of giving in," she later said. Said Elaine Steele, her longtime friend, "She was in her 40's. She was not a child... She was just fed up."

That act of courage cost her her job, and later--after the ensuing boycott was successful--she had to move out of Alabama entirely to avoid death threats and reprisals from the Klan and other such American terrorists. Despite the many honors she later received, Rosa Parks was never wealthy: she lived in a modest, rented home in Detroit and her final job was as a receptionist for Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) When she was 81, she was assaulted by, ironically, a black man. She suffered bruises and was robbed of less than $100.

Over the years, she received a few unusual honors. The State of Missouri has named a portion of Interstate 55 south of St. Louis the "Rosa Parks Highway," which is not coincidentally the same stretch of highway sponsored by the Ku Klux Klan. The City of Montgomery, Alabama has put a library and museum in her name on the very spot where she was arrested back on Dec. 1, 1955. The American Public Transit Association gave her a "lifetime achievement award." At age 82 she was awarded the Medal of Freedom, and was even blessed by the Pope.

But perhaps my favorite honor is this: when that anonymous, lone Chinese student faced down a column of army tanks in Tiananmen Square in 1989, Nelson Mandela characterized it as, "a Rosa Parks moment." For a dedicated civil rights worker who--in the end--was, "just a person who wanted to be seated on a bus," now that is very good company.

Monday, October 24, 2005

Paul Hackett for Senate

Paul Hackett, a young Iraq war veteran and Marine, has just announced his intention to seek the Democratic nomination for Senate in Ohio, to challenge DeWine (R). He narrowly lost a special election in a reputedly very conservative district, having gained much national attention. He has the story, no doubt, for a great TV campaign. The question is, can he convince Ohio Democrats, and then Ohio as a whole, that he's got more than a flashy story and pretty face? I, for one, look forward to the effect this will have on other races, because the image of Democrats in uniform will help neutralize the standard right-wing rhetoric that progressivs are soft, wussy, an Un-American.

George Will

George Will is an excellent writer and he has a great example of his writing up now: Defending the Indefensible, about Harriet Miers' nomination. It's a very good article and well worth the read. But consider this passage:

In their unseemly eagerness to assure Miers's conservative detractors that she will reach the "right" results, her advocates betray complete incomprehension of this: Thoughtful conservatives' highest aim is not to achieve this or that particular outcome concerning this or that controversy. Rather, their aim for the Supreme Court is to replace semi-legislative reasoning with genuine constitutional reasoning about the Constitution's meaning as derived from close consideration of its text and structure. Such conservatives understand that how you get to a result is as important as the result. Indeed, in an important sense, the path that the Supreme Court takes to the result often is the result.

Guess what, George? That sort of conservatism is dead! Nobody cares what "thoughtful" conservatives think anymore. People like Will and Andrew Sullivan lament how the Bush administration has become a big government administration, pandering to the religious right and kowtowing to corporate America while installing cronies at various government positions. But when you realize that, the Miers nomination is not only defensible, it is logical.

There is a rift within the Republican party between the "thoughtful conservatives" and the "social conservatives", but here's why the rift doesn't matter: the "thoughtful conservatives" will vote Republican even if their candidate is a Bible-thumping, big government one. They voted for Bush, they will vote for Frist or whoever. Why? They have this undying faith that the Republican party will change, and that in any case, they say, the Republican candidate is better than the Democratic one. Meanwhile, the social conservatives will simply not vote unless they think their vote can end abortion or put prayer in schools, or whatever the issue of the day is. The Republicans in power can no longer afford to ignore the social conservatives; however, they can completely ignore the "thoughtful conservatives", and will continue to do so, as most of these so-called "thoughtful conservatives" are just sheep.

So Mr. Will: please stop complaining that the Miers nomination makes no sense. Instead, it's time to accept the fact that this is the way the GOP works now. And if you don't like it, it's time to reconsider party allegiances.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)