You're In The Agora
Welcome to the Net's best new source for commentary on current events, culture, faith, science and much more.
Faith
Confessing Evangelical Evangelical Outpost He Lives Mere Comments Mirror of Justice Religion Clause Three Hierarchies Science Dispatches from the Culture Wars In the Pipeline New Scientist Tierney Lab Liberty A Constrained Vision Asymmetrical Information Becker-Posner Blog Hit & Run Instapundit Positive Liberty The Agitator Volokh Conspiracy Economics Café Hayek EconLog Environmental Economics Freakonomics Free Exchange Greg Mankiw J. Bradfor DeLong Marginal Revolution The Right Andrew Sullivan Best of the Web Eunomia Hugh Hewitt Michelle Malkin Power Line The American Scene The Corner The Left After the Future Ezra Klein Matthew Yglesias Political Animal Talking Points Memo Errata Daniel Drezner Democracy in America Dilbert Blog Lilek's Bleat Overcoming Bias The Sartorialist Hoosiers Daily Contentions Indiana Barrister Masson's Blog Matthew Stevenson |
|
« Political Predictions | Main | In Sporting News... » October 27, 2005A Little More on the Costs of MiersI think it is becoming clearer that the division among the Right over Miers can be viewed as difference of opinion over the importance of two costs: the opportunity cost of her nomination and the political cost of opposing her. For the pro-Miers camp, the opportunity cost is reckoned to be rather small. Everyone outside of the White House (and some inside) will admit that Miers wasn't their first choice, but for the pro's, she'll do. The cost of her withdrawal or defeat, however, would be large, even -- literally -- catastrophic. Contrariwise, the anti-Miers camp has been adamant from the beginning that the opportunity cost is enormous, a point I explain here. And also contra the pro camp, the political costs have been estimated as small, trivial, or negative. Undecideds perhaps need more data or reflection before they can give a confident estimate of either cost. The cause of the friction between the two camps is the absolute incredulity with which each side views the other's underestimation of costs. I am stunned that the pro-Miers pundits don't grasp what a monumental betrayal this nomination is to the decades of investment conservatives have made toward changing the legal culture, and relatedly, the implications for the very process of nominating Supreme Court Justices. They see the opposition as a foolish and unnecessary self-inflicted wound. I think it is much easier for the anti-camp to understand the pro side. They are result-oriented populists. One can't blame them for not sticking to high standards they do not hold. Some of us do have high standards, yet I haven't seen much evidence that they are capable of ascribing to us anything but unflattering motives. As noted yesterday, some Senators have cautiously chosen to be or pose as Undecideds, and the fate of Miers will rest on which estimates they find to be more convincing. Posted by Zach Wendling at October 27, 2005 07:42 AM CommentsPosted by: Karl at October 27, 2005 09:13 AM | permalink Posted by: ucfengr at October 27, 2005 09:16 AM | permalink Posted by: Zach Wendling at October 27, 2005 09:35 AM | permalink Post a comment |
|
---- ADVERTISEMENTS ----
|