Why?
Posted by Zach Wendling on 12 October 2005 | 10 responses
Behind Miers the nominee, we find Bush the nominator. With such fervent opposition to his pick, we have to wonder why he chose her. There are several possible reasons, and all of them reflect poorly on Bush.
- Gender Politics. The first two reasons we know explicitly.
Expert legal analystJames Dobson says that Karl Rove told him the White House wanted to nominate a woman. Conservatives love to tout meritocratic principles, especially in light of the unjustness of affirmative action, and here we have Bush openly flouting those principles. But who believes that Bush is a conservative anymore? - Religious Pandering. “People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers,” Bush told reporters at the White House. “Part of Harriet Miers’ life is her religion.” The White House has already accused malcontents as being sexist and elitist–do you think they will add charges of hostility to religion? Which leads to an interesting point: is religion a legitimate, or even appropriate criterion when evaluating officials for nomination? I can’t fathom a justification for this. Bush is obviously pandering to his religious base (and only then after infuriating his conservative base).
- Cronyism. After Katrina, it was apparent that the only reason Michael Brown had his job was because he was a friend of the President. As director of FEMA, he was ridiculous in his incompetence and clearly unqualified for the job (and according to my sister, who trains and shows Arabian Horses, he wasn’t qualified to be head of the IAHA, either). It was hard to swallow that such a misappointment was a mere oversight rather than a symptom of a larger problem, and further evidence is confirming it is indeed a larger problem. If one thinks that Harriet Miers wasn’t appointed because of cronyism, one need only recall how Cheney got his job.
- Fear. The day the nomination was announced, Rush Limbaugh said it was a decision made from weakness, later clarifying he meant that Bush didn’t trust or didn’t want to test the Republican majority in the Senate, who might not be counted upon to win a battle for a controversial nominee. As many pundits, including David Frum, have pointed out, a big fight in the Senate over a conservative nominee may even be a good thing. For one, it would draw attention away from the War, Katrina, gas prices, Rove, etc. And second, it would be an excellent opportunity to lay out conservative philosophy before the American people, an argument we must believe will be persuasive and appealing. To pick a stealth candidate with no articulated judicial philosophy means that Bush is either ashamed of conservatism or isn’t up to the task of fighting for it.
- Opportunism. Radley Balko rightly points out that the Miers pick confirms that Bush’s over-riding political philosophy isn’t conservatism or even pragmatism but opportunism:
It’s all about having a list of “things we got done” to point to at the end of the day, even if it means doing them the wrong way. Turns out, taking the easy road on steel tariffs, campaign finance reform, the prescription drug benefit, federal spending, the highway bill, and farm subsidies was never about giving a little to Congress so he could reap big returns on the important stuff. President Bush took the easy road on those issues because, frankly, he’s the kind of guy who always takes the easy road. In life, and in politics. If ever there were proof of that, it’s Harriet Miers . . .
President Bush is a political coward. He shirks from fight, as evidenced by his record-setting streak of refusing to use his veto, and his capitulation on big, legacy-making issues like the tax code and Social Security reform, and his refusal to take a stand even on the more mundane, everyday issues like the federal budget and regulatory policy.Or as Todd Zywicki noted last week, Miers specifically exemplifies Bush’s opportunism:
These appointments thus seem to confirm a common criticism of this President–that he is uninterested in ideas and interested only in power. While they may both turn out to be perfectly fine Justices, both Roberts and Miers appear to be both uninspired and uninspiring in terms of providing intellectual leadership on the Court. The Administration seems to be narrowly obsessed with winning minor tactical victories (here, an easy confirmation of a stealth candidate) while consistently failing to follow-through with meaningful long-term strategic victories (an opportunity to change the legal culture) . . .
Picking someone who “votes right” without exercising intellectual leadership is a squandered opportunity. Even worse, if you try to pick someone who votes right without knowing why, soon you may have neither. - Derangement. As David notes below, some on the left are speculating that Bush has started drinking again or is battling depression. This is rather nasty speculation, but I would allow that a certain degree of fatigue may have prevented Bush from giving this the attention it deserves. This is not an excuse, though. Nominations to the Supreme Court are arguably the most important decisions of his Presidency, especially in light of the decades of work conservatives have invested in this moment. The fate of our Constitution hangs in the balance, and Bush half-assed the process.
- Stupidity. I’ve long apologized for Bush on this point for two reasons. First, it’s tiresome. The most prevalent evidence of his stupidity has been his inarticulation, catalogued by Slate and subsequently debunked by Eugene Volokh. Besides being unfair–mangling words and sentences is not a clear indication of mental weakness–these also grew old and unfunny. Nevertheless, the caricature remains. His opponents are also apt to call him stupid because he chooses policies with which they disagree. I will generally avoid engaging such accusations because those who make them are signalling that they are unprepared or unwilling to make a thoughtful point. Calling Bush stupid thus became a cheap laugh and a mental crutch. Now it seems like an understatement. Nominating Harriet Miers wasn’t merely a matter of being unpolished or having different normative priorities. It was stupid. (And I hate that it makes mental midgets like Bill Maher look vindicated.)
Beyond the mere nomination of Miers is the stupidity of Bush’s defense of her, which amounts to all of “Trust me.” Besides the fact that I don’t, and no one should, trust him is the incredulity of the Bush Administration on the opposition to Miers–and their complete lack of preparation for countering that opposition. No one thought this through–if they were even thinking at all in the first place.
Of course, I’m open to any other suggestions our readers may have.
10 Responses to “Why?”
This might fit in with some of the other ones above, i’m not sure…but it’s at least been argued, based on some statements in particular by Andy Card, that Bush nominated someone close to him entirely so that he could guarantee fealty of the Judicial branch towards his administration and towards further expansion of executive powers (detentions without trial, “interrogations”, that sort of thing).
Andrew Sullivan quoted someone the other day saying that those conservatives who’ve been making excuses for Bush all along until this point, rather than being the boy who cried wolf, were being the boys who never cried wolf. I’ve been astonished at the sheer ferocity of the reaction from the right on this one. It has gone way beyond disagreement and into outright vitriol, in some cases, and in many others it has at least been belated acknowledgement of what people like me have been pointing out for years.
Politics for the last 13 years has been rather surreal for me. I spent the 8 years of the Clinton administration saying “I can’t believe you guys actually believe this guy is a liberal”, and I’ve spent the last 5 years saying, “I can’t believe you guys actually believe this guy is a conservative.” Both men are political opportunists without a shred of a coherent philosophy to keep them from bending whatever way they think they need to.
Ummm… a lot of us who call Bush stupid do so not because of his problems with public speaking or his policies but because he:
Mangling words and sentences is a sign of lousy public speaking ability, not lack of intelligence. Uncountable conferences with brilliant thinkers who are completely inept speakers have taught me the difference between presentation and content. I’d be fine with him mangling what he was saying if what he was saying made any sense. It doesn’t.
And it’s not policy related either. Contrast Bush with Scalia: I may disagree heartily with pretty much everything Scalia has ever said, but he’s got a pretty thoroughly thought out and internally self consistent worldview (not completely, but he’s human, and that’s pretty much understandable). I may disagree with his axioms, but if I grant them, I can understand his conclusions. I’ve never, ever, thought he was stupid.
I can’t figure out what Bush believes, other than that it’s a good thing to funnel money to his cronies as fast as he can. From what I’ve seen of him, I’m not sure Bush knows what he believes. And that’s what makes him stupid.
Personally, I just don’t buy the argument that speaking poorly isn’t a reflection of intelligence or ignorance. I’m not talking about mispronouncing words, that’s a question of dialect. But constantly using words to mean the opposite of what they really mean? That’s simply ignorance. The inability to put together coherent sentences really is a problem, regardless of one’s political opinions. At the very least, it’s embarrassing to have the most powerful man in the world speak less eloquently than your average insurance salesman. At least that’s my .02 on it.
Ed, you seem to be continually surprised by the conservative criticism of President Bush. But I hasten to note that a significant number of conservatives – including several ITA contributors – have long criticized the president in a number of areas for failing the conservative cause. In one instance off the top of my head, I remember passionate opposition to Bush’s frivilous Medicare/Medicaid spending. The criticism was sharp and apparent. More have certainly joined the crowd because of the Miers debacle, and I think the intesity is matching the severity of the blunder, but the conservative criticism has always been there.
Josh-
I fully recognize that a good deal of criticism of Bush has come from the folks on this blog. Indeed, that is one of the primary reasons why I accepted your offer to write for In The Agora, because it is populated primarily by intellectual conservatives and not partisan/pedestrian conservatives, by those who care about ideas more than about choosing up sides. So I’m not at all surprised by that criticism coming from here, where it has long come from. I am surprised at it coming from the places it has rarely if ever come from, from partisan hacks and attack dogs like Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter. I’m also surprised by the tone and intensity of that criticism in this situation, which rivals Michael Moore’s attacks at times. I even confess that I’ve been enjoying it quite a bit.
When we instituted Breaking the 11th two months ago, I had no idea it would turn into a two-week meltdown. I’m as disappointed in the Miers appointment as any conservative (see especially the “Fear” argument above), but when conservatives start sounding like Michael Moore (Ed’s right on that), it seems to me that something of a collective temper tantrum is going on.
I would challenge my fellow conservatives who feel bitterly betrayed by the President to find a constructive way to channel that energy. The current carping is only giving fuel to the left.
Ignoring fidelity to conservative principles (please show one conservative act taken by this president, other than tax cuts), I’d say that the charges of religious pandering, cronyism, and, above all, opportunism, were always maintained by serious critics of this president, whatever their political background. It’s nice to see conservatives joining the choir.
please show one conservative act taken by this president, other than tax cuts
Refusal to give taxpayer funds to embryonic stem cell research (other than existing cell lines) comes to mind. Also, isolationist paleocons aside, I think Bush’s approach to foreign policy has been consistent with what conservatives advocate.
I think a key to understanding why Bush has governed like he has is 9/11. I really do think that other domestic policies have taken a back seat with him so that he can focus on the War on Terror.
This is, by the way, one hell of a post.