« Previous Post -- Main Page -- Next Post »

13 October 2005 - 18:04 UTC

…on the reaction to the Miers nomination

by Jack Grant

The nomination of Harriet Miers to fill the seat of retiring Associate Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner has created something of a furor among those who lean to the right-wing, almost resembling internecine war in some aspects.

I do understand and appreciate the points made by those for whom there are fundamental principles at stake, principles of competence, qualifications, the problem of at least the appearance of cronyism (if not the actual fact, which is difficult to dispute at this point).

The odd arguments coming from the White House attempting to justify the nomination serve as an exemplar of exactly the issues that critics of the administration have been pointing to as the fundamental causes of the mishandling of so many crises such as the aftermath of the “catastrophic success” in Iraq, the bizzare priorities of what is frighteningly termed “homeland security”, and the apparent indifference of the President in remaining on vacation when what was universally recognized as a major storm executed a slow-motion horror as it approached New Orleans and wreaked havoc that was documented for days afterward live on national and international television.

The crushing irony for me is I see those self-same people who feel their fundamental principles are being assaulted express shock and surprise at the tactics of attack being used by the Bush administration in defending the rationale behind this seemingly inexplicable choice of nominee, tactics that are now being aimed at Bush supporters who aren’t toeing the line rather than being directed at “the opposition.” The shock and surprise seem rather excessive given the Bush allies had no problems with the politics of destruction being used against others.

Those “others” are American citizens, and those “others” have their own fundamental principles that were derided and left for naught in the face of the attacks that had little to do with principle and everything to do with personal destruction for the sake of political gain to the attacker.

I have frequently pleaded both here and at other places I have the privilege to post (such as The Moderate Voice) for a real discussion of issues, to move away from the tactics of attack, for a removal from the politics of personal destruction, because what is being destroyed is not the people being attacked, but the very foundations of our system of self-government. Frequently, my pleas have been dismissed by those who lean right because they saw no problem with the tactics because “their side” was winning.

The problem now presented to the right-wing: those whom they thought were on “their side” were not interested in the fundamental principles, not interested in what they thought at all, the only interest was in gaining and keeping power. Those of us who looked a bit deeper than simple partisan victory saw that the fundamental principles were not even “honored in the breech” as the old saying goes. They were not honored at all, but merely paid lip-service to gain power.

Now, the utter lack of interest by the Bush administration in the fundamental principles held by those who supported the President has become obvious; the scales have fallen from the eyes of those who were not blind but would not see.

Some have even recognized how destructive the supposed “satire” and “humor” of Ann Coulter truly is to our system now that they are the targets, long, long after moderates pointed it out.

Yet, I have no joy in this discomfort being experienced by those who, in some cases, dismissed my concerns out of hand.

I have no gratification in saying, “I told you so,” regardless of how “earned” that statement may be.

This is damaging to the nation I love, MY country.

How could I find any joy in that?

Now, I am trying to find a way to show us all that we need to understand that NONE of us is 100% correct 100% of the time, and we need to listen to the views of others.

I am trying to find a way to show us all that we need to not advocate for the complete destruction of those who do not think the way we think (as I have read frequently on many weblogs, vitriol and calls for destroying not directed at foreign enemies, but at domestic political opponents, be they Democrats or Republicans).

I am trying to find a way to show us all that we need to follow in the tradition of those who wrote the Constitution we still follow after more than 200 years as the foundation of our system of self-government, but we need to follow the TRADITION, not merely the words of those who were desperately seeking a compromise among the competing interests of more than two centuries past.

I am trying to find a way to show us all that we need to find a better way.

Please help.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,



Trackback URL (right-click and choose the copy shortcut/link option)

Some random thoughts:

** Our government is a republic, not a democracy. Once we elect them, it’s damn hard to throw them out before their term is up; unless we find them being, oh, let’s say, fellatiated by female subordinates in the Map Room of the White House. And even then, it’s nearly impossible.

** That’s the way it should be. We shouldn’t micro manage them while they’re in office. We should save our anger for the next election, when we have the opportunity to throw them out.

** Most people in the world do not even have that opportunity.

** The President is president of all the people, not just the right wing of the GOP. For the wingnuts to holler “He owes us!” is narcissistic in the extreme.

** I used to think that only gay men were prone to bitchy, screaming hissy fits; but with their comments on the Miers nomination, George Will and David Frum certainly blew that stereotype out of the water.

I don’t necessarily disagree with any of your points. However, I would like to say the following:

President George W. Bush has not shown any indications that he understands that he is President of “all of the people”.

I have indeed commented upon how the reactions of the right-wing has overtones of “Daddy, you PROMISED” to them.

Just because other folks in the world are “not afforded this opportunity” does NOT necessarily mean that we should NOT try to be better than this.

My opinion.

I was just throwing out some thoughts, I wasn’t Fisking you.

As for Bush being president of “all the people,” I do think that he does speak more to the “red staters” that elected him than to the “blue staters” who didn’t.

Yes, we could do better than Miers. But I would probably take issue with the notion that any of the people proposed by the whiners are significantly better. Frankly, I like the fact that she’s a working lawyer, and not an academic with a blue-blood legal pedigree.

I have become my father and throw my hands into the air saying, “They’re all a bunch of crooks”.

Hah! He’s probably right, too.

My 81-year-old Dad has gone soft in his dotage. He used to subscribe to National Review and The American Spectator. Now, he subscribes to The New York Times and The New Yorker.

Well said. It should be printed on the front page of every newspaper and shouted from every pulpit until even the blind and deaf can see and hear.