The Harriet Miers brouhaha has exposed an attitude that is very unbecoming many of the current conservative intellectual aristocracy: Their apparent failure to recognize how lucky they are to have had a chance at an Ivy League education. This seems to have lead to an elitism that is un-American, un-conservative, un-Republican, and flatly unattractive. (Not that I feel strongly about this, of course.)
One wonders whether some of our right-wing Ivy League brethren are not just a little too impressed with their status. As Beldar notes, referring to Harriet Miers:
Hypothetically, if your daddy has a stroke when you're a freshman in college, and you stay close to home so you can work a scholarship job while you're going to the best college and then the best law school in town, and then you clerk for a local federal district judge, and you go to work for one of the best firms in town (but that town isn't Washington or New York), and you go on to rack up a string of exceptional professional successes — does that nevertheless mean you're forever after a "third-rate" lawyer, forever after unworthy to be considered qualified for the Supreme Court, because you didn't go off to some Ivy League school?
I have a hunch there are many, many Americans who are bright overachievers and whose decisions about college and professional school were limited by similar life circumstances. I might be considered one of them, and I fear that many who had a more fortunate teen-age situation fail to appreciate that there, but for the grace of God, go they.
-snip-
That's part of what's so disappointing about the Ramesh Ponnorus (Princeton), Ann Coulters (Cornell), Rich Lowrys (University of Virginia — who let him in here, anyway?), Charles Krauthammers (Harvard), David Frums (Yale and Harvard), Laura Ingrahams (Dartmouth — sorry, Laura!), and several others. Instead of reflecting the sort of humble gratitude that one might hope to see from them (or that one sees routinely from Ben Stein), this crowd seems to consider themselves fit to judge the "excellence" of those whom they find to be lesser intellectual lights. The shame of all this is that this circle of hard-core conservative elites is affiliated with the Republican Party. (These days Laura loves to say she's a conservative first, a Republican second, but that charming attitude is a story for another very long post, someday, when I am in the mood for a lot of venting.)
As Republicans who have been advanced greatly in life because of their affiliation with the party, these folks owe the rest of us better than the preening elitism that seems to have overcome them. Reading NRO's The Corner these days makes me feel like I am in a private dining room in New York City, listening while a bunch of Ivy League conservatives pass around the brandy, smoke cigars, and comment archly on G.W. Bush's betrayal of his class. (Kathryn Jean Lopez notes today that she "hasn't given up on" Bush just yet. What a relief.) It's a most unappealing kind of echo chamber.
What the Miers nomination seems to have provoked within this group is a feeling of deep personal betrayal by President Bush: The right-wing Ivies seem to believe that they developed a stable of conservative legal titans, fully equipped to fill slots on the Supreme Court. After they installed Bush as president, they presumably believe, it was his duty to do their bidding and nominate one of their anointed ones to the Court. When Bush failed to do so, they came unglued.
How else to explain the near-glee with which Laura Ingraham today related Bill Kristol's appearance on the Today Show, where he called for Bush to withdraw the Miers nomination, or the Krauthammer WaPo piece today calling for the same thing? Our conservative philosopher-kings believe they are entitled to the nominee they want, and they are bitterly disappointed that they were passed over.
In an interview aired on her show today, Laura Ingraham told Ed Gillespie that the problem is not elitism, it's that her group of conservatives have standards of "excellence" that Harriet Miers simply does not meet. Really? Did Clarence Thomas, Laura's favorite justice, meet those standards? I seem to recall that he was a federal appeals court judge for only a very short period, and that he testified during his confirmation hearings that he had never discussed Roe v. Wade with anyone. Nor was Thomas a writer of law review articles. Laura now criticizes Miers for those same deficiencies. "Standards of excellence" indeed.
-snip-
(Lowell Brown in The Hedgehog Blog, October 7, 2005)
To Read This Article Click Here
Can anyone tell me why the first Senator to come out in support of Miers was Harry Reid?
What utter horse manure. This nothing to do with the Ivy League and the rest of the GOP. It has to do with a Republican President once again appointing a stealth candidate who clearly has many liberal leanings as opposed to appointing an known originalist with proven track record. Stealth candidates have repeatedly failed to be originalist and it is outrageous we're being asked to accept such a strategy with 55 Republicans seats in the Senate.
My first comment is in response to the article posted in this thread: I am a native Ohioan who is not exactly overwhelmed with respect for the Toledo Blade, whose editorial content seems to be written by Nancy Pelosi.
Secondly, per your discussion of "The Difference between So Many Conservative...", while Thomas did not discuss Roe v. Wade in his confirmation hearings, he had a history of speaking out against abortion as a young lawyer, and had conservative credentials.
That Miers did not attend an Ivy League law school is not a primary objection. Owen, Jones, and Brown did not attend top-5 schools, and they would have been heartily embraced by the Right. The difference is that Owen, Jones, Brown and the other frequently-circulated names have built excellent careers around a set of unshakeable principles and a clear judicial philosophy. Miers has no such resume, and the story of her beliefs and values changes with the wind, as if she is a strategist for the Kerry campaign. I'm afraid she'll vote for the Constitution before she votes against it.
None of this isn't to say that Miers isn't brilliant or a spectacular person; I just don't think we should have to play guessing games about the potential impact of a Supreme Court nominee.
Why in hell do we owe Bush or any Republican President that? There as not a more principled or trustworthy President than Ronald Reagan and his two stealth candidates both ended up being liberal activists>
Conservatives owe to their principles to demand Miers withdraw and known originalist be nominated in her place.
Absolutely nothing is going to change in this nation until Republicans understand that they must appoint known originalists to the courts and do so.
Now that I know Karl had a hand in this, I think I can relax.
The perfect Rovian plan yet again.
Here is my letter to J. Kelly:
I think we sound like idiots arguing from ignorance.
I prefer the Army acronym: MOOSEMUSS! I begin to wonder if there are bitter little McCains running about on this forum.
I've been trying to tell everybody Miers was a Bush/Rove pick. This now confirms it. Relax, this nominee has the "Rovian" stamp of approval.
Cool. First it's "elitism", and now Bushbots are complaining about "condescension". It doesn't get any more richly ironic than this.
Just one question, guys: How does it feel?
An ambulance chaser huh... like Edwards.. check.. will make a note Jack..
This is a fabulously creative line of argumentation. Because one has achieved someting academically, you should appreciate your opportunities, shut up and not comment on anyone else's qualifications. Brilliant, just brilliant.
Why should we? Bush has been governing against the wishes of conservatives for a long time now: Open borders, CFR, and so on.
The charge of "If you're against Miers, you're an elitist snob" is as valid as "If you're against federally funded school lunches, you're for starving children."
Humility.
It seems that there are two central camps:
1. Those who see this as the best chance to engage the enemy head on, draw copious quantities of blood and leave the enemy utterly vanquished. Or, willingly die on the battlefield content that they've sacrificed themselves for a noble cause.
2. Those who see the war as a war and are not yet ready to define it in the terms of a single, bloody battle; regardless of the momentary satisfaction of bloodlust it may bring.
The scope and extent of the arguments of generals rarely are shared with battalion commanders, platoon leaders, sergeants and corporals. Yet, when the generals decide, the rest of them must go forward. Front line grunts may disagree with the choice made, but forward they go.
Active debate between the blood spillers and the decision makers is a healthy thing, in the main. However, there is always a small, quite vocal at times, minority - both generals and corporals - for whom the immediate battle both defines the war and determines its outcome; usually due to the inability to shift from the narrow focus of the task at hand to the overall stratgey required to triumph in the end; for a variety of reasons not all of which either are explainable nor are logically evident.
The logical conclusion in this instance seems to be to maintain the ability to constructively and realistically criticize the process by which this decision was made. However, any specific, personal criticisms of the nominee's abilities, capabilities and probable future performance cannot logically be done until more insight is gained; which will only occur during the hearing process. Only then, will it be possible to render a cogent, logical decision; unless of course, one is in the habit of making such decisions from a foundation of emotion rather than logic.
Here's another interesting variable to throw into the argument. I wonder how many of the senators who may vote "No" on this nominee, yet who voted "Yes" for Ginsburg (and also, those senators' supporters who continue to vote for them in election after election and are FR posters) - knowing that they fundamentally disagreed with her ideology, her beliefs and her general world-view - will be able to logically justify that "No" vote if this nominee's positions more closely mirror theirs.
Not that I'll actually receive an answer, but your statement did pique my curiosity.
Let's Make a Deal!
Monty: Welcome to Let’s Make a Deal. Monty Hall here with you and let’s get started. Hello, and who are you?
John: I am John from Iowa.
Monty: Welcome John, let’s play! Well Jay what do you have for us this week?
Jay: This week we have Supreme Court nominees. Let’s have a look behind door number 1. It’s Harriet Miers! She’s a 60 year old Texan lawyer who has been a close advisor to the President for years. Harriet is a born again evangelical Christian who is unmarried and has no kids. A former Democrat who has drifted towards the Republican party after finding Christ. President Bush has reassured us that you will like her.
Monty: John what do you think?
John: Well President Bush promised me more, so I think I will go with door number 2.
Monty: Not so fast John, remember the gang of 7, those Republicans who compromised with the Democrats and have reportedly told the President not to send a too controversial pick.
John: Right, that does make it more difficult. Do we know anything else about this Harriet Miers?
Monty: Jay what else do we know?
Jay: Not much, unless you count gossip and rumors. Friends tell us she is pro-life and appears to believe in the individual right to bear arms. However there is also indications that she is sympathetic towards affirmative action and has a politically correct view of separation of Church and State. Did I tell you the President says you’ll like her?
John: Do I get to ask Harriet any questions?
Monty: Sure, and she will answer them as long as they don’t have anything to do with issues that might come before the court.
John: Shoot, what good is that then. So this is all I get to know about a Supreme Court lifetime appointment who is going to be a key vote in how our laws and Constitution is interpreted?
Monty: Well that’s it. So what is it going to be, Harriet Miers or door number 2?
John: Well since Bush tells us he believes this is his best choice, door number 2 is going to be worse. Can I take the goat behind door number 3? This process has made me ill.
Karl Rove had nothing to do with this pick. Karl goes for the jugular.