Posted on 10/10/2005 8:53:48 AM PDT by jcb8199
Watching the conservative coalition slowly unravel over the Miers nomination these past two weeks has been an extraordinarily painful experience. Despite all of the hard slogging work done by activists of various stripes over the past quarter century, the winning coalition that encompasses movement conservatives, main street Republicans, foreign policy hawks, and religious fundamentalists under one overarching banner is showing some wear and tear. Five long years of bitter partisan warfare, shocking tragedy, economic bust and boom, and a shooting war in Iraq, where the terrorists test our resolve to prevail every single day, produce a certain amount of stress.
This isn’t the first crisis for the conservative movement since it initially tasted electoral success in the 1980 elections. The world seemed young and full of possibilities then, as the landslide victory of Ronald Reagan, along with the Republican capture of the Senate for the first time since 1948, seemed to augur bigger and better things to come.
Then in the late 1980’s, conservatives fell victim to their own success, as the Cold War ended with astounding speed and the iron curtain fell. Politically speaking, these events started untying the part of the Reagan coalition that included what author Theodore H. White referred to as “urban ethnics.” These were white, middle class, blue collar, second and third generation immigrants, many with deep emotional and family ties to Eastern Europe, who were disgusted with the appeasement and unilateral disarmament policies of the McGovern-Carter wing of the Democratic party.
Economically liberal but socially conservative, they were bunched in an arc in what used to be referred to as “The Rust Belt” along the Great Lakes. Their support allowed Reagan to cut into Democratic strengths in the battleground states of the Midwest. Although considered “natural” Democrats due to their union affiliations, the political brain trust of the Reagan campaign successfully targeted them by appealing both to their patriotism and their unease with liberal values.
Then, in 1992, they went home. With the Cold war over, the Clintonites successfully appealed to the economic interests of this group, portraying George Bush 41 as out of touch with “regular” Americans and thus not able to “feel their pain.” Clinton pandered to their values by rushing home in the middle of his first presidential campaign to preside over the execution of an Arkansas death row inmate, and taking issue with rap singer Sister Souljah.
Many of these white ethnics have since made their way back to the Republican Party, as the Democrats have careened further and further to the left. They have become “values voters” whose allegiance to the party can be traced to its stand on issues like abortion, gay marriage, and the family values espoused so eloquently by President Bush. There is ample evidence that these values voters were the difference in Ohio during the election campaign of 2004.
The crisis over Harriet Miers, however, is much different. It reflects a schism not over ideology, but over perceptions of the President himself. While many activists are extremely unhappy with the choice of Miers and some conservative intellectuals have expressed opposition over her supposed lack of credentials, the question of supporting or opposing the nominee comes down to one, simple question.
How much do you trust George W. Bush?
Even before the Miers nomination, many conservatives have had to take deep breath in order to continue supporting a man whose veto pen seems to have been misplaced in the face of numerous budget-busting, pork-laden spending bills from a supposed conservative Congress. And the President’s support for the McCain-Feingold First Amendment-shattering campaign finance monstrosity has enraged web activists whose support has been so vital both to the Administration’s legislative successes and electoral victories.
But it is on the question of judges that many conservatives have nearly lost patience with the President. They have been frustrated by Bush’s seeming acquiescence in the face of Democratic tactics that seek to impede his most conservative choices. He has been given the benefit of the doubt thanks only to the hyperbole of the left with regard to the unconscionable filibuster tactics of Congressional Democrats.
But now the right is faced with a nominee whose name was put forward as someone who would be acceptable to many of these same Democrats. For some, that is reason enough to oppose Miers. For others, it is proof that the President has “caved in” to certain political realities and has arrogantly ignored the advice of his allies, just to avoid a bruising partisan debate. There has even been talk that Miers should be opposed to teach the President a lesson or to purge her supporters who come from the more moderate wing of the party. This is idiocy. Prominent conservatives such as The American Thinker’s own Thomas Lifson have pointed out the utter and complete folly of such opposition:
I think these conservatives have unwittingly adopted the Democrats’ playbook, seeing bombast and ‘gotcha’ verbal games as the essence of political combat. Victory for them is seeing the enemy bloodied and humiliated. They mistake the momentary thrill of triumph in combat, however evanescent, for lasting victory where it counts: a Supreme Court comprised of Justices who will assemble majorities for decisions reflecting the original intent of the Founders.
All too often, conservatives have followed a “feel good” course of action and ignored what was possible or even necessary. This has resulted in Republicans devouring their own when it comes to Presidential governance. Only an iconic figure like Ronald Reagan could escape the fate of other Republican Presidents like Richard Nixon and George Bush 41, whose administrations were nearly torn apart by internecine battles between conservatives and pragmatists.
Reagan’s stature was so Olympian in the conservative movement that any visible moves toward the center were blamed on the moderates around him. “Let Reagan be Reagan” was a plaintive, even juvenile cry, first uttered by Interior Secretary James Watt, but which became a battle hymn for movement conservatives who thought they saw apostasy in what was actually Reagan’s deftness and agility in pushing his programs through a heavily Democratic Congress.
Both Lifson and blogger/radio host Hugh Hewitt make the same argument: Trust George. When it comes right down to it, pragmatic conservatives have very little choice. It’s not like they’re going to abandon Republicans and vote Democratic. And it is probable that, with a little coaxing, they can be made to come out and support Republicans in 2006. Indeed, as Democratic prospects have improved over the summer, it will become vital come election time that these same conservatives not sit on their hands and refuse to take part – not with the possible takeover of the Senate, or the House, or both by Democrats in the offing.
For the conservative “true believers” however, this is the crisis of the Bush presidency. No amount of stroking by Bush aides is going to assuage their disappointment. In this respect, it remains to be seen if these disappointed activists will fall on their swords once again in a futile gesture of defiance by staying home on Election Day, 2006. If they do so, and if they hand the election to the Democrats, there could be a real bloodletting among conservatives that could split Republicans for a generation and perhaps even give impetus to the creation of a third party.
Any way you look at it, the President has his work cut out for him. And if Harriet Miers falters or comes up short in any way, the coalition that has elected 3 out of the last 4 Presidents could finally collapse in flurry of recrimination and anger.
I want to thank W personally for this debacle. It never could have happened w/o him.
Or without all the whiners who think they own the White House, and cry as bad as Liberals do....
At this point all the hand-wringing about her lack of stature, her lack of depth, her lack of high-octane education, her lack of Federalist Society membership, yadda, yadda, yadda, comes down to this:
How will she vote?
If she votes like I think she will vote, the Republican Party is saved.
Otherwise... doom...
This is the fulcrum of the debate. While I too was initially dissapointed by the nomination of Miers, I am now convinced that history will show Miers was a solid, landscape altering pick.
Nice article.
Disappointed though I am in Miers' choice, I'm pragmatic enough to realize that letting the Dems win in '06 will disappoint me orders of magnitude more.
Dissent and churn is part of a healthy democratic process that'll likely keep the Repubs in touch with their base and relevant to the big questions of the day and avoid the fate of the current Dem party. I don't grudge the Bush protestors on the right their protest or their reasons.
Have a nice day.
I don't number myself among either the fall-on-your-sword true believers or the Bushbots. I neither hate Bush nor trust him beyond all contrary evidence.
I don't hate Harriet Miers, either.
What I do think, however, is that her nomination was a grievous mistake. She is not the best candidate. Her nomination has split the conservative ranks down the middle. The tensions and bad feelings on FR are only too clear. I'm not sure whether it may have slowed the process of quarterly fund raising, although certainly Jim Robinson has had nothing to do with this whole business either one way or the other. But it certainly has caste a lot of anger, gloom, bad will, and eagerness to hurl insults on the forum.
I think there's zero chance that her nomination will be withdrawn, and small chance it will be defeated. So we'd just better hope: a) that she proves to be a strong conservative voice on the court, preferably making that crystal clear before the 2006 senate elections (which hardly gives her much time); and b) that Rove and Bush have learned there lesson by this whole unpleasant experience and don't make the same mistake again.
It's very possible that Bush will have a chance to make one or two more SCOTUS appointments. We can't afford to weaken any further. Probably this stupid business of letting the RINOs, Harry Reid, and Arlen Specter dictate terms will already make it impossible for Bush to stiffen up next time and fight for a really strong candidate. But we sure need more reliable conservatives on the court, and this business doesn't help.
No, we can't back down now on Miers. But it was a horrible mistake that never should have been committed in the first place.
Quit your crying and go read, "I was wrong; so please join me in supporting Harriet Miers," by Pukin Dog.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1499585/posts?page=1,50
They have been leading down the path to defeat for 30 years. They have constantly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Their defeatism, love of compromise, and pandering to big business and the liberal establishment have gotten us nowhere.
I say reject Miers. Play hardball and maybe GWB will get the message and nominate someone we know is really like Scalia.
What conservatives should be complaining about is how poorly the FBI and FEMA perform compared to WalMart or Home Depot. The folks at Disney World can track people better than the FBI.
"If they do so, and if they hand the election to the Democrats, there could be a real bloodletting among conservatives that could split Republicans for a generation and perhaps even give impetus to the creation of a third party. "
I think creating a viable third party would be a good thing in the long run. 4 or 5 viable parties would be a lot better. People would then have a choice that reflected their views. Choosing between the lesser of 2 evils is not a good way to run a Republic.
I'm far more cynical than that. I will hold my nose and support the nominee. But only because the alternative, left-wing control of our country, stinks to high-heaven.
But I have no illusion anymore that any member of the Republican establishment has any interest, intention, or desire to pay any attention to conservatives; except to our checkbooks, our precinct walking and our votes every two years. None.
The only hope for this country is for conservatives to take over the Republican party and to change the Republican establishment because it stinks.
"Or without all the whiners who think they own the White House, and cry as bad as Liberals do...."
This article's more of a "wanker" than a "whiner".
Who else could he have picked that would have been confirmed.
I don't think there is a chance in the world that any of those we wanted could have been confirmed.
There are too many chicken Republicans and they would have wimped out.
Pukin Dog's post makes as much sense as any I have seen. We need to support the president on this.
"Trust George" is fine once or twice. But all the time? Especially with such a poor success rate? Please.
I tend to believe the landscape is full of people that are losing their patients with the only choice being the better of two evils.
I personally would applaud a new party, that actually reduces the size of this monster government, reduces this endless, needless spending and once and for all secures our borders and enforces our immigration laws. I personally believe government has grown so large, so encompassing, it's lost nearly all control and just grows and consumes.
He hasn't selected a bad judge yet.
"if Harriet Miers falters or comes up short in any way, the coalition that has elected 3 out of the last 4 Presidents could finally collapse in flurry of recrimination and anger."
I have a different analysis: If the President wisely pulls the plug on this mistaken nomination, or Miers herself throws in the towel, Bush can redeem himself and cement the base by being as bold in nominating an originalist, strict-constructionist, no-foreign-precedent nominee as the Slickmeister was in nominating the far-leftist Ruth "Darth Vader" Ginsburg during his presidency.
LOL! Just look at how well it is working in Germany...France, et al, et al. In fact, it was multiple party politics that got goofy Billy Clinton elected, not to mention getting the communist Salvadore Allende elected as the president of Chile with 31% of the vote.
Be careful what you wish for.
So you're suggest having little or no choice is better?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.