Some thoughts on Miers
Oct. 6th, 2005 12:21 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
naomikritzerVia Pandagon, I found a series of posts and discussions of Miers at redstate.org. The conservative wing of the Republican party is aghast at the Miers nomination: they were promised a Scalia or a Thomas, and instead they got a mystery nominee who twenty years ago gave money to Gore! (The horror!)
I don't think Miers is exactly a liberal, but it's not like Bush was going to appoint another Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. Miers is a lot better than I was expecting. (And no, I'm not particularly worried that she was never a judge -- some of the greatest Supreme Court justices were appointed after never having served as a judge, or after only very minimal time on the bench. If anything, this returns some balance to the bench. I think it's a little absurd to say that she's the best qualified candidate out there, but this isn't like appointing, oh, Mike Brown to the court.)
But Bush's willingness to totally alienate his base on this is interesting. (And there are people at redstate.org swearing that they will never again give money to the GOP, will never again volunteer for a candidate, will never again defend Bush, and will stay home from the polls in 2006 and 2008. They are really pissed off.)
During the 2004 Presidential campaign, I remember saying to a friend that I don't think the Republicans, even the allegedly pro-life Republicans, want to see Roe vs. Wade overturned. It's far too useful to them exactly as it stands. Currently, it acts as a tremendous motivational force for the religious conservative base: they organize, raise and donate money, volunteer for candidates, etc., largely because of this particular issue. They've tried to transfer some of that energy to persecuting gays, but the bottom line is that it's just not nearly as successful an issue. They need abortion.
And the really excellent thing about Roe vs. Wade, from the viewpoint of a cynically pragmatic conservative politician (let's just call that the KR perspective, Karl Rove perspective, for short), is that it doesn't fire up the liberal pro-choice faction nearly as much as it fires up the conservatives. Planned Parenthood can bombard their mailing list with an URGENT EMERGENCY YOUR RIGHTS ARE UNDER ATTACK NOW mailing on a weekly basis and most will be tossed unopened. Admittedly, I suspect that most of the junk mail sent out by National Right to Life gets tossed, too, but there's an urgency for conservative pro-lifers that is just not there for most liberal pro-choicers.
If Roe vs. Wade were actually overturned, that would change overnight.
At that point, the abortion issue would go back to the states; there would be a vicious state-by-state battle. The majority of Americans, at this point, support unfettered access to first-trimester abortions. (I think the majority also supports restrictions later in the pregnancy, which is part of why statistics on support for abortion rights tend to vary depending on who is citing them.) This would not be particularly good for Republicans. There are, in fact, quite a few pro-lifers who might swing the other way if they were actually faced with an America without legal abortion. (Just as there are people who are pro-choice until they actually deal with the realities of abortion.) The money would be donated locally, not nationally, and I think overall, the Republicans would lose, big time, as people voted in state legislatures that would support abortion rights, and who incidentally would also support other liberal policies, and who would draw lines during redistricting to support Democrats, etc., etc., etc.
No. The Karl Roves of the Republican party want the pro-life activists exactly where they are. Holding prayer meetings, fighting the immovable object, and giving money to the GOP.
Of course, they need their base to believe that they're really on their side, so when Miers votes to uphold Roe vs. Wade, I'm sure Bush will pretend to be as shocked as everyone else.
I don't think his base is going to forgive him this time, though.
I don't think Miers is exactly a liberal, but it's not like Bush was going to appoint another Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. Miers is a lot better than I was expecting. (And no, I'm not particularly worried that she was never a judge -- some of the greatest Supreme Court justices were appointed after never having served as a judge, or after only very minimal time on the bench. If anything, this returns some balance to the bench. I think it's a little absurd to say that she's the best qualified candidate out there, but this isn't like appointing, oh, Mike Brown to the court.)
But Bush's willingness to totally alienate his base on this is interesting. (And there are people at redstate.org swearing that they will never again give money to the GOP, will never again volunteer for a candidate, will never again defend Bush, and will stay home from the polls in 2006 and 2008. They are really pissed off.)
During the 2004 Presidential campaign, I remember saying to a friend that I don't think the Republicans, even the allegedly pro-life Republicans, want to see Roe vs. Wade overturned. It's far too useful to them exactly as it stands. Currently, it acts as a tremendous motivational force for the religious conservative base: they organize, raise and donate money, volunteer for candidates, etc., largely because of this particular issue. They've tried to transfer some of that energy to persecuting gays, but the bottom line is that it's just not nearly as successful an issue. They need abortion.
And the really excellent thing about Roe vs. Wade, from the viewpoint of a cynically pragmatic conservative politician (let's just call that the KR perspective, Karl Rove perspective, for short), is that it doesn't fire up the liberal pro-choice faction nearly as much as it fires up the conservatives. Planned Parenthood can bombard their mailing list with an URGENT EMERGENCY YOUR RIGHTS ARE UNDER ATTACK NOW mailing on a weekly basis and most will be tossed unopened. Admittedly, I suspect that most of the junk mail sent out by National Right to Life gets tossed, too, but there's an urgency for conservative pro-lifers that is just not there for most liberal pro-choicers.
If Roe vs. Wade were actually overturned, that would change overnight.
At that point, the abortion issue would go back to the states; there would be a vicious state-by-state battle. The majority of Americans, at this point, support unfettered access to first-trimester abortions. (I think the majority also supports restrictions later in the pregnancy, which is part of why statistics on support for abortion rights tend to vary depending on who is citing them.) This would not be particularly good for Republicans. There are, in fact, quite a few pro-lifers who might swing the other way if they were actually faced with an America without legal abortion. (Just as there are people who are pro-choice until they actually deal with the realities of abortion.) The money would be donated locally, not nationally, and I think overall, the Republicans would lose, big time, as people voted in state legislatures that would support abortion rights, and who incidentally would also support other liberal policies, and who would draw lines during redistricting to support Democrats, etc., etc., etc.
No. The Karl Roves of the Republican party want the pro-life activists exactly where they are. Holding prayer meetings, fighting the immovable object, and giving money to the GOP.
Of course, they need their base to believe that they're really on their side, so when Miers votes to uphold Roe vs. Wade, I'm sure Bush will pretend to be as shocked as everyone else.
I don't think his base is going to forgive him this time, though.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 10:26 am (UTC)I dunno about your last point, though. I kinda think they'll forgive him for this. He seems to be a Teflon president to the conservatives. They seem to forgive him for everything. Including the unforgiveable.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 12:46 pm (UTC)But then I don't care as much about abortion as an issue, to be honest, as I do about corporatism. I'm afraid Miers and Roberts will both be highly in favor of extending the powers of corporations at the expense of civil liberties.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 01:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 06:42 pm (UTC)I think the best the Seante Democrats can do is to unanimously vote No on Miers, and see if the republicans still push her through. Although with Dobson behind her now, they probably will all vote for her. But isn't the fact that Dobson endorses her say that she is a wingnut? A crony and a wingnut.
Still, not worth a filibuster.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 01:11 pm (UTC)(Overall, I wholly agree with your basic point. I've just been surprised by the whole "alienating his base" meme, and this is the first place I've been moved to mention it.)
no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 01:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 01:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 01:45 pm (UTC)I bet you're right.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 02:27 pm (UTC)I'm sorry, I'll step back and let the grownups talk now.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 03:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 03:52 pm (UTC)