Monday, July 18, 2005
The Anvil of Conservatism
No, I don't mean "anvil" in the sense of a useful tool upon which to forge even more useful, more sophisticated tools. I mean it in the sense of a gigantic weight, tied around one's waist or neck at the worst possible time: when jumping overboard.
At The New Republic Online site, a current editorial muses about the fate of conservatism -- particularly in regards to The Weasel's forthcoming Supreme Court nomination (which, the editorial hints, may become just such an anvil). This isn't a matter of concern just for conservatives; it matters to lefties, middle-of-the-roaders, and independents, too.
But it's good to see -- or at least hope -- that this time around, he may antagonize some portion of his vaunted "base." It's a general rule of human behavior, I think, that when someone is constitutionally (no pun intended) untrustworthy, sneaky, and prone to boorishness, no one should kid themselves that he can be relied on. If TNR's scenario is even remotely accurate, it's about time the lunatic right learns that no one can march in lockstep on every issue. That's the real meaning of "diversity" (another conservative bogeyman). The Weasel's been out of step with average Americans for so long, y'know; it's about time the right, too, gets a taste of his treacherous proclivities.
At The New Republic Online site, a current editorial muses about the fate of conservatism -- particularly in regards to The Weasel's forthcoming Supreme Court nomination (which, the editorial hints, may become just such an anvil). This isn't a matter of concern just for conservatives; it matters to lefties, middle-of-the-roaders, and independents, too.
The power belongs to the Republicans. But with power comes the inebriation of it, and the misuse of it, and the sanctification of it--and the Republicans under Bush are not displaying any special immunity to these errors. The question, Who will succeed O'Connor? is therefore the same question as, What is the condition of American conservatism? And the conservative frenzy that followed O'Connor's resignation is a troubling sign--troubling for liberals, obviously, but troubling also for the many conservatives who have not yet taken leave of their senses.(Come on, yes, there are some of the latter.)
So, when Bush chooses among candidates for the Supreme Court, he will be choosing among conservatisms. It will be a moment of right-wing reckoning. For all his friends and all his loyalties do not add up. Bush must endorse the fever [of the right, in the face of judicial rulings which incense it] or repudiate it.Speculating on what The Weasel will do is, true, a mug's game. His track record of nominations does not give one cause for optimism, though; he seems possessed of an instinct (I hesitate to call it a gift) for floating exactly the wrong name for a given post.
But it's good to see -- or at least hope -- that this time around, he may antagonize some portion of his vaunted "base." It's a general rule of human behavior, I think, that when someone is constitutionally (no pun intended) untrustworthy, sneaky, and prone to boorishness, no one should kid themselves that he can be relied on. If TNR's scenario is even remotely accurate, it's about time the lunatic right learns that no one can march in lockstep on every issue. That's the real meaning of "diversity" (another conservative bogeyman). The Weasel's been out of step with average Americans for so long, y'know; it's about time the right, too, gets a taste of his treacherous proclivities.
