Martin F. Nolan
Sunday, October 23, 2005
The scandal overwhelms whatever Judith Miller and the New York Times did or did not do.
It is a sordid Washington saga about the capital’s oldest profession, journalism. The conservative commentariat, in full shriek about President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, is attacking the Texas lawyer and longtime family friend of the president, but the real target is Bush himself. He has disappointed his critics on the right by becoming unpopular.
This scandal is not just about snobbery and sexism, nor about the acrobatic reversal of former Bush groupies.
The president’s philosophy on Supreme Court nominees, obscured by his unpopularity and ineptitude, is intellectually superior to that of his newly energized critics.
These right-wing critics, many intelligent and sophisticated, are guided by the French slogan “sauve qui peut,” which might roughly be translated as “stab the wounded.” If his reputation sinks, theirs might, too. Bush’s former friends treat him as not only a lame duck, but as a walking bucket of avian flu.
A war poorly explained and badly run could not derail their devotion, nor could a shaky economy. As war and weather plague the president and perils lurk in Baghdad and a Washington grand jury room, the Miers nomination offers former sycophants an exit strategy.
If Bush were 25 or 30 points higher in the polls, the right’s television troubadours and op-ed bards would still be describing Miers as Mother Teresa and Madame Curie combined.
Since 2000, they had rhapsodized about Bush decisions. They sang of Churchillian courage in panegyrics that make the mash notes of Miers seem models of restraint. These valentines are available on many Web sites for those whose digestive system can handle it.
This mutiny is called a revolt of the intellectuals, because many of these commentators have advanced degrees.
Some may love learning, but in their youth, a military draft run by the Selective Service System rewarded lengthy stays in academe with draft deferments, a privilege accepted by many upscale Baby Boomers. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich did not agree on much, but they knew that staying in school was a dandy way to dodge the draft.
The conservative commentariat is vociferously hawkish but unfamiliar with basic combat infantry training. Many are also innocent journalistically, never having covered a police precinct. (This journalistic inexperience arises when pundits speak of “indictments handed down.” They are handed up, to the judicial bench.)
Many prosper in the semi-academic environments of think tanks and opinion journals. Like their counterparts on the left, they lead a subsidized life, sheltered from market forces. Lacking the perspective provided by drill sergeants and city editors, they tend to take themselves seriously.
The Miers nomination insulted their intelligence. John Roberts had intimidated them into silence because his academic attainments outshone theirs. But a nominee with degrees from Southern Methodist University? Had this nominee been a male from Yale, the reaction would have been gentler.
Right-wing retraction mirrors that of left-wing reaction. Neither extreme knows where Miers stands — echoing their complaints about Roberts.
But in both cases, Bush acted properly and judiciously, interviewing potential nominees to get their sense of the law. He did not ask about specifics. He did not seek a babbling brook of clearly delineated opinions. The historic pattern of presidents is: Find a lawyer of honesty, competence and a judicial temperament, and let the Senate advise and consent.
Ideological kibitzers prefer hysteria, not history. Stare decisis, “let the decision stand,” honors precedent and settled law. Roberts embraced the notion during his hearings, but conservative militants are not satisfied. They seek on the court an angry mullah, ready to shred Roe vs. Wade, Griswold vs. Connecticut (which established a right to bedroom privacy) and other infidel scrolls from the wicked 20th century.
These intellectuals do not want an open-minded justice but one whose mind is shut. These righty intellectuals want a philistine on the court. Who’d have thought George W. Bush would defend intellectual integrity against philistine hordes on his right flank? Strange things happen in second presidential terms.
Miers has yet to face a Senate hearing. On “Face the Nation” last Sunday, Bob Schieffer of CBS, an alumnus of the U.S. Air Force and the Fort Worth police beat, asked: “Most of the opposition seems to be coming from the Republican pundits, not really from Republican senators. Do you think senators are just sitting back and letting the pundits do the dirty work for them?”
From the low expectations set by her critics, senators might expect to hear a witness with all the qualities of Carol Channing, Gracie Allen and Betty Boop.
Senators can ask her the same questions they asked Roberts. Miers can give the same non-answers given by Roberts and by Clinton nominees Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
They should ask one important question about cronyism. Another Texas president, Lyndon Johnson, appointed his pal Abe Fortas to the court in 1965 but did not let go of Fortas as a friend and adviser on the war in Vietnam. No justice should remain a presidential crony.
Senators might usefully ask the nominee whether she and the president agreed with the observation of Henry Adams: “A friend in power is a friend lost.”
Miers may or may not be confirmed, but President Bush, abandoned by so many intellectuals he had eagerly courted, can ponder the wisdom of a predecessor. “If you want a friend in Washington,” Harry Truman said, “get a dog.”
Martin F. Nolan, a former editorial page editor for the Boston Globe, lives in San Francisco. Contact us at [email protected].