In their reactions to the withdrawal of the Miers nomination, both the Human Rights’ Campaign (HRC) and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) show that they have absolutely no understanding of American conservatism, the dominant political philosophy in America today. Joe Solmonese, HRC”s president, claimed last week that her withdrawal “demonstrates that the president is beholden to extremist groups rather than to the American people”
Had this many paid any attention to the conservative debate over her nomination? While several pretty “extreme” social conservatives, namely Focus on the Family‘s James Dobson and Pat Robertson, supported the nomination, many mainstream conservatives, indeed, many libertarian conservatives opposed it. (Indeed, as I noted when I first blogged on the nomination, I was “troubled” that Ms. Miers’ “most enthusiastic support . . . came from social conservatives.”)
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force had a similar reaction suggesting that its leadership has spent more time reading its own press releases and other left-wing interpretations of the conservative movement than paying any attention to that movement itself. Its president, Matt Foreman, called Miers’ withdrawal “a sorry testament to the absolute control right-wing evangelicals have over this administration.” Moreover, he claimed that “Miers’ intellectual and professional abilities and accomplishments were never really on the table.” Actually, had he bothered to read conservative op-eds and blogs on the nomination, he would have noted that criticism of her intellectual ability, particularly her lack of demonstrated understanding of complex constitutional issues, was at the heart of countless conservative critiques of her nomination.
Instead of looking at the real story of the conservative opposition to Ms. Miers’ nomination, HRC and NGLTF once again recycle their talking points about how President Bush is beholden to “right-wing extremists.” But those talking points are not based on the reality of the Bush Administration, but on their narrow image of American conservatism.
Given that for the past six election cycles, Republicans have won a majority of the vote in congressional elections, given that conservative ideas today dominate public policy discourse and given that Republicans control both the executive and legislative branches in Washington — as well as an increasing number of state houses — and given the growing influence of conservative judges, it should be imperative that these groups, if they are truly interested in helping gay and lesbian Americans, should at least try to understand conservative ideas. Reading this blog would be a good start.
It’s time that these gay and lesbian organizations take the time to engage modern conservatism as a valid intellectual force rather than attempt to dismiss it by calling it “extremist.”
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
Not a coincidence that the pro-Miers evangelicals were given assurances by Rove and Bush on how she would vote on certain issues. It would have been interesting to see them dance in front of the Judiciary Committee on what exactly they were told. The power of the religious right can be seen solely by the act of the WH calling them at the time of the announcement to assure them of her credentials. I would suggest you stop ignoring the elephant in the room and admit that the religious right has far too much power over the Republican party.
The fact is, if Miers interviews with senators and if her responses to the questionnaire had been as stellar as her supporters led people to believe they would be, she probably would have overcome the opposition of the base and been confirmed. Her mediocrity in both was what did her in.
Miers had the worst possible views: economic liberal (or at least, establishmentarian) combined with social conservative.
American gays need the opposite: economic conservative and social liberal.
I’m glad she’s gone. Bush’s new choice probably won’t be perfect, but he should at least get it half right.
Having said that, HRC’s and NGLTF’s crocodile tears for Miers are funny because they either know, or ought to know, her status as a born-again Christian social conservative.
I think their comments are just a cheap opportunity to slam Bush and make themselves feel good.
If Miers were going forward, HRC / NGLTF would be screaming bloody murder. Against her. Either that, or they’d wake up to find they’d just boosted a Dobson-approved conservative, because Harry Reid told them to.
I gotta believe HRC / NGLTF know the real dope on Miers (Dobson loved her) and hence, are only getting in the cheap shots.
I agree with “V the K” on this one.
It was HER poor performances in the interview process and her laughable questionnaire submission.
I am curious on one aspect tho! Where was her “handler” like Roberts had? I never once saw the PR machine in action with her nomination like Roberts.
This certainly reflects the comments on the blogs I read. Opposition was strong across the board and certainly among those who are libertarian or count themselves as moderate. Support came from a few sources… generally bloggers who often talk about their faith (and who generally show restraint rather than extremism, or I wouldn’t read them.)
Sorry guys, but I’m one right wing wacko who thinks the Lefties understand it better than those of us who are now rationalizing their recent temper tantrum over Miers. It hurt us and we will see just much it has hurt us in the coming days.
I’m of a “time will tell” attitude… which is sort of safe, I admit.
I don’t know if this upset will be a long term problem, it’s amazing to me how quickly things are forgotten. (Unless you’re a little blond beauty queen or a pretty blond co-ed who was murdered… then you get front page for months or even years.)
I guess it depends who you mean by “us”.
Calarato (in #3), exactly. HRC’s and NGLTF’s comments were just another “opportunity to slam Bush and make themselves feel good.” More cheap shots from groups which can’t understand American conservatism for what it is.
#6 — Doubt it. Harriet Miers was a flavor of the month. Like a non-insane version of Cindy Sheehan (last seen addressing a crowd of about 3 journalists). By Thanksgiving, she’ll be as forgotten as a cancelled UPN sitcom.
I was looking forward to seeing James Dobson testify about the private assurances he got from Karl Rove.
It’s real clear the Bush administration people were much more concerned about placating religious right “conservatives” than economic conservatives. They treat economic conservatives like cheap dates.
“…show that they have absolutely no understanding of American conservatism, the dominant political philosophy in America today.”
You realize that this “dominant philosophy” is only in the make believe land where the conservative trolley goes to behind the set, right?
Dan, are you serious? Calling Gary Bauer, Tony Perkins, Phyllis Schalfy, Alan Keyes, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, et al, “mainstream conservatives” is an insult to the term “conservative”.
There are hardly any conservatives ledt in the Republican Party. Most of those who call themselves “conservatives” are really the “far right”.
In many cases (Bauer, Buchanan, Keyes, Schafly, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, etc.) they are extremists on the far right — part of the growing theocratic wing of the GOP.
I am still amazed that Dobson and Robertson supported the nomination of Harriet Miers. Her writings and speeches from her pre-White House days provide some evidence that she might have ended up being a centrist justice in the mold of the woman she would have replaced.
Yes, Dan there were questions about Harriet Miers’ intellectual abilities and her understanding of constitutional law raised by her opponents on the far-right. But in most cases those doubts were merely a smokescreen to mask their fear she did not pass their litmus tests on issues like privacy, the church’s influence on public policy, abortion, gay rights, and other Supreme Court decisions that extended freedom, equality and dignity to most Americans.
#14 What indications do you have that the stated objections were a smoke screen?
No, seriously.
I probably was just not listening to the proper objectors but I can’t imagine any reason whatsoever not to have taken their stated objections as if they were… telling the truth.
If you’ve got reasons to think so other than “that’s what those people really think” then I’ve got to either dismiss what you’ve said or congratulate you on being psychic.
Jack, in #13, such mainstream conservatives as Bill Kristol, George Will and Peggy Noonan opposed the nomination while libertarians like Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) and Larry Elder had expressed serious reservations.
As to Jack’s comment in #14, ditto to Synova in #15.
Heh, thanks 🙂
I just realized I missed a negative in my last statement though…
If you’ve got NO reasons to think so other than “that’s what those people really think” then I’ve got to either dismiss what you’ve said or congratulate you on being psychic.
I won’t be on-line much (if at all) in November since I signed up for NaNoWriMo (just in case anyone has heard of it.) Hope to see everyone again a month and 50,000 words from now. 😉
-Julie
Julie, good luck with NaNoWriMo. We’ll miss your comments here.
Thanks for defending us so often. Good luck with the writing; I look forward to your return.
There are hardly any conservatives ledt in the Republican Party. Most of those who call themselves “conservatives” are really the “far right”.
The left pretty much labels anybody more conservative than Lincoln Chaffee “far right.”
RE: V the K in #19.
The late Barry M. Goldwater was the great conservative of my lifetime and I measure “conservatives” by what Goldwater stood for. He has been called the “father of modern conservatism” but I sincerely believe that if he were alive today he would denounce most of those who call themselves “conservatives”.
More than anything, Barry Goldwater’s conservatism believed in the freedom of the individual. He strongly opposed government’s intrusion into our private lives and on almost all of the so-called “social” issues, Goldwater today would likely vote with the Democrats.
In 1996 the former senator acknowleged that he’d probably be considered a “liberal” in the modern Republican Party. I guess he would be, V the K, if you really want to call the likes of Rick Santorum, James Dobson, Sam Brownback, Tony Perkins, Tom Coburn, Gary Bauer, Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Phyllis Schafly, Sean Hannity, et al, “conservatives”.
Most significantly, Barry Goldwater never changed. With only a few exceptions, everything he believed in the day he died was what he believed in in the early 1960 when he set forth the principles of his conservatism — a political philosophy in which I still believe. It is the Republican Party that has forsaken its principles of individual freedom and equality, civil rights, limited government, balanced budgets, a strong military, etc.
And Barry found common ground with his gay grandson and voiced his opposition to DADTDP as we should not be excluded from active open military service. It is a pity HE didnt run against Carter. God rest him.