Miers' Nomination Exposes Elitist-Populist Fissure on Right
I am glad that Harriet Miers has withdrawn from the nomination process. I hope President Bush now nominates a principled conservative with a track record demonstrating commitment to judicial conservatism -- like my former law professor Michael McConnell.
But, I do think the Harriet Miers' nomination was useful to remind conservative populists of how elitist many of their friends on the right are. There are two types of people that ruin conservativism when it is put into action: ideologues and hacks. Ideologues are so committed to their ideas of America that that they begin to commit treason to conservatism -- which in the end is a people-based and values-based pragmatism. Hacks are so committed to their own self-centered agenda that they use the brand "conservatism" for their own political ends -- of course, damaging the brand "consevatism" as they go along.
Many conseservative elitists were exposed in the bashing of Miers. Not so much in their opposition to Miers -- but their reasons for being opposed to Miers. Now, we know that many of these elitists are ideologues and/or hacks. This is useful information in the next round of politics.
Query: if Alberto Gonzalez is nominated, how will the snobby elitists (or is it elitist snobs) react?
But, I do think the Harriet Miers' nomination was useful to remind conservative populists of how elitist many of their friends on the right are. There are two types of people that ruin conservativism when it is put into action: ideologues and hacks. Ideologues are so committed to their ideas of America that that they begin to commit treason to conservatism -- which in the end is a people-based and values-based pragmatism. Hacks are so committed to their own self-centered agenda that they use the brand "conservatism" for their own political ends -- of course, damaging the brand "consevatism" as they go along.
Many conseservative elitists were exposed in the bashing of Miers. Not so much in their opposition to Miers -- but their reasons for being opposed to Miers. Now, we know that many of these elitists are ideologues and/or hacks. This is useful information in the next round of politics.
Query: if Alberto Gonzalez is nominated, how will the snobby elitists (or is it elitist snobs) react?
posted by ssc | 10/27/2005 10:01:00 AM
Was elitism a culprit in the quirmish over the latest SCOTUS nomination? I agree with the SSC that it was.
We watched as a President attempted to ramrod through a candidate of his choosing, a close friend, against the wishes of the People and his own split party.
It is a generaly truth that conservatism should be devoid of ideology. However, elitism doesn't necessarily equal ideology; there are plenty of anti-intellecual ideologues as well. SSC's observation is therefore flawed.
I would feel better about being criticized as an ideological elitist than were I to be called, say, a populist hack.
Populism does not exclude elitism. A populist elitist brands a red P on his chest and denounces all other varieties of elitism, or his perception thereof.
(I'm not calling anyone a populist hack; I'm merely demonstrating examples of populist elitism.)
ssc writes:
Query: if Alberto Gonzalez is nominated, how will the snobby elitists (or is it elitist snobs) react?
Personally? With an aneurysm.
ssc,
I have wanted to be magnanimous all day and not respond to this post, other than with the preceding post (a joke).
But I've reread it and lost my ability to be a good winner. You write
But, I do think the Harriet Miers' nomination was useful to remind conservative populists of how elitist many of their friends on the right are. ... Now, we know that many of these elitists are ideologues and/or hacks.
Query: Can you actually tell me who among the anti-Miers crowd was being elitist and why this was a bad thing?
Query: Can you actually tell me who among the anti-Miers crowd was being a hack?
Query: Is there an argument in this post? Is there any substance other than a series of unsupported assertions and insults?
In answer to Harsh Pencil's inquiries, then let's move on:
1. Check weekend's Gospel readings regarding humility. In my opinion, the character attacks of many elitists were (characteristically) not rooted in humility. I think the tone and the substance was over the top -- and unnecessary. It's not always how you win, but how you play the game -- particularly in politics.
2. Hackery-- hacks are all over the place in politics. A hack would be one who would advance oneself regardless of principle. For example, hacks would be inflicted with careerism. Institutions filled with hacks don't work very well. Congress, judgeships (whether appointed or elected), agencies, etc. at times are full of hacks. A lot of hacks jumped on the bandwagon against Miers -- even before she had a chance to speak for herself. Why?
3. No -- the insult is suggesting that my populism is not principled. By explaining my view on elitism, I hardly attempt to end discussion -- I hope to begin it. We've had previous posts about "elitism", "populism" and "faux elitism" in America, I don't think this post was much different than the general discussion. Certainly, I meant in a general sense against all elitists -- not any particular one. Remember, "the humbled shall be exalted"
In summary, I am glad that Harriet Miers withdrew and I hope the President appoints McConnell. I am still not happy about the elitist critique of Miers for the reasons stated before.
I and other populists will not soon forget.
Post a Comment