Rightful credit. Writing over at TPMCafe about the logic of the O'Connor replacement, Ed Kilgore expresses skepticism about a friend's theory that we're going to see Bush nominating Abu Gonzalez:

He said his hunch was that Bush would send up Alberto Gonzales. Sure, the Right would go nuts, but Bush's approval rating would jump ten points; a lot of Republicans would go along out of loyalty or even relief; and Democrats would be placed in the uncomfortable position of either eating the words they said about Gonzales' unfitness to serve as Attorney General, or making a confirmation fight based on Gitmo, an issue that the administration thinks still cuts in its favor. And if Gonzales went down to a Left-Right coalition, then Bush could shrug, say he tried to be reasonable, and then send up somebody really outrageous.

It's an interesting hypothesis, but I just don't buy it. This appointment represents the giant balloon payment at the end of the mortgage the GOP signed with the Cultural Right at least 25 years ago. Social conservatives have agreed over and over again to missed payments, refinancings, and in their view, generous terms, but the balance is finally due, and if Bush doesn't pay up, they'll foreclose their entire alliance with the Republican Party.

Sure, they care about other issues, from gay marriage to taxes to Iraq, but abortion is the issue that makes most Cultural Right activists get up in the morning and stuff envelopes and staff phone banks for the GOP. And for decades now, Republicans have told them they can't do anything much about it until they can change the Supreme Court. With a pro-choice Justice stepping down, the subject can no longer be avoided. And thanks to the Souter precedent (and indeed, the O'Connor and Kennedy precedents), there's no way Bush can finesse an appointment that's anything less than a guaranteed vote to overturn Roe.

Persuasive, and well put. There's just one small item I find missing from Kilgore's account: namely, that it's DLC hacks like Ed Kilgore himself—who have spent pretty much their entire careers shilling to create room in the so-called center for right-wing "culture" issues, who've pandered so long and so hard for accommodation to the right at the (ever-encroaching) margins, who've never seen a leftist they wouldn't jump the queue for the privilege of bashing—who bear a good measure of responsibility for legitimizing the rightist agenda in the national discourse, the fruits of which we're all getting to enjoy now.

That last 25 years you mention isn't a blank field, historically speaking: it took a lot of effort from a lot of parties, some of them less witting than others, for the Christianist culture warriors to get where they are today. "Mortgage" is a nice metaphor—but political IOUs don't always get paid, and it wasn't inevitable, by any means, that the fundies would find themselves in a position to exact payment on theirs. In other words, somewhere on that mortgage you lament being presented, Ed, if you look closely I think you'll see a few items bearing your initials, or the initials of your friends and patrons. Don't be so modest about claiming rightful credit for your work.

posted by michael  4:38:12 PM  
tell me about it []  trackback []

 

Nasty partisans. Clicking around local Chicago TV news last night (I don't have cable), it was immediately apparent what the standard, lazy, corporate-journalist intro on the O'Connor resignation would inevitably be: something on the lines of, "A nasty partisan battle is to be expected as the two sides fight over President Bush's choice for a replacement."

Because, in Journo World, nobody actually creates "nasty partisan battles," or even especially puts the nasty in them (all partisan battles are nasty by virtue of being partisan, it's a rhetorical given): they're merely a feature of the landscape. (Treating such things as if they were geological deposits rather than the product of human agency seems to be pretty much exactly and only what "objectivity" means in contemporary American journalism.) I have yet to see it attested in the media—what is, after all, merely the plain truth of the matter, as Democrats are pointing out and must continue to insist on—that it is entirely at the President's choice as to whether his nomination process works toward consensus, or deals it another in a long series of GOP-administered death blows. The fight over O'Connor's successor is hardly a latter-day version of William Seward's irrepressible conflict, but you wouldn't know it from the coverage in the mainstream press. That the Rove administration knows no other governing plan (if it can be called that) than opening and amplifying the country's social and political divisions—much less that the logic of Bush' position with respect to the slavering theocratic right leaves him with little practical alternative to following their orders in the case of the SCOTUS vacancy: well, pointing out such a thing wouldn't be objective, would it? Not to mention how impolite it would sound.

And when it comes to Bush II no outlet is more objective, or more polite, than Bill Keller's New York Times. See if you can grasp the common line being taken in Richard Stevenson's lead article and Robin Toner's accompanying A1 "analysis" piece:

After months in which speculation about the Supreme Court focused on the likelihood of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's stepping down, the retirement of Justice O'Connor, 75, caught much of Washington, including the White House and her colleagues on the court, off guard.

Even so, the armies of ideological activists from both sides who had massed in anticipation of a battle over replacing the chief justice, a reliable conservative, quickly pivoted to what they agreed was an even greater struggle for control of a seat that could alter the court's balance on an array of polarizing topics.

Richard Stevenson, "O'Connor to Retire, Touching Off Battle Over Court"

The retirement of Justice O'Connor, a moderate who has been a crucial vote for a constitutional right to abortion, began a struggle with incalculable political implications - for the interest groups, for the parties and for the president.

"This is the pivotal appointment," said Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Advocates on the left and the right, who had prepared for this moment since the last Supreme Court vacancy was filled 11 years ago, agreed that the ideological balance of the court was up for grabs. Advocacy groups bought advertising on television and the Internet, and issued millions of e-mail alerts, waves of direct-mail fund-raising appeals and pre-emptive blasts at those viewed by the groups as either obstructionist Democrats or extremist Republicans.

Robin Toner, " After a Brief Shock, Advocates on All Sides Quickly Mobilize"

Remarkably, it takes all of ten paragraphs for Richard Stevenson to quote Bush on the O'Connor vacancy, or for that matter to make him the subject of a sentence. And Toner—writing, let's emphasize, the Times' front-page analysis of the SCOTUS vacancy—can't be bothered to consider Bush's intentions, or the political constraints under which he operates, at all. As if the man who, in fact, controls the nomination process were somehow no significant part of the equation.

And—more to the point—as if those "armies of ideological activists" were not just the only political actors in this fight who mattered, but were equal, and evenly matched, opponents meeting on a level field. As they have to be, in Journo World: for reporters who believe themselves untainted by (and superior to) "ideology," who are content to operate within the thoughtless, slovenly anti-politics of the "plague on both their houses," the notion that there might be structural differences (in influence, in money, in media power) between the "two sides," and differences in their effect on political life at this juncture, simply doesn't compute. All you really need to know is that the partisans are gearing up (sigh!) for another of their endless series of contests.

Of course, not absolutely everything is equal: the Republicans are still our masters, after all, and hacks like Richard Stevenson are happy to see what they're told to see. Once we're outside the "plague on both their houses" frame, and on into "obstructing the agenda," things look a little different:

With memories still fresh among many conservatives of the Democrats' success in blocking the nomination of Robert H. Bork to the court in 1987, and with Capitol Hill still embittered over this spring's confrontation over the use of filibusters in judicial nominations, Mr. Bush effectively put the Democratic leadership on notice not to go to extreme lengths to reject his choice or turn the confirmation proceedings into a partisan free-for-all.

"The nation deserves, and I will select, a Supreme Court justice that Americans can be proud of," Mr. Bush said. "The nation also deserves a dignified process of confirmation in the United States Senate, characterized by fair treatment, a fair hearing and a fair vote."

Mr. Specter indicated that he would most likely hold confirmation hearings in September, though he did not rule out August, when Congress is scheduled to be in recess. Some conservatives have expressed concern about delaying confirmation hearings for too long, out of worry that it would give liberal groups more time to gather ammunition for an attack.

Lovely work, isn't it? In a season where the religious right, fully in charge of the White House agenda, is gearing up for another all-out assault on our sensibilities (and on sense), well naturally the concern that animates Richard Stevenson to censoriousness is that extremist liberals are going to hijack the discourse. "A dignified process," yes, at all costs dignity: free and open debate is just so beneath us in a democratic society. Stevenson may dislike "ideological activists" no matter what stripe, but that doesn't mean he can't tell which side his bread is buttered on: and thanks to the Times' official commitment to "diversity," he apparently feels that it's no longer necessary even to pretend that he's not rooting for it.

posted by michael  4:05:07 PM  
tell me about it []  trackback []

 

Frame shop: leadership test. Via Jeralyn at TalkLeft, who has been very usefully on top of early public reactions to the O'Connor resignation (start here and work up), I see that—unsurprisingly—Howard Dean is very much on message:

President Bush should follow the example established by President Reagan when he nominated Justice O'Connor. President Reagan had the courage to stand up to the right wing extremists in his party by choosing a moderate, thoughtful jurist.

This is rhetorically and politically pitch-perfect. (OK, speaking any good of Reagan grates, but it's strategically useful here.) This is what Democrats should be emphasizing relentlessly: the coming Supreme Court nomination is a test of Presidential leadership. The onus is on Bush to demonstrate that he's his own man, not a tool of the Schiavo theocrats.

Narrative is everything. My criticism of the Lakoffian discourse of framing has always been that it misses the dimension of story: the way in which political orientation is produced, not by mere typology (frame-placement) but by the small, all but unnoticed mythic dramas that structure popular consciousness. Since 9/11, the irresistible kernel of story about the Bush administration has been, Strong enough to go it alone. Call it the PNAC myth: it was never true even in terms of American military hegemony, but it looked plausible (to the extend you focused on flight-suit theatrics), and it was allowed to ramify into domestic politics, to encompass the Republican refusal to treat the opposition as any kind of governing partner. It was a myth that entirely organized the corporate media's treatment of the 2004 election—the more so as mainstream political journalism is incapable of representing or judging elections on any axis other than weakness-strength.

As Dean seems to have recognized, though, Schiavo, the nuclear option, the Iraq-induced hammering Bush is taking in the polls, all these have combined to create perhaps the first significant opportunity we've seen for the dominant narrative to shift. Too weak to hold off the extremists: this is a neat reversal, especially as it invokes (by way of a disappointment a majority of Americans is beginning to feel) the Presidential Protector frame that's played so much to Bush's advantage these last few years. The longer and louder the theocratic right howls, the more the moderate American mainstream begins to feel that they need shielding as much from domestic as from foreign fundamentalists: and Bush, of course, is in the worst position in the world to do that job. As Bush loses the mantle of Protector, he loses, and his party loses, period.

It's a natural, common-sense proposition, one that plays to the American bias toward middle-of-the-roadism: a strong leader leads from the center, and doesn't let wackos drag him around by the nose. David Corn was worrying yesterday over that word "extremism" (via Susie Madrak):

In any event, the Democrats and progressives may be placed in the position of having to oppose an experienced jurist whose opinions they do not like on policy grounds. They should fight such a nominee vigorously, and they should be upfront about their reasons. Rather than label that person an "extremist," they ought to argue that the Senate ought not to confirm a nominee who is likely to vote to curtail or eliminate abortion rights, to favor corporate polluters over consumers, or to restrict the federal government's ability to advance social justice. The "extremist" strategy, I fear, is worn out and ineffective. It worked for Robert Bork, thanks to his too-honest writings and wacky beard. But most of the far-right jurists on the list of potential nominees will be able to appear before a Senate committee, not drool, answer questions about their opinions politely, and come across as intelligent and somewhat reasonable people, not extremist monsters plotting to lead America into a Time of Darkness. So progressives, beware, the E-word is probably not your friend.

And there's this to think of: Bush will probably get another Supreme Court pick soon. Perhaps real soon. Chief Justice William Rehnquist may not be there much longer--by choice or not. One smart move for Bush would be to nominate for the O'Connor vacancy a decidedly conservative person but one who is well-equipped to beat back the expected charges of extremism from the left and who goes on to be confirmed. (Does Gonzales fit this bill?) Next--for the Rehnquist opening--Bush could nominate a true conservative whacko, a Bork II. The Democrats and the left would have a tough time redeploying the extremist attack, even if it were warranted this time. Once more--from a political perspective--Democrats and progressives ought to think carefully about how and when they use the charge of extremism. They can only cry "wolf" so many times--even if Bush unleashes a pack of wolverines.

Now this is probably good tactical advice, as far as opposing specific Bush Court nominees might go. But I want to stress the difference between attempting to tar a given nominee as an extremist, versus insisting on the extremism of the forces that will be turning the nomination process itself into a shindig for the scary, religious-war right. There are drooling monsters aplenty in that crowd, and Democrats should be making sure they're front and center in the public consciousness—and that they're firmly and unshakeably tied to Bush's tail. (It won't even take much effort—the monsters want everyone to know that Bush owes them, and that they're sufficiently powerful to demand payoff.) Are you strong enough, for the sake of the country as a whole, to stand up to the bad elements in your own coalition, Mr. President? It's a winning question, Dems: follow Howard Dean's lead, and keep pounding on it.

posted by michael  12:32:45 PM  
tell me about it []  trackback []