Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Loyalists, Rebels, Dogfaces -- and Cowboys”

« Would a Miers Fight Hurt the GOP in 2006? | Main | Bush Nominates Reagan to the Court! »

October 9, 2005

Loyalists, Rebels, Dogfaces -- and Cowboys

Hatched by Dafydd

As usual, Captain Ed absolutely nails the taxonomy of conservatives who are arguing about the nomination of Harriet Miers... but yesterday, he managed to do so in the Washington Post!

"Local boy makes good." Even though I'm based in California and he's one of the Northern Alliance Minnesotans like the Power Liners, he's "local" in the sense that he's a blogger; when a blogger is invited to write an article for the Washington Post, it's a spectacular triumph for the entire blogosphere. Congratulations, Captain Ed, both for the column and also for its placement in the Holy Grail of MSM!

The analysis has the conservatives breaking up into three factions -- the Loyalist Army, the Rebel Alliance, and the Trench-Dwelling Dogfaces.

Ed defines these three categories as (respectively) those who actually defend the Miers nomination itself as a good one, either because of Miers' abilities or because of the strategic nature of her stealth appointment; those who are so opposed to the nomination that they've actually decided to go to war against it, regardless of the consequences to the GOP (or perhaps because some believe that the consequences of letting it go forward would be worse -- more on that anon); while the Dogfaces in the trenches are those like the blokes at Power Line and Captain Ed himself (and like me) who think it a blunder -- but who believe that having a civil war within the party would compound the error into a serious threat to our chances in 2006 and 2008. This makes it so much easier to swiftly characterize various actors, from Hugh Hewitt to Patterico.

Ed gives several examples of bloggers in each of the first two categories, but the Post inexplicably snipped out his examples from the Dogface category, which I'm absolutely convinced must have refereced John and Paul at Power Line as well as... other blogs. (Ed tactfully refrained from answering my rather ham-fisted hints about whether he had mentioned Big Lizards, thus leaving me free to fantasize that I might have been mentioned in the Post, if only the blackguards hadn't snipped the passage. Thanks for not shattering my illusions, Ed!)

The primary argument by the Rebel Alliance is that her confirmation would cause vast numbers of voters to be so depressed or infuriated that they simply sit out the next election, leading to catastrophic losses. With all due respect to the Rebels, I have to say this indicates, well, a rather colossal ego (one which I am certainly prone to myself!): the idea that most everybody else around me shares my priorities.

In reality, most conservatives across the country aren't even aware this battle is raging. They're the undistributed middle from Captain Ed's taxonomy -- I call them the "Cowboys." Alas, this vast class is routinely ignored by the Rebels, who (like many other intellectuals) consider someone's opinion relatively unimportant unless it's articulated in a written court opinion, in a book or article, on television or radio, or in a well-regarded blog.

Cowboys can live in the city or the country. As a group, they are completely untroubled by the nomination of Harriet Miers because they just plain like her (as they just plain like Bush, another Cowboy). These are people who don't philosophize about their conservatism... they simply live it day to day. They form the true core of the Republican Party.

When they vote, they vote on the big core issues: taxes, the Global War on Terrorism, moral issues, ethical issues, regulation, the economy -- not on specific nominations of specific judges (even to the Supreme Court). And they always vote Republican.

They ignore the day-to-day bickering among the chattering classes; they may not be able to intellectually define a conservative, but they know 'em when they see 'em. And they love Harriet Miers because she is one of them. They won't be turned off by this nomination; they don't particularly trust intellectuals anyway... they see them as always able to find some egg-headed justfication for liberalism.

The Cowboys are the reason that confirming Miers is better than destroying her: when they get upset at Republicans (for example, at liberal appeasement by George H. W. Bush), they don't vote for third parties, and they for God's sake would never vote for a Democrat. They simply don't vote.

Miers is one of the Cowboys. She only recently arrived at this position; earlier, she clearly was a moderate. But the Cowboys always welcome sincere converts, and I don't think even Patterico would argue that Miers is not socially and politically conservative now. The Cowboys see Meirs as that nice lady from church who's always the first to volunteer to raise money for Christmas gifts for the troops or toys for poor kids -- the little lady that always makes them feel so good when she smiles and waves and says "howdy!"

The Rebels seem to have fooled themselves into believing that most conservatives are as passionate about the life of the mind as the articulate, highly educated, and very intelligent Rebels themselves are. I have great sympathy for this mistake; I make it myself. But my too-brief stint in the Navy taught me that most intelligent, decent, and moral folks are simply not "intellectuals": they do not spend their life pondering postulates, arguments, and logical conclusions (as, e.g., lawyers must). They don't commit philosophy. Think of John Wayne, the perfect Cowboy.

But the Cowboys might be very much bothered by her rejection, because they hate traitors and losers: if Miers is forced out or defeated by Republican votes, then the Rebels will come across to the Cowboys as disloyal, and the Loyalists will come across as incompetent losers. The Cowboys may well fume, lose interest in voting, and sit out the election.

I do agree with Patterico in one respect. He argues that:

If this nomination is to be stopped, it should be stopped before it ever gets to Judiciary Committee hearings. A withdrawal would be far less embarrassing and damaging than a defeat in the Judiciary Committee, or (less likely) on the Senate floor.

I'm glad to see that Patterico is finally acknowledging that defeating Miers in either the J-Com or on the Senate floor would severely damage the Republican Party. Where we differ is that he believes it's possible that Bush might be persuaded to make Miers softly and suddenly vanish away, doing minimal damage -- whereas I believe Bush's personal loyalty to those close to him who have done him no dirt will prevent him from ever abandoning her... just as he never abandoned Priscilla Owens, Miguel Estrada, or Janice Rogers Brown.

The only way to keep Miers off the Court will be to defeat her, either in committee or on the floor. And as Patterico himself admits, this will damage the party. So count me as a Dogface doggedly defending a Cowboy's Cowboy.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, October 9, 2005, at the time of 5:28 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/94

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Loyalists, Rebels, Dogfaces -- and Cowboys:

» Still more thoughts on the Harriet Miers kerfuffle from Small Town Veteran
(Continued from More thoughts on the Harriet Miers kerfuffle) Michelle Malkin has another good quote and link roundup here. Dafydd ab Hugh says Captain Ed's Washington Post piece overlooked a significant portion of the electorate: Cowboys, and follows ... [Read More]

Tracked on October 10, 2005 10:07 PM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Patterico

. . .just as he never abandoned Priscilla Owens, Miguel Estrada, or Janice Rogers Brown.

Gimme a break. He and his team (including Miers) left Estrada twisting in the wind, telling Senators that the filibuster issue was an internal Senate matter.

The above hissed in response by: Patterico at October 9, 2005 5:55 PM

The following hissed in response by: Patterico

Also:

"I'm glad to see that Patterico is finally acknowledging that defeating Miers in either the J-Com or on the Senate floor would severely damage the Republican Party."

When did I say "severely"? I just think that having Kerik (for example) withdraw his nomination was less of an embarrassment than it would have been had it happened in the middle of his hearings, which would have made it more visible.

Also, I didn't say (I don't think) that it would be damaging to the party -- just to Bush. It could even arguably strengthen the party, as it weakened Bush.

The above hissed in response by: Patterico at October 9, 2005 6:19 PM

The following hissed in response by: beebop

I think your projecting too much nobility on the cowboy class -- another name for them could be Ross "Cuban Hit Teams" Perot voters; they are the people that don't follow politics day to day but know when their guy is going off track. They define going off track as betraying your core promise to the base, be it "read my lips" or "judges like Thomas or Scalia." I also do not think they consider it disloyal to have a dispute over principle, and sneering ad hominum defenses like you're all a bunch of Ivy League elitists or anti-women are definitely going to fall flat with them. They sit at the lunch counters with the committed base voters, they listen to them talk about watching Fox News because they trust their judgment -- and they know their activist friends are not opposing Miers because she's a woman or went to SMU. I also think they would be willing to sit home on election night if they are dispondent, and I know the base is likely to keep it's checkbook shut if they are told they have fought 35 years for nothing.

The above hissed in response by: beebop at October 9, 2005 8:47 PM

The following hissed in response by: danupton

What, in your opinion, would be consequences to the GOP be if Miers is the fifth vote in a 5-4 decision upholding Roe before the 2008 election?

Notice I'm not saying that I think she will be. I'm just saying what if.

The above hissed in response by: danupton at October 9, 2005 8:53 PM

The following hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi

Well, Dafydd, I'm a Browncoat and I think the founding fathers are most likely spinning in their graves over this appointment. Miers is a proxy for GW on the court. What were they most afraid of? Demigogues. Krauthammer said it and RMBN said it on the other thread.
'Sides, cloning is against the law. heh.
So GW doesn't get to put an idea-clone of himself on the bench without a fight.

GW is perfectly bitchin' on the War on Terror, but he sux on immigration and spending, and his support of ID in schools and that moronic Terri's Law made me want to hurl.

The above hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi at October 9, 2005 9:29 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Patterico:

Gimme a break. He and his team (including Miers) left Estrada twisting in the wind, telling Senators that the filibuster issue was an internal Senate matter.

Patterico, Bush never withdrew their nominations... not even Estrada. Estrada withdrew himself.

As far as what Bush told the Senate, the rules for filibusters are "an internal Senate matter" -- and knowing how prickly and thin-skinned most senators are, if Bush had jumped in at that point, he might well have just solidified opposition into neutronium and goaded the Democrats into extending their filibuster to every, single piece of legislation in the Senate.

And some Republicans, seeing a threat to the independence of the Senate, would probably have joined with the Democrats! Think of the three or four RINOs, plus other thin-skinned Republicans like John McCain and Ted Stevens.

Your urge to attack President Bush is now so strong that it seems you cannot even bring yourself to give him credit for sticking with the nominees you actually like. You spin even that as more evidence of Bush's incompetence, callousness, or perfidy, I'm not which which.

Can't you see where this is leading?

When did I say "severely"? I just think that having Kerik (for example) withdraw his nomination was less of an embarrassment than it would have been had it happened in the middle of his hearings, which would have made it more visible.

Ah, but what you said in your post (which is still up there) is this:

A withdrawal would be far less embarrassing and damaging than a defeat in the Judiciary Committee, or (less likely) on the Senate floor.

Note the changes: in your new, edited version, you changed "far less" to "less," and you dropped the phrase "and damaging" entirely.

In your original phraseology, you stated that stopping it now would be "far less... damaging" than stopping it in the J-com or on the Senate floor... which must therefore be far more damaging than stopping it now, eh?

If you think "far more damaging" doesn't quite "severely damage" the president, then what term would you prefer -- greatly damage? badly damage?

Finally, if the president is a Republican, and the most visible symbol of the Republican Party, and he is severely, greatly, or badly damaged, then doesn't that damage the party as well?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at October 9, 2005 9:38 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Danupton:

What, in your opinion, would be consequences to the GOP be if Miers is the fifth vote in a 5-4 decision upholding Roe before the 2008 election?

That would damage Bush and the Republicans very severely indeed. I doubt it will happen, but if it did, it would be devastating.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at October 9, 2005 9:40 PM

The following hissed in response by: RBMN

"Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up." --Robert Frost

The above hissed in response by: RBMN at October 9, 2005 9:50 PM

The following hissed in response by: danupton

"That would damage Bush and the Republicans very severely indeed. I doubt it will happen, but if it did, it would be devastating."

I agree, however I dont think that it will happen. The fifth vote to uphold Roe will come from Roberts.

The above hissed in response by: danupton at October 10, 2005 5:04 AM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

How *DARE* the Dems threaten President Bush about selecting my Honorable Justice Janice, and then McCain and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter backs them up!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, i'm not President...if i were, then i would be permanent President of Iraq and Syria, and permanent Vice President of Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iran.

i'll settle for Ms. Miers, but wonder why we don't have a Black Female on the Supreme Court after having the "First Black President"!!!

Politics...

KårmiÇømmünîs†

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at October 10, 2005 6:58 PM