Through the looking glass

Like many other people, I'd hoped to see someone who wasn't a "stealth" candidate nominated to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court.

That didn't happen, and one result of the president's choice has been to expose sharp differences of opinion within the conservative camp. Naturally, some people articulate those differences better than others.

On the radio and in his blog, Hugh Hewitt's defense of presidential perogative has been waged exclusively from the high horse that is his favorite mount. As the Lone Ranger had Silver, Hugh thinks he rides Sweet Reason.

"There are two kinds of radio hosts," he said after closing his less-than-jovial cross-examination of Professor Stephen Bainbridge yesterday, "those who have common sense, and those who are on drugs."

Hugh was ad-libbing from within the grip of exasperated amusement rather than taking a poke at Limbaugh or (more of a reach) Savage, but his reputation as a happy warrior in Republican causes can't quite hide his fondness for ad hominem attacks. The show-closing remarks were just a variation on what he'd said in his blog earlier that day, describing pro-Miers conservatives as "those who understand governing for the long term," and people nonplussed by her nomination as emotionally fragile, fickle sorts who panic and declare "irreparable injury" when faced with anything incomprehensible or disappointing.

In a game of "which Lord of the Rings character are you?" Hewitt in top form can be Gimli, cutting a merry swath through leftist lunacy at the head of his beloved Center-Right coalition. Lately, however, he's looked more like Gollum, trying to keep the "nasty hobbitses" who disagree with him from mishandling "the precioussss," which to him is "political power for the Republican party."

Three examples:

• In the recall election by which Californians booted Democratic governor Gray Davis out of office, Hewitt supported Arnold Schwarzenegger over the more conservative and arguably better-qualified Tom McClintock, reasoning that Schwarzenegger had name recognition enough to thump a crowded field.

• Pressed by Bainbridge to explain the hypocrisy of a Republican administration that defended affirmative action, Hewitt immediately invoked the elections of 2006 and 2008.

• Seeking to counter the suspicion that Miers might be susceptible to "pressure to grow" from Beltway liberals, Hewitt doesn't invoke Texan contrariness (which I respect). Instead, he conjures up 9/11, pointing out that you need a certain amount of courage work in a high-profile terrorist target like the White House. Fair enough, but not good enough, and this is why:
  
  Hewitt's defense ignores distinctions between different kinds of courage that go back as far as Homer and Aristotle. Physical courage to face the danger of attack is not the same as moral or intellectual courage. Ever meet a Navy SEAL who would rather disarm a machine gun-wielding sentry than make a speech in front of a Toastmasters club?

Those who remember LOTR (and who, having seen the film trilogy, would not?) will recall that wise and powerful characters like Gandalf and Galadriel fought the temptation to wield the One Ring because they recognized its corrupting influence. I'm not sure Hewitt has applied the lessons of that cinematic parable to his political enthusiams, and until he does, I have to take everything he says with my hand on the hilt of an elvish sword, watching the blade to see whether it glows blue.

Fortunately, there are other people to make a good case for Harriet Miers.

Jack Kelly defends her nomination in a way that is both spirited and professional. Cassandra disarms the "Republican-in-Name Only" epithet with matter-of-fact elegance. Bookworm defends her career path. And Gary declares himself foursquare for more religious diversity on the high court, which isn't a defense of Miers per se, but would work to her (and perhaps our) advantage.

Among the points made by Miers' more able defenders (and here I'm thinking of Kelly and Bookworm), the one I like most has to do with her life experience. In Kelly's words:

There are doers in this world, and there are kibitzers. Basically, those of us in the chattering classes are kibitzers. Many of us have convinced ourselves that thinking and writing about what other people do is more important than actually doing stuff. It isn't. [George] Will, Jonah Goldberg, David Frum and others who have done nothing but kibitz all their lives assert that someone who hasn't written much can't think deep thoughts. Horsefeathers. Some of the deepest philosophical discussions I've ever been in have been with military officers. But they don't write much, because they're doers. Harriet Miers has been a doer.

In other words, though Kelly doesn't say so, longshoreman/philosopher Eric Hoffer might have made a fine Supreme Court justice. It's a point well taken.

UPDATE, October 7: In a post titled "The Blogosphere and the Meirs nomination," Hugh Hewitt cites National Review no fewer than eight times. Other sources (none of them progressive) are mentioned only half that many times. I think the heading on the post, like Hewitt's frame of reference, needs work.