I find that I tend to draw my distinctions a lot deeper than most folks. This is why–for instance–I have a difficult time finding important differences between the federal government and an organized mob controlling an area or neighborhood. I could list dozens of important parallels, but it’s not the point of this post.
It’s true that in government, I tend to prefer conservatives to liberals and those religious to those secular, even though I’m personally more liberal than conservative (in the classical sense), as well as an atheist who loves to ridicule beliefs in "Santa for Adults" (see, I just can’t let go an opportunity). My reasons for this are wholly pragmatic: we can count on conservatives, out of blind faith, to believe in the evils of communism and hedonism (they are, but require no faith to come to such conclusions) and thus strive to enact public policy accordingly, which, at worst, sends us down the river at a slower pace than the commie dems, or, at best, creates utter gridlock (something sorely missing in the last 5 years or so).
Along these lines, Radley Balko demonstrates how Supreme Court nominee Alito is fundamentally no different from Justice Ginsburg, and he is right on the money about that.
The real ideological split
these days is between judges who are skeptical of government power, and
justices who embrace it. In that vein, Scalia and Ginsberg, et al. are
one and the same. Brown, Thomas, Rehnquist, and O’Connor (to a lesser
extent) are the good guys.
By all indications, Alito is in the former group. Which is why I
think libertarians — and principled conservatives, come to think of it
— ought to oppose his nomination.
Exactly. I loathe Ginsberg because she believes in the primacy of the government over individuals, and I loathe Alito and [usually] Scalia for the same reason. Thomas is really the only decent person left on that bench. Not much comfort, I’m afraid.
Just as with the dingbat Meiers, Bush seeks a puppet for the bench. This is what the commie dems have been doing for decades, which is: when the government asserts a power and someone challenges it, affirm the government’s power. Conservatives, seeing how successful this has been in making the government all powerful all of the time, have unabashedly embraced the same strategy.
As a final point, conservatives, owing to their blind faith, have not recognized what else they share in common with the left: a strong sense of morality. Listen: a sense of morality is the very last of our concerns, as conservative George Will–who seems to be getting a clue, lately–points out:
Really stern social conservatives probably favor explicitly
proscribing government assistance to lots of things, most of them
somehow involving sex. Government could preen about being too moral to
subsidize, with tax-preferred bonds, economic projects that include
bookstores that sell Judy Blume novels, or hotels that offer in-room
pornography. And wouldn’t it be fun to find the words "lap dance" in
the nation’s tax code?
As strongly as social conservatives
deplore commercialized sex, liberals deplore cigarettes, Big Macs,
firearms, fur coats, SUVs, pornography not printed on recycled paper,
pornographic movies produced by nonunion studios, holiday trees
provocatively labeled "Christmas trees" and much more.
These things all represent moral values to people. In other words, the battle, right now, is not about morality vs. amorality, it’s about one side’s perceived morality vs. the other side’s immorality, and vice versa.
What ties it all together and ensures its indefinite continuation is putting people like Roberts and Alito on the bench. Sure, it might result in a few "moral" victories for the right–up until the pendulum swings the other way and the left starts getting their "moral" victories once again.
But nowhere will the source of morality ever be considered. Nowhere will anyone come to understand that man’s fundamental and unalienable freedom to choose to live or die gives rise to morality and all objective moral standards must logically correspond to that first principle. Moral positions that do not are objectively immoral, which is why both the right and left are fundamentally immoral–at every level–as they continue to assert the government’s power to enforce their pet moral codes.