When George Will smacks you, you know you’ve been smacked
Even though I’m neither a republican nor a conservative, as it’s commonly understood, there are conservatives who rise head and shoulders above the rest. George Will has always been one of those guys, in my book. To me, he is the epitome of what an intelligent journalist should be.
Now, I don’t agree with everything in his generally excellent hit piece on the president and his bizarre pick for the SCOTUS, and I certainly don’t accept the premise of "constitutionality," but there is often cause for decorum and at least operating within the boundaries of accepted good sense and seriousness.
Under the rubric of "diversity" — nowadays, the first refuge
of intellectually disreputable impulses — the president announced,
surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity
politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical
representation. Identity politics holds that one’s essential attributes
are genetic, biological, ethnic or chromosomal — that one’s nature and
understanding are decisively shaped by race, ethnicity or gender.
Categorical representation holds that the interests of a group can only
be understood, empathized with and represented by a member of that
When is the last time you saw a mainstream journalist competently grapple with a philosophical issue of such import? None, that I know of. I seriously doubt that 1 in 10 would even be able to grasp what Will is saying, let alone the implications involved.
The crowning absurdity of the president’s wallowing
in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is,
like a legislature, an institution of representation. This from a
president who, introducing Miers, deplored judges who "legislate from
Minutes after the president announced the
nomination of his friend from Texas, another Texas friend, Robert
Jordan, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was on Fox News proclaiming
what he and, no doubt, the White House that probably enlisted him for
advocacy, considered glad and relevant tidings: Miers, said Jordan, has
been a victim. She has been, he said contentedly, "discriminated
against" because of her gender.
Her victimization was not
so severe that it prevented her from becoming the first female
president of a Texas law firm as large as hers, president of the State
Bar of Texas and a senior White House official. Still, playing the
victim card clarified, as much as anything has so far done, her
credentials, which are her chromosomes and their supposedly painful
consequences. For this we need a conservative president?
I’m beginning to see predictions round and about that this nomination will be toast within days, either withdrawn, or Myers herself will bow out. I’m beginning to believe that Bush is an idiot — his only virtue…well, I can’t really remember, anymore.