Braveheart Again?
Remember the movie Braveheart? Although historical, it really is a conservative parable for our times. I think conservatives often see themselves as fighting for a righteous cause, against huge odds, getting so close and then having victory snatched away at the last moment by deceit, treachery or just plane bad judgment.
Ive finally realized that’s how I feel about the Miers pick. It is the Braveheart scenario, and we have been down this road before. Conservatives will never forgive Bush 1 for the Souter nomination. A chance to gain a majority was totally squandered because the president frankly didn’t give a damn. Now, 15 years later, conservative s are worried that we are in a replay of that moment. Victory lost through folly in a moment when the left would have surely charged forward.
Is that sense of betrayal by Bush 1, and the sensitivity to the Braveheart syndrome over blown? I don’t think so. Conservatives feel that they must constantly fight for their beliefs in a way I don’t think even they, or certainly liberals really appreciate. There is not a single situation, political discussion, current event or issue where the default conservative position is not one of badness, with the liberal default being one of goodness. On race, the environment, the economy, the conservative is used to having to first establish his bona fides, that he really doesn’t have nefarious ends, that yes, he cares about black people or whatever. It is almost pro forma that the conservative must first establish reasonableness and logic before others will listen. Liberals don’t have this burden. On any issue it is to be presumed that they are good hearted, that of course they care about the environment more, of course they care about black people, don’t be silly. They are not in the same kind of constant battle. That’s why I think what we are feeling now is unique to the right. We have fought, victory is close and now…. What?
This is why I find myself so frustrated with Bushs pick. Why am I in this battle? Why do I try and fight for my issues? Why go through the battle of establishing the logic of my position, try an advance my cause in whatever small way I can? Why do this when I have a day job and the man who has this as his profession cannot nominate from a position of strength?
Clearly I hope that Miers turns out to be a good pick. One difference between her and Souter is that she is known personally to Bush where as Souter was not. Regardless, even if she is a good pick and will advance the cause of freedom, I don’t think it does anything but embolden the enemy. When Clinton nominated Ruth Ginsburg, an ACLU lawyer, the republicans rolled over and didn’t challenge her nomination. The president should get his pick provided she is qualified, they said, and they were right. It gained the republicans nothing, no credibility for being fair, no treatment in return from the left. It was weakness and they only attacked more. That was then, this is now. Things are different. The New York Times has a credibility rating close to that of The National Enquirer. The press has nowhere near the power to throw chaff for the left that it once did. It would be nice if the man on deck could see what is apparent to those of us looking out our oar holes.
Remember the movie Braveheart? Although historical, it really is a conservative parable for our times. I think conservatives often see themselves as fighting for a righteous cause, against huge odds, getting so close and then having victory snatched away at the last moment by deceit, treachery or just plane bad judgment.
Ive finally realized that’s how I feel about the Miers pick. It is the Braveheart scenario, and we have been down this road before. Conservatives will never forgive Bush 1 for the Souter nomination. A chance to gain a majority was totally squandered because the president frankly didn’t give a damn. Now, 15 years later, conservative s are worried that we are in a replay of that moment. Victory lost through folly in a moment when the left would have surely charged forward.
Is that sense of betrayal by Bush 1, and the sensitivity to the Braveheart syndrome over blown? I don’t think so. Conservatives feel that they must constantly fight for their beliefs in a way I don’t think even they, or certainly liberals really appreciate. There is not a single situation, political discussion, current event or issue where the default conservative position is not one of badness, with the liberal default being one of goodness. On race, the environment, the economy, the conservative is used to having to first establish his bona fides, that he really doesn’t have nefarious ends, that yes, he cares about black people or whatever. It is almost pro forma that the conservative must first establish reasonableness and logic before others will listen. Liberals don’t have this burden. On any issue it is to be presumed that they are good hearted, that of course they care about the environment more, of course they care about black people, don’t be silly. They are not in the same kind of constant battle. That’s why I think what we are feeling now is unique to the right. We have fought, victory is close and now…. What?
This is why I find myself so frustrated with Bushs pick. Why am I in this battle? Why do I try and fight for my issues? Why go through the battle of establishing the logic of my position, try an advance my cause in whatever small way I can? Why do this when I have a day job and the man who has this as his profession cannot nominate from a position of strength?
Clearly I hope that Miers turns out to be a good pick. One difference between her and Souter is that she is known personally to Bush where as Souter was not. Regardless, even if she is a good pick and will advance the cause of freedom, I don’t think it does anything but embolden the enemy. When Clinton nominated Ruth Ginsburg, an ACLU lawyer, the republicans rolled over and didn’t challenge her nomination. The president should get his pick provided she is qualified, they said, and they were right. It gained the republicans nothing, no credibility for being fair, no treatment in return from the left. It was weakness and they only attacked more. That was then, this is now. Things are different. The New York Times has a credibility rating close to that of The National Enquirer. The press has nowhere near the power to throw chaff for the left that it once did. It would be nice if the man on deck could see what is apparent to those of us looking out our oar holes.
posted by R Huse at 7:56 AM
2 Comments:
I refuse to respond to the people who think that because I'm Republican that I must hate minorities, the environment, poor people, etc.
I think that our "establishing bona fides" is a ridiculous exercise that doesn't convince the people that hate us anyway.
As for the Miers pick... I'm very upset. We deserved better.
I feel pretty much the same way you do. Rather than try and defend and establish non racism, etc. I prefer to question the questioner. By pointing out what they are doing, questioning their assumption and questioning why they don't hold the left up to the same skepticism. Racism is perhaps the easiest. The vast majority of liberals have no idea who Robert Byrd is. The also don't like having pointed out that Clinton promised to appoint a cabinet that looks like America. Imagine my surprise that America looks like a bunch of rich white guys. On the environment, same thing I have never met a liberal, even tree sitters, who have any idea that Al Gore's family basically got its money from Armand Hammer ( who owned Occidental Petroleum ) yet they constantly refer to Bush being in bed with oil companies, why not Al Gore (who personally presided over the biggest federal land sale in history, the Elk Hills California Navel Petroleum reserve, to who? Occidental Petroleum of course)? While I don't expect to win in the first round with this stuff, I do hope to leave them feeling a little less smug. That no, I for one don't automatically give you the assumption of purity and good intentions while allowing you to question my motives. The shocking thing is for most of these people, this is the first time they have ever been questioned. Most think that simply saying they are a Democrat means they don't have to justify their stance on race issues. They are the good. On the environment, holding up a Sierra Club membership means their motives are against reproach. Not accepting their vestments of purity at face value, but really taking a look at the thread count is something they have never experienced. Its also a hell of a lot of fun. If you don't like it hippie, then I suggest you re read the bumper sticker on the back of your VW bus - Question Authority.
Post a Comment
<< Home