It is a sign of the relative strength of the conservative movement over its liberal counterpart that the former is capable of generating new arguments that are both plausible and interesting, whereas the latter are not. I have written below of E. J. Dionne's sudden discovery that a President elected by a small majority, and a Senate that is non-majoritarian by design, have no right to fill Supreme Court vacancies. That's a new idea to be sure, but hardly a useful contribution to the debate.
From the conservative side a defense of the Robert's nomination has emerged that is somewhat novel, and surely worth thinking about. This from David Brooks in the New York Times (hat tip to RealClear Politics):
Roberts nomination, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways. . . . I love thee because John G. Roberts is the face of today's governing conservatism. Conservatives who came of age in the 1960's did so in an intensely ideological time when it was arduous to be on the right. People from that generation are more likely to have a dissident mentality, to want to storm the ramparts of the liberal establishment, to wade in to vanquish their foes in the war of ideas.
But John Roberts didn't enter Harvard until the fall of 1973. He missed all that sturm und drang, so he lacks, his former colleagues say, the outsider/dissident mentality. By the time he came of age, it was easier for a conservative to be comfortable in mainstream institutions, without feeling embattled or spoiling for a fight.
The argument here is that it takes one kind of conservative to take power (consider Newt Gingrich) and another to effectively govern. Roberts, Brooks thinks, is of the latter sort. And such men are necessary if the conservative position in politics is to be sustained.
And then there is William Kristol's piece from the Weekly Standard:
IT TAKES AN INSURRECTION TO change a country. It takes an establishment to govern one. Conservatives want both to change and to govern America. Thus we need our dissatisfied, troublemaking, occasionally splenetic, sometimes raffish anti-establishmentarians. After all, without brave resistance and bold insurrection on the part of conservatives, liberal orthodoxy and institutions would still dominate American life.
But insurrection isn't enough. At some point, the radicals need assistance, support, and reinforcement from establishment conservatives--individuals ill-suited to insurrection but well-suited to rising through the institutions and moving them gradually but meaningfully in a conservative direction. Thus, we need our sober, calm, and respectable establishmentarians. Conservatives also need to be able to put together majorities--in public opinion, in Congress, and on the courts. The conservative tent therefore has to be a big one. As a Supreme Court justice, John Roberts will be an important (and, we trust, happy) camper in that tent.
To be sure, there are risks in this argument. Accepting it, conservatives may dilute their movement to the point that nothing has been achieved. But probably Brooks and Kristol are right. If John Roberts is in fact a genuine conservative, then he is probably the perfect pick for the Court. Not only does he appear to be easily confirmable, but he is likely to be the sort who can persuade others that his decisions are reasonable and acceptable. That is the way to achieve and sustain real change.
Recent Comments