The most fascinating aspect of the Political High Noon now unfolding around a Supreme Court seat (and it soon may be soon be two seats) is that it’s a classic case of chickens coming home to roost…on all sides.
No matter who is nominated, how the nominee fares, and how many political bodies will be needed to confirm or halt the nominee, when the smoke has cleared — and the political blood has been washed away — the political landscape will be forever changed. And, likely, changed a great deal. Just look at what’s facing each side participating in or impacted by this drama:
THE DEMOCRATS: Ever since Bill Clinton left office the Democratic party has been meeting — or exceeding — lowered expectations. The present battle is the culimination of the party leadership’s past all-thumbs performances.
The Democrats have seemed to lack a cohesive strategy, a consistent message, and notably a sensitivity to swing voters’ fears and desires for stability. From the perspective of some Democrats, ANY candidate put up by the Bush White House may be too conservative to be acceptable. Indeed: the compromise on the “nuclear option” on judicial nominee was not welcome news to everyone.
Impact on Democrats: The party’s Congressional leadership today seems far more professional and disciplined under the consistently underrated Harry Reid, who seems to be emerging in Democratic eyes as kind of a modern day Harry Truman. The Democrats’ dilemma is this: they must PICK AND CHOOSE their most bitter battles or the GOP’s portrait of the party as obstructionists could gain traction.
If the Democrats fail to stop a super-conservative, polarizing nominee it will be widely interpreted by the conventional-wisdom embracing news media as yet another sign that the minority party will remain just that.
If they can make the case that X nominee is too extreme and stop him or her, it’ll be touted by the news media as yet another sign of George Bush morphing into a lame duck before the nation’s eyes.
But if they overplay their hand and seem strictly obstructionist, the party could suffer. WHAT THE DEMOCRATS NEED: A cohesive, sound-byte friendly presentation of the party’s position. And the ability perhaps to not go to the mat to stop a Bush choice if it is someone who is relatively moderate. Picking and choosing one’s fiercest battles never hurt anyone.
Ralph Nader And Ralph Nader Voters: They insisted in 2000 and 2004 that there was no difference between the two parties. Tell THAT to Social Conservatives, will you?
History will NOT judge Ralph Nader or his followers kindly. Clearly, there WAS a difference between these two parties and each voter (or reader) can support either one. But Nader’s (and his supporters’) contention that it really didn’t matter if a Republican or Democrat got in can now be seen as, at best, a naive assertion, or, at worst, a knowing political falsehood blatantly used to gain votes while posing as someone different than than two parties that were already different.
The battle over the Supreme Court justices will be the final shovel of dirt thrown in Ralph Nader’s grave as a serious, perceptive analyst who offered a third alternative to many Americans. The only way for Nader voters (and Nader) to HONESTLY swallow the argument that a Republican or Democratic election didn’t matter would be if they became as ideologically blinded as many on the right and left are with their talking points.
Ralph Nader doesn’t drive — but he drove many independents over the cliff to a political dead end.
SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES: This is the moment they have genuinely, passionately and earnestly worked their tails off for — the moment they have literally prayed for. And now it’s truly within their grasp. If politics is to reward those members of a constituency that worked the hardest for a candidate or a party, the case can indeed be made that it’s time for a payoff to social conservatives. Yet, this moment did not have to be filled with such hatred — and not just because of the left. Social conservatives’ take-no-prisoners s political style could spark a backlash by swing voters and moderates from both parties — even if the social conservatives get the judges they want…which is, in fact, likely.
And if they don’t get what they want? They will be extremely bitter, after having provided the foot-soldiers for the GOP resurgence.
The social conservative’s big error is stylistic: there is little effort to truly CONVINCE people and bring additional people into the fold. So how can “the movement” expand politically?
Some landmark liberal Supreme Court rulings in the 50s, 60s and 70s help spawn the modern conservative movement. Are social conservatives planting the seeds of a 21st century backlash that’ll unite economic conservatives, independent and moderate swing voters and Democrats? It IS a possibility; you can win a legislative battle and lose the long-term electoral war…even if the courts will be for years on your side.
The Republican Party: The Republican party now has it all — even Public Television and mass media infrasturture boasting a strong, consistently cohesive messaged media presence. Its victory was partially due to the coalition of social conservatives, economic conservatives — and swing voters who distrusted the Democrats as being too extreme or not tough enough on national security. But recent missteps — particularly those in Congress involving the increasingly hapless and ambition-drooling Majority Leader Bill Frist — have made the GOP the seem extreme.
Who would have ever thought we’d EVER see the day when Alberto Gonzales would be considered by some Republicans to be a threat to the Republican agenda??? The GOP leadership is now trying to put some political duct tape on these influential angry voices within its own party who could alarm some voters.
The GOPers in Congress will have the votes, if they want, to eliminate the filibuster and put in anyone except a bona fide extremist. The next two GWB judges can help overturn Roe (or at least dilute it), which would purge America of a divisive issue (for a while)…but could ALSO cause a political party realignment — with the Republican losing a batch of supporters. But if the GOP doesn’t vote in judge(s) who excite conservatives, social conservatives will feel betrayed after years of loyal work.
The Republican dilemma again thus becomes: it needs the Social Conservatives and many of the party elite are on the same wavelenth as them. But it could easily lose other members of its coalition if it seems the social conservative tail is wagging the elephant.
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: GWB’s whole political style does not lend itself to defusing controversies and — despite his 2000 slogan — uniting. The style that won him the Oval Office, and gained him admirers in the GOP who were sick of the more wimpish candidacies of Senator Bob Dole and the older George Bush, is working against him on this nomination. Few olive branches have been extended to Democrats — even for high-profile perfunctory consultations (talks that he could later just ignore and do what he wants anyway).
Bush doesn’t like being pushed around. So it seems to be the supreme political irony that there’s a chance now that he won’t propose his friend and protege Gonzales due to anger bubbling up from the party’s conservative base. Bush promised unabashedly conservative judges and social conservatives are taking him at his word.
Bush raised the hopes of the social conservatives in his two campaigns that if they’d just go out there and work hard for him, they could have a court that would greater reflect their values. Period. It’s hard for him to fudge on that one. There would be political fallout. Bigtime.
The American Electorate: We know where most Democrats and Republicans stand. But swing voters and centrists — the significant number of Americans who are in the middle — have some choices to make.
Polls have shown that swing voters are sick of partisanship — yet the U.S. is poised to begin some of the most partisan months ever. Swing voters may feel a judge is OK but detest the process and/or tactics used to get him/her in. Moderates and centrists may object to the attempted use of the filibuster or tactics used to oppose judges.
The issues to many swing voters will be the prospective judge’s ideas and the quality of debate employed by each side to press/oppose the nomination. In the end, moderates, centrists and other swing voters may have to take a stand — if for no other reason than to let their elected reps know how much they admire or deplore the nominating hearings. They need to let them know that they WILL vote to reward/punish the side that seems the most strident or extreme — that their vote is up for grabs but could be out of their grasp.
UPDATE: The Christian Science Monitor takes up the fact that with Sandra Day O’Connor’s resignation there’s a chance the court may be minus one woman…but that this increases the prospect that a Hispanic will be appointed. Key quote in the story:
Still, as soon as O’Connor announced her resignation, the White House made clear it would consider women nominees. The Bush administration has also floated the name of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, raising expectations of a historic nomination of the first Hispanic to the high court.
“I suppose he can get away with not selecting a woman if he selects a Hispanic,” says John Zogby, an independent pollster. “That’s the only scenario, though. .. White guys need not apply this time.”
For this White House, placing women and minorities in high-level appointments is not a matter of political correctness. It is the way Mr. Bush has operated throughout his political life – often counting women and minorities among his most trusted advisers, and openly admiring the battles they have faced to get where they are.
Update II: A report in The Hill suggests that picking Gonzales would actually be a more tranquil route since support for him among Senate GOPers remains strong despite conservative backlash — and he would probably be confirmed.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.