The Interocitor

Why Stealth?

There are three reasons given for George Bush's choice of Harriet Miers:

• She is a long-term associate of his, and he knows how she thinks.
• She is a born-again Christian, and Bush wants this group represented on the Court.
• There is no paper trail, making informed opposition difficult.

The first two points, from Bush's point of view make perfect sense. The last one begs a question: just whom is this "stealth" aimed at?

One naturally would assume that it is aimed at the Democratic opposition, but this doesn't really make any sense. The Democrats have, as their highest priority, preserving the "abortion right" and furthering increased social liberalism. This is nearly the only area where Harriet Miers views are predictable, and the Democrats will not be happy with them. If there is stealth here, it is only in Democrat's hopes: maybe she's a moderate in other areas.

But it is becoming increasingly clear that President Bush's "stealth" strategy is aimed at Republicans, not Democrats.

In the Republican camp are at least three main groups:

• The Social Conservatives, or Christian Right, focused almost entirely on social and family issues.
• Traditional Republicans, who add smaller government, reduced economic regulation, lower taxes, a balanced budget, immigration control, state's rights, and a strong defense to a reduced or nonexistant interest in social issues.
• Libertarians, who add strong support for individual liberty to the Traditional Republicans' economic and defense issues, while being generally unsupportive of the immigration or social agenda.

Traditional Republicans make up the bulk of the party, as always, with the Christian element growing and the libertarians on the defensive.

President Bush was elected as a Traditional Republican, but over his term he has increasingly tilted into the Christian camp, giving strong play to social conservatives while promoting large government initiatives at great cost, alienating the other two wings. Were it not for his strong National Defense policies, Bush's relations with Traditional Republicans would have weakened long since. Libertarians have been unhappy since McCain-Feingold was signed. Currently, George Bush is governing as a socially conservative, economically liberal advocate of a large and increasingly powerful federal government.

In the run-up to this Court nomination, nearly all of the leading judicial candidates were in of the Traditional Republican persuasion, with some nods to the other wings: judges like Scalia (social conservative tendencies) or Thomas (libertarian leanings). Apparently, this is not what George Bush wants on the Court. What he wants is a centrist on economic and liberty issues, supportive of federal power, coupled with an overriding commitment to the Christian Right's social agenda.

But to nominate someone who clearly has these qualifications would create a revolt in the Party, so we have Harriet Miers. The stealth is against us. I hope we realize it in time.

Those Republicans who still favor personal liberty, governmental restraint, prefer the local to the federal, and have little investment in the social conservative agenda, have much to lose from a Miers appointment.

Miers is our Souter. And it is no accident.

Update: Welcome Instapundit readers. Also check out Patterico's ongoing commentary on the Meirs nomination.

More: As I said.

Posted by Kevin Murphy at October 9, 2005 12:37 PM