The conventional wisdom for the last week, which I’ve largely bought into, is that Bush nominated Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court out of weakness. With his political support in freefall, the argument goes, Bush didn’t want a massive political fight over a well-known right-winger right now, so he picked a nominee who could generate broader support.
Indeed, this is a popular way to look at the selection, particularly on the right. Rush Limbaugh said, “This is a pick that was made from weakness.” Pat Buchanan said, “President Bush ducked the fight.”
Ron Brownstein has me almost convinced, however, that the conventional wisdom is wrong here. Bush didn’t pick Miers because he’s feeling week; he was simply motivated by the same arrogance that drives all of his decisions.
…Bush picked Miers because he felt strong, not weak. Remember that Bush, throughout his presidency, has repeatedly demonstrated that he believes leadership is more about following his personal convictions, regardless of outside opinion, than building consensus. When he has the power to implement his ideas, he usually does, no matter how much critics complain.
After his victories in earlier judicial skirmishes, Bush may have calculated that nearly all Senate Republicans (and even many red state Senate Democrats) would feel compelled to support any but the most ideologically aggressive choices available to him (such as Brown). That probably convinced him he could make a selection he knew would please him more than it pleased almost anyone else (including some of his own advisors).
To select Miers, Bush bypassed a long list of prominent federal judges who are known quantities to the conservative movement, but just names on a page to him. Instead, he picked someone who is a known quantity to him, but barely a name on the page to them. He placed so much weight on the factors important to him (personal chemistry and trust) that he ignored the factors important to them (principally a tangible record on constitutional issues).
When the right recoiled at Miers’ selection, Bush’s aides and defenders argued that conservatives should put their trust not in her, but in him. In effect, they maintained that if Miers was good enough for Bush, she should be good enough for all conservatives.
I think this is largely right. All last week, as Bush rose repeatedly to defend Miers, the defense boiled down to three words, “She’s my pick.” Bush is accustomed to Republicans taking his orders at face value and following them. Sure, it’s the height of arrogance, but it’s also how Bush has always operated.
With a vacancy on the court, it would have been odd for Bush to consider the landscape and say, “Better pick a moderate who can garner broad support.” It’s far more his nature to say, “I know Miers; she’s loyal and has a good heart. My gut says she’s good, so she’s the right choice.”
Under this scenario, weakness is irrelevant. It’s likely that Bush knew the right would be upset — I’ve lost count of how many times Gary Bauer has said he begged Bush aides not to go with Miers — but a man driven by too much confidence finds it easy to conclude that his base will come around. He’s the top Republican, Bush assumed, so Republicans will get in line behind him.
Unfortunately for the president, he’s learning that his support was thinner than it was wide.