Goldberg on WFB

I suspect that in due time Jonah Goldberg will be recognized as the preeminant historian of the Conservative movement. I haven't read Nash (I'll throw his name onto the ever-growing list), but as it was first published 30 years ago, we can surely use a new one.

"But I should say this: William F. Buckley understood that conservatism can only be a partial philosophy of life, because any calling which claims to be a whole philosophy of life is not one at all. It is a religion, and in all likelihood a false one. Armed with this conviction, he changed the world by arguing with those who could not comprehend that a man could be joyful, charming, generous, and passionate about hobbies and people far outside politics while walking against what all the right people insisted was the tide of All Good Things. In this he remains the archetype for conservatism, properly understood.

Conservatives believe in dreams but we don’t believe they can ever be made reality in this life. Nonetheless, when Bill Buckley once asked, “Have you ever seen a dream walking?” he may not have realized that for conservatives, at least, he was the answer to his own question."

Looking forward to the book!

Kate O'Beirne to Harriet Miers

Who said the people at NRO are all mean and spiteful?

Harriet, the hearings are going to be an embarrassing disaster. You’re being asked to do something you can’t reasonably be expected to do. You are not protected by a sterling resume or years of experience that put gaps in your knowledge or mistakes about cases in proportion. The smart money is betting you won’t be confirmed. (Are you being told that?)

Your decision to accept the nomination was ill-considered. If you accepted owing to your desire to help the president, you should know that nomination has only damaged him. That is the last thing a loyalist like you would ever want to be responsible for. It’s not your fault. As the ads say, even the best of presidents can make mistakes and your boss was poorly served by others on his staff. Someone should have insisted that you be put through the vetting wringer. Your paper trail should have been thoroughly reviewed by veteran screeners who don’t work directly for you. The negative reaction should have been foreseen and you should have been told about the angry opponents your nomination would generate.

Maybe the past three weeks have taught you something. Maybe you love your current job, your current boss, and your supportive colleagues. Maybe this ordeal is too unpleasant, personal, and divisive to persevere with for a job you have never had any interest in.

A friend only concerned with your well-being would tell you to withdraw. Issue a simple statement about the divisiveness among the president’s fellow loyal supporters and explain that you enjoy your current life. You’re grateful for the support you have received and trust it will be there for another nominee you will do everything in your power to assist.

Then resolve to work less and spend more time with your caring friends. We all need them.

Sincerely,

Your Friend

Nice work, people ...

"No conservative should be in a celebratory mood now that Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination. For one thing, reasonable conservatives who considered her unqualified for the Supreme Court conceded that she has had an accomplished career and that she has served the president loyally and, for the most part, well. Gloating would be unseemly. For another thing, the object of conservative agitation against Miers was to get a solid justice confirmed. So the conservative opponents of her nomination have not yet won a victory."

NRO says they won't (or shouldn't) celebrate, but can they take credit? Definitely. David Frum had to have been the most prominent, certainly the most assertive, critic of the nomination. I think he got the ball rolling based on impending rumors, even before the nomination was made. Next time maybe W will trust NRO.

Goldberg on the First Amendmant

The money quote:

The First Amendment was intended to keep political speech free; everything else was open to debate. Today, the leaders of the First Amendment industry see it exactly the other way around.