Decision ‘08

Weekly Jackass Number Forty-Six: Molly Ivins

Maybe it’s because I’m a Texan myself, and one with a pretty heavy accent to boot, but I am particularly annoyed by that certain breed of aw-shucks, cornpone punditry typified by former Weekly Jackass Jim Hightower and our newest award-winner, Molly Ivins. These faux populists with their folksy, belabored mannerisms (reminiscent also of the extremely annoying Ann Richards) have as little to do with the spirit of modern Texas as Paris Hilton does to actual accomplishment.

Now, the opponents of the Miers nomination have begun to capture my attention with some quite excellent arguments, but their reasoning is in danger of being drowned out by the shrill, prepesterous rantings of partisan hacks such as Ivins. You see, Ivins has figured something out: Harriet Miers professes to be a Christian. And that, you see, totally disqualfies her from government service of any kind.

Do I exaggerate? Tell me, then, how to interpret the following:

Uh-oh. Now we are in trouble. Doesn’t take much to read the tea leaves on the Harriet Miers nomination. First, it’s Bunker Time at the White House. Miers’ chief qualification for this job is loyalty to George W. Bush and the team. What the nomination means in larger terms for both law and society is the fifth vote on the court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

…Miers, like Bush himself, is classic Texas conservative Establishment, with the addition of Christian fundamentalism. What I mean by fundamentalist is one who believes in both biblical inerrancy and salvation by faith alone.

…Miers’ church states on its Web site that it believes in biblical inerrancy, full immersion baptism, original sin and salvation dependent entirely upon accepting Jesus Christ. Everyone else is going to hell.

I have said for years about people in public life, ”I don’t write about sex, drugs or rock ‘n’ roll.” If I had my druthers, I wouldn’t write about the religion of those in public life, either, as I consider it a most private matter. Separation of church and state is in the Constitution because this country was founded by people who had experienced both religious persecution and state-supported religions. I think John F. Kennedy’s 1960 statement to the Baptist ministers should stand as a model of how public servants should handle the relation between religious belief and public service.

Nevertheless, we are now beset by people who insist on dragging religion into governance - and who themselves believe they are beset by people determined to ”drive God from the public square.”

This division has been in part created by and certainly aggravated by those seeking political advantage. It is a recipe for an incredibly damaging and serious split in this country and I believe we all need to think long and carefully before doing anything to make it worse.

As an 1803 quote attributed to James Madison goes: ”The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”

So, to recap; because Harriet Miers is, from all indications a self-professed Christian, and (get ready, conspiracy buffs!) so is George W. Bush(!!!) (never mind that so are 70.8% of Americans - or that 54% are affiliated with religions of a Protestant nature that, yes, teach salvation through faith and not works, a reform necessary because of such practices as ’selling’ of salvation through indulgences in the Middle Ages), that means religion is being dragged into the public debate, something that Molly would never, ever, ever do - except maybe this once.

And people wonder why the Left is perceived as being hostile to people of religious faith.

You don’t have to be a Christian to see that this argument is not one of the better ones to oppose Miers with - indeed, it is an argument worthy of a Jackass - of the Weekly variety, of course…

UPDATE 5:15 p.m.: Depressingly, voices on the right that I respect are making the same argument (hat tip to Academic Elephant); on what basis is the assumption made that, because Harriet Miers is a Christian (even a (gasp!) evangelical Christian), she is unsuited for the court? Would we tolerate similar suspicion if the nominee were an Orthodox Jew? This is religious bigotry of the kind that is usually attributed to…evangelicals…

17 Responses to “Weekly Jackass Number Forty-Six: Molly Ivins”

1 AcademicElephant Says:
October 5th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
Ivins isn’t the only one who’s making hay out of the fact that Miers is an evangelical–the Corner is turning the appointment into some sort of secret Rovian conspiracy to “reward the faithful”:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_10_02_corner-archive.asp#078707

And that’s Podhoretz.

I’m telling you, this is just like post-Katrina. Everyone has gone nuts.
2 Knemon Says:
October 5th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
” If I had my druthers, I wouldn’t write about the religion of those in public life, either”

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight
*
Yeah, NRO is getting the vapors big-time. Ledeen is chillin’, Goldberg is snarkin’ but also wait-and-seein’. Pretty much everyone else has lost it. (Don’t know what Derbyshire thinks - he seems to enjoy being the odd man out there, so he’s probably going to come out in favor).
3 Knemon Says:
October 5th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
Stanley Kurtz is also copacetic. Generally the ones I typically respect/agree with are at least rational about it (Ponnuru is POd but hardly hysterical), and the usual suspects - “JPod” and “K-Lo” (ggrrrr) - are birthing kittens.
4 Knemon Says:
October 5th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
An example of “JPod”s style:

“That argument is beneath contempt, so I will treat it with the contempt it deserves.”

Grrrrrrr.
5 utron Says:
October 5th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
I’m surprised Ivins avoided being inducted into the ranks of the asinine for this long. Her style is as obnoxious and affected as MoDo’s, and that column where she blamed Bush for a million Iraqi war dead qualified her as an Insta-Jackass. Of course, she did follow that up with a retraction, something she does about as often as a total solar eclipse. Her current column ties in nicely with the flap over at the Huffington Post from the folks who think a Florida reading contest using The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is the stomping jackboot of theocracy.

Re: The Corner, my impression differs a bit from Knemon’s. Most of them seem to be taking stands fairly similar to Jonah’s, i.e. it’s a cruddy appointment but let’s wait and see how the confirmation hearings go. Did I miss some particularly outrageous overstatement?
6 utron Says:
October 5th, 2005 at 5:26 pm
I should have followed Academic Elephant’s link before commenting. Yep, that’s pretty ridiculous.
7 Knemon Says:
October 5th, 2005 at 5:35 pm
“Most of them seem to be taking stands fairly similar to Jonah’s”

Scrolling through the corner I see that you’re right - many of them are doing outrage row-back. Their initial reactions are preserved, though, and tweren’t pretty.
8 Knemon Says:
October 5th, 2005 at 5:36 pm
It’s interesting to note how quickly the conservative punditocracy can snap out of such tantrums. To Kos, I’m sure, this shows that they’re foot soldiers falling into line - to me it’s a sign of maturity.
9 Knemon Says:
October 5th, 2005 at 5:38 pm
One last thing:
“Huffington Post from the folks who think a Florida reading contest using The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is the stomping jackboot of theocracy.”

I tried to leave a one-word comment on that Huffington post: “Philistines.”

Didn’t make it through screening. Maybe I should’ve included a subject and verb?
10 Clint Says:
October 5th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
Deeply ironic:

“we are now beset by people who insist on dragging religion into governance - and who themselves believe they are beset by people determined to ‘’drive God from the public square.’’”

… and that’s why Harriet Miers should be driven from the public square, unless she renounces her faith.

*sigh*
11 AcademicElephant Says:
October 5th, 2005 at 5:54 pm
Re The Corner–I’m not so sure about the roll-back. Yesterday, “K-Lo” did the whole “she works to hard” thing, and today she and Kate O’Bierne were both on about how her credentials as a pioneering female lawyer counted against her. Following on their performance in the days right after Katrina, it’s very disappointing. Goldberg and Ledeen and Kurtz remain reasonable, but the others are actually saying things like, “look, we disagree with Bush, we have intellectual legitimacy.” RedState is actually doing a roll-back–Ruffini’s post from yesterday is the “most recommended.”
12 Knemon Says:
October 5th, 2005 at 5:57 pm
“credentials as a pioneering female lawyer counted against her”

I’m as un-feminist as the next Hallifascist, but still - K-LO’s got some serious issues when it comes to the whole woman thing. Am I wrong?
13 AcademicElephant Says:
October 5th, 2005 at 6:10 pm
I don’t know her Knemon, so I can’t speak for her. I did find the exchange very disturbing, as me there’s a serious difference between Feminisim as an ideology that demands special treatment and quotas in response to centuries of perceived grievances and feminism as the pursuit of equal treatment for women through merit. This involves hard work and perserverance–rather like creating a viable conservative presence in academia. Feminism is a blight and a disgrace; feminism is in all of our best interests. The problem comes, in my mind, when those who’s greatest fear is to be associated with Feminisim denigrate innocent, even heroic feminists.

This comment smacks of too many angels dancing on the head of a pin–I’m going to think about it because there may be a post coming on.
14 Knemon Says:
October 5th, 2005 at 6:17 pm
“I don’t know her Knemon, so I can’t speak for her.”

Obviously we can’t see into her psyche - but on the surface, that’s how it seems to me.
15 AcademicElephant Says:
October 5th, 2005 at 6:27 pm
You’re right Knemon, I spend a lot of time analyzing people I don’t know. I guess I don’t want to fall into the trap with her that she’s fallen into with Miers.

If I were a snarky person I might say that she spends far too much time pointing out that she’s a woman and she’s in charge of that blog, and I might say that that is not exactly a small-f feminist thing to do, but fortunately I’m not snarky.
16 Mark Says:
October 5th, 2005 at 6:41 pm
Knemon, it’s quite difficult to get anything past the Huff’n'Puffer screening…
17 AcademicElephant Says:
October 5th, 2005 at 7:20 pm
Maureen Dowd today:

“Bushie and Harriet share the same born-again Christian faith, which they came to in midlife, deciding to adopt Jesus Christ as their saviors. The Washington Post reported that she tithes to the Valley View Christian Church in Dallas, ”where anti-abortion literature is sometimes distributed and tapes from the conservative group Focus on the Family are sometimes screened,” and where, when she returns, Ms. Miers asks well-wishers to pray for her and the president.”

Birds of a feather, I suppose.