Chicago Columnist Illinois Leader Political Analyst Entrepreneur Business Advisor Illinois Review

SEIFFE:  Trusting Bush

Thursday, October 13, 2005

By Ralf Seiffe

President Bush’s nomination of another “B-2” stealth candidate for the Supreme court has conservatives wondering what he meant during both campaigns. Republican voters rightly wonder why, with many clear conservative choices available, we are served two less obvious defenders of limited government. 

This nomination and some of President Bush’s other curious choices might be explained by thinking about him not as a conservative but as a governmentalist.  

Harriet Meirs may be, as President Bush said, the best possible choice, but there is little public evidence of that. The president has had the benefit of knowing her for a decade and from having her on the White House staff since he came up from Austin . From that relationship, he probably does know what's in her heart and head, a benefit his father did not have with David Souter.

Politicians who know the nominee quickly gave us the benefit of their experience with Miers. Jon Cornyn, the Texas senator not indicted by Ronnie Earle, published an editorial in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal endorsing the nominee and cataloging the reasons why she is a better choice than someone from the appellate courts or from inside the beltway. In addition, politicians who know the president but are not well-acquainted with Miers gave secondary endorsements based on the president's experience with her.

Accepting this nomination, then, is a matter of trusting the president's judgment. We are asked to believe that Miss Meirs is the perfect choice because the president says so. At the same time, the lack of a paper trail will frustrate Democrat character assassins.  

This argument hasn't won over leading conservative pundits. Sean Hannity was downright skeptical when Orrin Hatch appeared on his radio program and Rush Limbaugh, having questioned the choice on his show, made an appearance on Greta Van Sustern's show to make sure the message got out. Their compliant was not directed at Miers, per se but at the lack of information about her.

When Chuck Schumer expressed pleasant surprise at both of Bush's Supreme Court nominations over the weekend, conservatives took notice. This was the equivalent of the camel's derriere disappearing into the tent. On the other hand, suppose Schumer stays in character and was able to exhume some generation-old memo with which to challenge Miss Miers. It would be wonderful to see her remind the senior senator from New York that she was a Democrat when she had written it and that her humor had improved considerably since switching party.

As fascinating as that scene might be and as revealing as it could be, the president's judgment is still the only thread suspending conservatives' judicial hopes. They have reason to worry. Throughout his presidency, George Bush has disappointed conservatives with a series of actions that appear inexplicable. These include working with Ted Kennedy with education; signing Campaign Finance and supporting the Prescription Drug Bill. Is Miers another?

If you believe that “big government conservative” is a non-sequiter then you probably are wondering about these curious choices, too. Could there be an explanation that rationalizes all these actions?

There is: George Bush is more a governmentalist than a conservative.

I have no idea what goes on in the president's noggin but his actions that appear to conflict with conservative notions might be explained by considering Bush to be a businessman. His business is government and like all managers, he's always searching for way to make his business more useful. That means expanding the mission, finding strategic alliances and squashing the competition.

Seen from this point-of-view, the presidents's loopy domestic choices become easier to understand. No doubt he understands the disaster that is education so a governmentalist sees this as a mission government can undertake. For Bush, there was no sense in trying to invent a relationship with educators; they already own Teddy Kennedy so why not go see him and cut a deal?

Neither do I doubt that the president sincerely thought the Supreme Court would find Campaign Finance Reform unconstitutional. As a conservative, the president should have vetoed it himself, rather than wait for the courts. But, as a governmentalist, signing the bill was the best thing to do extend himself to the congress while waiting for the court to act. When the court was unable to understand “Congress shall make no law...” the pols gave themselves an incumbent protection act. Incumbency reduces risks for governmentalists.

Prescription Drug benefits could actually be a theory to hold down the cost of Medicare by substituting pills for procedures.. If that was its explicit purpose, conservatives might think it acceptable; holding government costs down is a conservative goal. Conservative means, however, would have included some method for younger Americans to provide for their needs as seniors, in a privately financed way.

We'll soon see how Bush the governmentalist reacts to the recommendations of the Tax Commission. He has already hobbled it by insisting on a priori preferences for home ownership and progressivity; conservatives hope for lower but broader rates but the preconditions will keep the recommendations uninteresting. This will take the steam out of the demand of reform and that suits governmentalists because they prefer the power that a complex and unpredictable tax code confers.

Finally, what about Harriet Miers? Conservatives believe the job of a Supreme Court judge is to absolutely defend the Constitution, a task that cannot be compromised. Miss Miers' estimable resume is a study in accomplishment but as far as I can tell, it has the hallmarks of compromise. Her elective office, large legal firm administration, trade association governance, White House staffing are all signal achievements but they are governmentistic.  Bush's choice is understandable for governmentalists; for conservatives its wisdom is a little more opaque.

© 2005 IllinoisLeader.com -- all rights reserved

Ralf Seiffe advises business start-ups and product launches from Chicago, Illinois and is a political analyst and columnist for the Illinois Leader.