In Her Own Words - New York Times
The New York Times

October 13, 2005
Op-Ed Columnist

In Her Own Words
By
DAVID BROOKS

Of all the words written about Harriet Miers, none are more disturbing than
the ones she wrote herself. In the early 90's, while she was president of
the
Texas bar association, Miers wrote a column called "President's Opinion" for
The Texas Bar Journal. It is the largest body of public writing we have from
her, and sad to say, the quality of thought and writing doesn't even rise to
the level of pedestrian.

Of course, we have to make allowances for the fact that the first job of any
association president is to not offend her members. Still, nothing excuses
sentences like this:

"More and more, the intractable problems in our society have one answer:
broad-based intolerance of unacceptable conditions and a commitment by many
to
fix problems."

Or this: "We must end collective acceptance of inappropriate conduct and
increase education in professionalism."

Or this: "When consensus of diverse leadership can be achieved on issues of
importance, the greatest impact can be achieved."

Or passages like this: "An organization must also implement programs to
fulfill strategies established through its goals and mission. Methods for
evaluation
of these strategies are a necessity. With the framework of mission, goals,
strategies, programs, and methods for evaluation in place, a meaningful
budgeting
process can begin."

Or, finally, this: "We have to understand and appreciate that achieving
justice for all is in jeopardy before a call to arms to assist in obtaining
support
for the justice system will be effective. Achieving the necessary
understanding and appreciation of why the challenge is so important, we can
then turn
to the task of providing the much needed support."

I don't know if by mere quotation I can fully convey the relentless march of
vapid abstractions that mark Miers's prose. Nearly every idea is vague and
depersonalized. Nearly every debatable point is elided. It's not that Miers
didn't attempt to tackle interesting subjects. She wrote about unequal
access
to the justice system, about the underrepresentation of minorities in the
law and about whether pro bono work should be mandatory. But she presents no
arguments or ideas, except the repetition of the bromide that bad things can
be eliminated if people of good will come together to eliminate bad things.

Or as she puts it, "There is always a necessity to tend to a myriad of
responsibilities on a number of cases as well as matters not directly
related to
the practice of law." And yet, "Disciplining ourselves to provide the
opportunity for thought and analysis has to rise again to a high priority."

Throw aside ideology. Surely the threshold skill required of a Supreme Court
justice is the ability to write clearly and argue incisively. Miers's
columns
provide no evidence of that.

The Miers nomination has reopened the rift between conservatives and
establishment Republicans.

The conservative movement was founded upon the supposition that ideas have
consequences. Conservatives have founded so many think tanks, magazines and
organizations,
like the Federalist Society, because they believe that you have to win
arguments to win political power. They dream of Supreme Court justices
capable of
writing brilliant opinions that will reshape the battle of ideas.

Republicans, who these days are as likely to be members of the corporate
establishment as the evangelical establishment, are more suspicious of
intellectuals
and ideas, and more likely to believe that politics is about deal-making,
loyalty and power. You know you are in establishment Republican circles when
the conversation is bland but unifying. You know you are in conservative
circles when it is interesting but divisive. Conservatives err by becoming
irresponsible.
Republicans tend to be blown about haplessly by forces they cannot
understand.

For the first years of his presidency, George Bush healed the division
between Republicans and conservatives by pursuing big conservative goals
with ruthless
Republican discipline. But Harriet Miers has shown no loyalty to
conservative institutions like the Federalist Society. Her loyalty has been
to the person
of the president, and her mental style seems to be Republicanism on stilts.

So conservatives are caught between loyalty to their ideas and loyalty to
the president they admire. Most of them have come out against Miers -
quietly
or loudly. Establishment Republicans are displaying their natural loyalty to
leadership. And Miers is caught in the vise between these two forces, a
smart
and good woman who has been put in a position where she cannot succeed.

List of 11 items
. Copyright 2005
The New York Times Company

Posted by Miriam V.