Borking Miers kills soldiers
How many will die?
I am really shocked and appalled at the failure of the anti-Miers bloggers to appreciate the costs of killing her nomination. All they seem to focus on is the benefit they perceive. Surely, they can't be so blind to the potential costs?
Some have pointed out that the tactics of the opposition to Miers seemed to be very similar to what we would expect from liberals. Apparently, the failure to do a cost-benefit analysis is another shared feature of this experience.
Liberals see a poor person and want to give out welfare. For liberals, that makes everything "all better" (as my daughter might say). Conservatives point out that policies have unintended consequences. Welfare, for example, breeds a crippling dependency. Raising the minimum wage is another policy that makes liberals happy because it "gives" workers more money. Everything is all better. But conservatives have to point out that the higher minimim wage increases unemployment. Everything is all better -- except for the folks who are much worse off. And the economic misallocations, etc.
The anti-Miers forces saw a Supreme Court nominee who failed to meet their standards. They hammered and hammered the president until Ms. Miers' nomination was withdrawn. And now, everything is all better.
At what cost? Is it possible that some damage might have been incurred somewhere? Doesn't anyone have any interest in exploring what that damage might be? Or even admit that it exists. In fact, wouldn't it have been a good idea to think about the cost side a little before the borking commenced?
Do I need to remind folks that we are war. This war is all about the media and the perception of American resolve. George W. Bush is on point in leading America in this war. His political enemies are unwilling to join the war effort. Many are working to degrade our ability to fight. So ultimately, the terrorists' focus is the defeat of the President. Everything that weakens Bush, strengthens and prolongs the terrorist's war effort. Anything that hurts W and weakens his political capital will likely lead to greater US casualties.
There are, of course, many other potential costs. For example, political initiatives which conservatives favor are likely to be damaged because the president has been weakened. And the perception of weakness cannot be helpful for GOP election efforts in 2006. But rather than engage in an exhaustive list, let's just focus on the war effort.
Bottom line -- borking Miers likely hurt our military efforts in the Mideast. It could very well result in more US casualties. Those who opposed her may well think that the benefit of removing her from the bench was worth the additional war dead and the political damage to the president and the GOP. I remain unconvinced.
What upsets me, however, is not how anyone chooses to resolve the political and moral calculus. It is not how much weight they choose to allocate to the perceived benefits and costs. They are entitled to their opinions. What upsets me is their apparent failure to even recognize the costs and undertake the analysis.
Everything is not "all better" now.
I am really shocked and appalled at the failure of the anti-Miers bloggers to appreciate the costs of killing her nomination. All they seem to focus on is the benefit they perceive. Surely, they can't be so blind to the potential costs?
Some have pointed out that the tactics of the opposition to Miers seemed to be very similar to what we would expect from liberals. Apparently, the failure to do a cost-benefit analysis is another shared feature of this experience.
Liberals see a poor person and want to give out welfare. For liberals, that makes everything "all better" (as my daughter might say). Conservatives point out that policies have unintended consequences. Welfare, for example, breeds a crippling dependency. Raising the minimum wage is another policy that makes liberals happy because it "gives" workers more money. Everything is all better. But conservatives have to point out that the higher minimim wage increases unemployment. Everything is all better -- except for the folks who are much worse off. And the economic misallocations, etc.
The anti-Miers forces saw a Supreme Court nominee who failed to meet their standards. They hammered and hammered the president until Ms. Miers' nomination was withdrawn. And now, everything is all better.
At what cost? Is it possible that some damage might have been incurred somewhere? Doesn't anyone have any interest in exploring what that damage might be? Or even admit that it exists. In fact, wouldn't it have been a good idea to think about the cost side a little before the borking commenced?
Do I need to remind folks that we are war. This war is all about the media and the perception of American resolve. George W. Bush is on point in leading America in this war. His political enemies are unwilling to join the war effort. Many are working to degrade our ability to fight. So ultimately, the terrorists' focus is the defeat of the President. Everything that weakens Bush, strengthens and prolongs the terrorist's war effort. Anything that hurts W and weakens his political capital will likely lead to greater US casualties.
There are, of course, many other potential costs. For example, political initiatives which conservatives favor are likely to be damaged because the president has been weakened. And the perception of weakness cannot be helpful for GOP election efforts in 2006. But rather than engage in an exhaustive list, let's just focus on the war effort.
Bottom line -- borking Miers likely hurt our military efforts in the Mideast. It could very well result in more US casualties. Those who opposed her may well think that the benefit of removing her from the bench was worth the additional war dead and the political damage to the president and the GOP. I remain unconvinced.
What upsets me, however, is not how anyone chooses to resolve the political and moral calculus. It is not how much weight they choose to allocate to the perceived benefits and costs. They are entitled to their opinions. What upsets me is their apparent failure to even recognize the costs and undertake the analysis.
Everything is not "all better" now.
posted by Stan at 11:09 AM
1 Comments:
You need to examine your thought processes! Your premise that preventing the nomination of another potential David Souter will degrade our ability to conduct proper military actions in Iraq is dangerous. What is also dangerous is Senate Republican lack of conviction or guts to stand for conviction. Everyone is trying to divide Americans by demonizing personalities (Bush, Clinton, etc.). What needs to be examined is POLICIES! That includes military actions. We are asking our troops to be police again. It is time the word collateral damage is re-introduced if that is necessary to end this conflict is the most expeditious and humane manner possible. I have had enough of the Bush/Clinton cults destroying this country.
Post a Comment
<< Home