Sexism and Miers
Dear Bush: "You are the best governor ever..." Best, Harriet Miers. That's a real quote -- click the link to see more cloying quotes from the New York Times.
OK, so she's not exactly qualified for the Supreme Court, and the nomination does smack of cronyism, but I'm beginning to think that some of the criticism is encroaching upon sexism. Take the apocryphal Harriet Miers blog, which portrays her as a bubbly idiot lacking self-esteem and obsessed with fame. My guess is that if a male with her qualifications was nominated, we wouldn't see anything like this blog linked to from major blogs and news sources (even if as a joke). There's something about her being underqualified and being a woman that leads to this sort of ditzy humor.
Laura Bush has also suggested that sexism might be in play here, but I think she's responding to all claims of Mier's lack of qualifications. I won't go that far -- I do think she's underqualified, and I see no problem with the media hammering that point -- but by simultaneously mocking her girlish language, even if the intentions are benign, the accusation of sexism begins to accrue merit. This would be harmless if the jokes were confined to late-night television and flippant blogs, but problems arise when the mainstream media jumps on the bandwagon. If Miers's confirmation does get defeated, it will be interesting to see how historians explain the causes ten years from now.
One last thing: I myself am torn on whether or not I want Miers to be confirmed. On the one hand -- consider it my idealist hand -- I want her to be defeated because her presence on the court will likely aggravate the bitter divide that already haunts the court, and because she'll likely vote for the Bush agenda without pause. On the other hand -- my practical hand -- her getting confirmed is the least bad option, since she may prove to be an inneffective advocate in swaying the opinions of other justices, and a more qualified nominee, say an intellectual powerhorse such as Roberts, will vote similarly and be a better persuader.
<<< Radical cartography Ivy League Admissions >>>
You think she's underqualified? I seem to remember you decrying Justice nee Judge Roberst as essentially overqualified:
"he's followed the obvious path: Harvard -> Harvard Law -> Harvard Law
Review -> SCOTUS Clerkship -> US Attorney's Office -> Solictor
General's Office -> Appellate firm -> DC Circuit -- you couldn't get
more by the book"
Shouldn't you like Miers specifically becuase she's not "by the book"?
PS. She seems underqualified to me.
I wrote this on October 3rd on this blog:
In other news, Bush nominated Harriet Miers today to replace Justice O’Connor. I’m pleased to see that she’s not an Ivy-leaguer with the pre-approved institutionalist stamp, but so far there’s little reason to think that she’s qualified for one of the most intellectual posts in the nation. We know nothing about her except that she’s a workaholic who has been loyal to Bush.
http://crazymonk.org/archives/2005_10_03/20
So yes, I like that she's not an institutionalist a la Roberts, but I think there are hundreds of people out there that are more qualified than she is that are also non-institutionalists (and, needless to say, conservative).
I think people aren't used to women benefitting from cronyism. The question is, is sexism just shaping the criticism, or is it motivating it? I really don't think many of the people mocking Miers dislike her because of her gender. But maybe it makes it easier to be mean.
As long as our public examination of government officials continues to be such a fucked-up mix of over-scrutiny and under-scrutiny, I will have very mixed feelings.
I think that's exactly right, JJRJ. And I do think that her gender is shaping the criticism more than motivating it, since there is no paucity of reasons for the latter.