Miers and slogans: A short response to Rob

Rob writes:  "[M]y mother-in-law, a cradle Catholic, has long resented the church hierarchy's encouragement to vote for the "pro-life" conservative candidate, even though, in her view, "nothing ever changes" on abortion when push comes to shove.  Doesn't this nomination provide conclusive evidence that her resentment is appropriate?"  In my view -- and all due respect to Rob's mother-in-law! -- is "no."  (What, by the way, is the evidence for the belief that "the Church hierarchy" consistently encourages peole to vote for the pro-life candidate?  It seems to me that the message coming out of the USCCB, and from most chancery offices, has always been, "we're really upset about abortion, but, in the end, we prefer Democrats").

The Newsweek writer Rob quotes might well be putting it "plainly", but that does not make her correct.  It is clear (to me, anyway) from her piece that it is really important to the writer that it be the case that Republicans are not really better on abortion than are Democrats.  It strikes me that, in fact, the likely reason why the President nominated someone without a paper trail on abortion is not so "Bush can feign surprise when, to the chagrin of all the voters he won over on the abortion issue alone, social conservatives are ignored once again" but instead because (as the Newsweek writer knows full well) our political culture, and our media culture, are such that no one with a clear record of truth-telling about Roe can count on fair treatment in the United States Senate.  But this dysfunction is hardly President Bush's (or Harriet Miers's) fault.

Now, if it turns out to be the case that the President nominated Miers without regard to, or without caring about, her "judicial philosophy" generally, or her view on Roe more specifically, or if she ends up voting in abortion cases like Justice O'Connor, then I will be angry and demoralized.  It seems to me, though, that many in the pro-life camp are jumping too quickly to the conclusion that this is what the President has done. 

For what it's worth, the not-exactly-squishy group, "Priests for Life", seems more optimistic about Miers.  I've read that Miers has donated to, and received awards from, pro-life groups, and I know that she led efforts to change the ABA's pro-abortion-rights platform.

Rob and I agree:  If it were the case that the GOP cynically appealed to pro-life voters at election time, only to ignore them later, that would be a reason for resentment.  (Whether it would be a reason to vote for the party that panders enthusiastically to the abortion-rights movement, and then delivers quite effectively, is another matter).  I am not ready to conclude, though, that President Bush has done that, or is doing it here.

Rick