The End of "Anti-Idiotarianism"

I very much enjoyed Glenn Greenwald’s merciless dismantling of Jonah “Search warrant? Scope requirements? Who cares?” Goldberg. And yet, in a perverse way, I have a certain respect for the candor of the Goldbergs and Bobos. Their support of Alito is, at least, explicit and logically consistent. They think that we should just pretend that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t exist where the War (On Some Classes of People Who Use Some) Drugs is concerned, and they make no bones about it. (The “some classes” is crucial, of course: Goldberg’s tradeoff is about giving up other people’s civil liberties. His daughter isn’t going to be subject to warrantless strip searches. The sanctity of David Brooks’ nice exurban home isn’t going to be violated.) It’s a bad position, but at least it’s honest.

Much worse is that of the Yoosta-Bees who are even more annoying than their “anti-idiotarian” moniker. The Alito nomination–where the Iraq War in taken off the table, and where issues of civil liberties are paramount–really gives away the show. You would think that a reactionary-across-the-board Supreme Court nominee would be where you might see some separation between the GOP and people who allegedly vote Republican because of foreign policy but are still good civil libertarians (which has happened with some small-government conservatives.) But, of course, this hasn’t happened. “Liberal hawk” Roger Simon can think of nothing bad to say about Alito, but can make Ted Kennedy jokes that passed their sell-by date during the Carter administration. “Libertarian” Glenn Reynolds not only supports the hyper-statist reactionary Alito, but finds Alito’s rejected-by-the-Supreme-Court support of husband notification laws a soothing balm for his misogynist ressentiment. “Classical liberal” (if the liberal tradition is conceived of as beginning and ending with Hobbes, maybe) Jeff Goldstein also is a strong Alito supporter, but despite his oft-cited nominal pro-choice credentials finds the idea of women losing reproductive rights a laff riot (ha ha, see, the state’s dominion over the fetus isn’t really a physical dominion, so it doesn’t really feel intrusive to have the coercive apparatus of the state force you to bear a child. And it will just be those silly women in Mississippi and Alabama and Texas and Tennessee and…seriously, who cares? If nobody I know is affected, I’m still pro-choice! ROTFL!!!!!!) It would be one thing if these conservertarians were making a “I don’t approve of his overturning Roe policy, but I do approve of his employers should be protected from oppressive civil rights lawsuits policy” argument. That’s not it; they just don’t care about his opposition to Roe. The “pro-choice” cites are, of course, just meaningless window-dressing. And, of course “feminist” “liberal hawk” Ann Althouse takes the grand prize. Not only does she still unreservedly support Coathanger Sammy (which she felt so strongly about as to take her condescending, entirely devoid of evidence case to the pages of the New York Times) she argues that he “deserves a yes vote” even from liberal Senators. It is a remarkably vacuous form of feminism indeed that Althouse is propounding–she is utterly indifferent about the prospect of countless women losing their reproductive rights, can’t find anything bad to say about a prospective Supreme Court justice who proudly touted his membership–in 1985!–in an organization that felt that the belated admitting of women to Princeton was a disastrous mistake and who would make it almost impossible to advance gender discrimination claims in court, but she can summon feminist outrage about…a clumsy mother-in-law joke by Chuck Schumer. After all, Alito was appointed by President Bush, and criticizing a nominee because he seems to be in conflict with your alleged principles would be so partisan!

Frankly, I prefer my reactionary Republican authoritarianism straight, no meaningless “socially liberal” chaser. It ends up the same place either way, and the former leaves a less unpleasant aftertaste.