Nathan's completely right on this. I was talking with someone the other day about why Bush, with Rove running the demographics, hadn't nominated a Hispanic, a woman, or a Hispanic woman to the seat. It wasn't like this President wanted to go with a white male. He likes to think he's deeply connected to the Hispanic community, he's proud of his poor quality Spanish (which is, to be fair, better than my non-existent Spanish), his first choice was named Gonzales, and his political advisor wants to build a majority among Hispanics. So why the the Norman Rockwell nominee?
Simple. Business.
Dobson's so loud, Robertson's so entertaining, and Falwell's so grotesque that they and the movement they lead often obscures all other Republican constituencies from view. Why watch the National Association of Manufacturers when Focus on the Family is comparing Democrats to Hitler? But Business remains the GOP's single most important constituency, and they've not been particularly pleased that Terry Schiavo, abortion and all the rest have eclipsed their agenda and left them rather embarrassed by the Party they support. It was time they got something. And a Supreme Court nominee whose spent his adult life quietly conspiring with them over at the defendant's table was just the thing. Roberts is an easy confirmation, an appealing judge, and a huge boon for business. He's the diamond ring the distracted, adulterous husband, gives to his long-suffering wife; a gift impressive enough that leeway and trust are completely restored.
This business/Christian Right thing is actually an important cleavage to think about, not because they're going to split anytime soon, but because the rise of the theocrats has really taken the spotlight off the plutocrats. I'm reading Chris Mooney's new book The Republican War on Science and have been delighted to see him delving into that. We focus mostly on the Christian Right's delegitimization of evolution which, while bad, doesn't have too many public policy consequences, save for a population that's rather less well-versed in Darwinist theory. But the Industry's manipulation of global warming reports and atmospheric data? That's a fair bit likelier to destroy our world.
