Thoughout the ongoing coverage of the Miers pick there's been a strain running though the conventional wisdom, which basically says that this is the point where "movement" conservatives are starting to freak out. The thinking is that these people only care about a few things -- social issues specifically -- and that the one thing they've always expected is that when the Supreme Court came open they'd get their people in there.
So why are we here?
There's a line of reasoning that should be instantly familiar to any Thomas Frank fan, the idea that there's a large evangelical grassroots so motivated by social issues (gay marriage, abortion, prayer in schools) that they care about little else. But a central part of Frank's point has always been that the republicans CAN'T deliver on those issues, for structural reasons. First of all those opinions are a minority, and they depend on the majority who favor legal abortion not really taking them seriously, assuming that nothing will happen anyways. Secondly, those issues must be active for the Republicans to use them, they need them to unite their base against a common enemy, to raise money, etc.
So I've been wondering, while many conservative bloggers and pundits are screaming about Miers, why aren't we seeing the same thing from those who are actually leaders -- ie those that actually have constituencies?
Could it be for the same reason? Not only do Rove and the RNC need evangelical activists, but so does James Dobson. He depends on their impotent rage to unite them, and to get them to donate money to him. So do all the megachurch pastors, whose salary depends on the righteous outpourings of their flocks. And perhaps that answers the big question that everyone has been asking -- why is Dobson staying silent on this? People speculate that it's because he was consulted, perhaps he's had secret assurances.
Or perhaps it's because his incentives are aligned with the Republican party.