We're just too nice to give you people the criticism you so richly deserve...

Now, I love the Anchoress, who is a much nicer person than I am; let's say that up front. But she just loves this A. J. Strata post, whereas what strikes me is...well, this paragraph:

Bush Conservatives not only believe in Reagan’s 11th commandment to not speak ill of fellow conservatives - we live it. From the Gang of 14, to Harriet Miers, to Dubai Ports World and to the immigration issue - there has been a brand of Republican which eschewed the 11th commandment. So let the Republicans be defined by that group - Bush Conservatives will be defined by their antithesis. Bush conservatives are not afraid of the word ‘compromise’. They despise the word ‘failure’. If there is a good idea, we do not care what party gets credit - we care that the good ideas get enacted. It is not Party uber America anymore.

See, what A. J. and the Anchoress don't grasp is that if you think somebody else is being a jerk, you cannot communicate that fact without criticizing them, and if you think the reason they are being jerks is that they are expressing criticism of people they believe to be behaving badly, you cannot express moral condemnation of them without condemning yourself. All you manage to accomplish by trying to strike a pose of being the person who is morally above the fray and therefore superior to those whom you are careful to point out are not, is to make a hypocrite of yourself in a way that fools nobody but yourself.

Look at that paragraph. Can there be any doubt whatsoever that either A. J. is an appallingly incompetent writer, or else that he intends to draw an unflattering comparison between "Bush Conservatives" like himself (or herself I suppose but I don't care either way and will just say "himself" for convenience) and That Other Kind of Conservative? And let's have no attempt by A. J. to say, "Oh, but I'm not criticizing, I'm just pointing out a factual difference; if that's how they want to be, that's fine." Anybody who feels the need to express The Other Guy's position by presenting them as valuing party above country -- and who then feels that even that insult is inadequately biting unless it is also cast into German for the sake of a clear Nazi allusion -- can try to pretend that he isn't "speaking ill" of The Other Guys, I suppose. If he wants people to think that not only is he a hypocrite, but he also thinks his readers are very very stupid indeed, that is.

I just don't think the Bush Conservatives grasp the fundamental problem with their resentment -- and it is resentment -- of conservatives who have betrayed Bush -- and Bush Conservatives do feel betrayed on Bush's behalf. A libertarianesque conservative can say that Bush is immoral for using the coercive power of the government for pseudo-charitable ends, and do so without self-contradiction: his position is that the use of government force requires better justification than that, and if he were in Bush's position he would not violate that moral principle as Bush has violated it. A conservative who values strict judicial conservatism can say that it is immoral for Bush to nominate a crony explicitly because she is "loyal" and will therefore rule as she is supposed to (which is the impression Bush's team created with the Miers debacle), and he can say that without self-contradiction: his position is that putting people on the bench who will rule out of political agendas or personal loyalties rather than strict respect for the will of the People as it was expressed in the ratification of the laws, is immoral, even if it is a conservative agenda that will be advanced or Republican loyalties that will be honored, and if he were in Bush's position he would not violate that moral principle as Bush has violated it.

But when the Anchoress or A. J. decide to inform dissenting Republicans that their criticism of Bush represents a moral deficiency (and A. J.'s tone of moral condemnation is unmistakable, as has frequently been Her Anchorship's), the principle to which they wish to appeal is a principle they violate in the very act of appealing to it. Do they understand how counterproductive such an appeal is? I doubt it very seriously.

So, I'm not saying A.J. and Her Anchorship aren't right. But if they are right, then here's their challenge. The people whom they wish would shut up, feel at least as strongly that Bush is behaving in ways that are both immoral and destructive to the country, as A. J. and the Anchoress believe Bush's critics are behaving. Can A. J. and the Anchoress find a way to express the criticism that they believe Bush's critics need to hear (just as Bush's critics think Bush needs to hear their criticism), but to do so in a way that fully honors the very principle to which they appeal? Can they show us the way?

Because in that post of A.J.'s, he hasn't come close...and the Anchoress doesn't seem to mind it. In fact, you know that Deutschland uber Alles "Party uber America" paragraph? She likes it so much that that's a big chunk of what she excerpted.

Which is too bad because I think she's better than that.