The Normalization of Politics

Far be it for me to continue to bring up topics that stem from my graduate education, but I feel I need to describe the idea in higher education of "normal." We in society tend to normalize particular ideas about ourselves and others. It can be assumed that characteristics of the majority in society are the "norm." Being a white heterosexual Christian male would put my ideas and characteristics in the "normal" of the US population. Now, there are two sides to this idea. One side claims that ideas that are "normal" should be contested and evaluated so that those outside of this "normal" idea are not ostrasized from society. The other side of this argument is that if you can define a characteristic of yourself or others as "normal" you can criticize those outside of this idea of "normal" in order to prove yourself correct.

I point out this idea of "normal" because it seems to me that liberals are trying and have been trying to normalize liberalism in the US. The most obvious illustration of this idea is that when liberal judicial candidates are nominated they are told to be qualified and "in the mainstream." When conservative judicial candidates are nominated they are characterized by liberals and the media as being "extremists" or "out of the mainstream." Now, these two candidates may be just as far as the other on the left or right, but we are led to believe that the liberal nominee is the "normal" one and the conservative judge is not "normal." Never is this construction more evident than when liberal newspapers such as the New York Times endorse judges that have "normalized" their stances on issues, i.e. they have become more liberal the longer they have been on the bench.

This illustrates my concern about Bush's Supreme Court nomination, Harriet Miers. In the past conservative Presidents have been bamboozled into nominating moderates and/or unknown judicial nominees for a spot on the Supreme Court. They do this because they have been told and believe that a conservative nominee is "out of the mainstream." These moderate nominees in many cases are later praised for their "normalizing" ideas; in other words they are nominated a moderate and (thank goodness!) become liberal judges. I'm afraid that Ms. Miers will turn out the exact same way.

Not only does she have no judicial experience, we know relatively nothing about her. Also, from what I've been getting from the blogosphere, rumor has it that Senate Democrats offered a list up to Bush of potential Supreme Court nominees they could support, and Bush picked the least offensive one - Harriet Miers.