Fed by what are to me very cheap arguments by RNC spokesmen and independent stalwarts of the administration — chiefly, it seems, Hugh Hewitt — there is now this permanently established belief in some quarters that people around here and elsewhere oppose Miers based purely on bad motives — elitism, cowardice, sexism etc. I find this horribly disappointing and the sort of thing I normally expect from leftwingers.

It is one of the cheapest forms of argumentation to assert bad motives, particularly to your friends, when you disagree with them. Judging by a torrent of email over the last week, I am supposed to take seriously the accusation that my fellow NROers and I are troubled by Miers solely because we’re fair-weather supporters of the President and the GOP who get the vapors the moment Bush is in trouble. We want to impress the liberal and left wing media. We are elitists. We are sexists. But most of all, we’re just not tough enough to take the heat. I find this particularly funny as I’m currently getting spammed by scores of readers of Media Matters calling me a Klansmen and a Nazi for defending Bill Bennett’s comments. Even funnier is the idea that, say, John Podhoretz — author of Bush Country: How George W. Bush Became the First Great Leader of the 21st Century—While Driving Liberals Insane – isn’t willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt.

Several longtime supportive readers who I’ve become “e-friends” with have written me making all or many of the accusations listed above and I find it horribly disappointing that these people can’t simply disagree on the facts. Who cares if someone thinks I’m wrong? Why would I hold that against him? But I do not understand why they have to argue like leftists and immediately assume bad faith (what next? We’re “greedy” for opposing Miers? Selfish?). I also don’t understand how they can shout charges like “sexism” without feeling very foolish indeed. I won’t be corresponding with some of these readers again. Why waste my time on people who think so little of my — or my colleagues’ — intellectual integrity? Why waste time on people so easily persuaded by cheap arguments?

Speaking of cheap arguments, I’m sure, for example, that Hewitt is getting similar email from opponents of Miers saying that he’s just a blind loyalist hack who will support Bush no matter what the facts. That’s disappointing too. But, I do not believe it was the anti-Miers camp which first resorted to attacking the motives of her supporters (by the way it should actually be the anti-Miers-pick camp because I don’t know anybody who actually has a problem with the woman herself, merely her nomination).

Regardless, whoever started the name-calling, all of it is beneath a movement and a philosophy which is supposed to pride itself on dealing with uncomfortable facts. I don’t mind arguments within the conservative camp. I relish them, as should be obvious. They are a sign of intellectual health and integrity. “Unity above all” may at times be a political imperative but it is a philosophical cancer. Those of you who argue Miers’ rightwing opponents are hurting the cause have a fair political point to make, even if it shows evidence of a misunderstanding of conservative journalism’s role generally and National Review’s in particular (See for example, Ramesh’s “The Case Against Silence”). But they too are hurting the cause when they impugn the motives of those they will undoubtedly wish to fight alongside in some future battle.