Noam Scheiber and John Dickerson offer their takes on the idea that the intra-conservative debate over Harriet Miers pits “the churchgoing masses” against “whiny Beltway intellectuals” (to quote Dickerson). I don’t see any great groundswell of support for Miers from the “churchgoing masses” or from “hinterland conservatives” (that one’s from Scheiber). Nor do I see any great populist-elitist divide. None of this stuff is what divides Phyllis Schlafly from James Dobson–both of whom, by the way, are members of “elites” if the term has any meaning, and both of whom speak for many people who are under-represented among most American elites. (Is it really necessary to remind people that there are many kinds of elites?)

What a strange debate is being conducted about Harriet Miers. One side resents the charge of cronyism; the other side resents the charge of elitism; neither side seems to see that these accusations are not natural opposites. The president of the United States has nominated a member of his inner circle to the Supreme Court. Many of the people who are most supportive of that choice defend it in terms of his prerogatives. Under the circumstances, the people who are criticizing or questioning the choice are not going to feel much rhetorical bite from the charge of elitism.