Detailing the grief that Bush is getting from within his own party over the nomination, Borger delivers this:
Many doubters on the right believe she has not shown herself sufficiently committed to evangelical legal causes, such as a ban on abortions and gay marriage.Borger’s attempt to paint the objections of the right as religiously motivated, through the use of the characterization “evangelical”, reveals the great extent to which he doesn’t know what he is talking about.
In fact, it is the non-religious right that is up in arms over Miers. Evangelical leaders such as Marvin Olasky and James Dobson are in fact supporting the Miers nomination. It is the intellectual right, making distinctly intellectual arguments, that is opposing the nomination.
George “There is no reason to trust Bush” Will, Jonah “She’s a crony” Goldberg, Bill “Disappointed, Depressed, and Demoralized” Kristol, Charles “Withdraw this Nominee” Krauthammer, Peggy “What was the President thinking?” Noonan…this is not a roll-call of conservative, evangelical Christians. This is the intellectual base of the conservative movement. (Guardian readers, along with Borger, may be surprised to learn that the true “base” of the conservative movement in the US is indeed intellectual, and not religious.)
Frankly, by characterizing the positions of people like Kristol, Goldberg, and Krauthammer – Jews all - as “evangelical”, even if just by implication, Borger reveals just how truly automatic and unthinking the association of evangelism with the political right in the US really is at The Guardian.