THE PLANK FEBRUARY 18, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Bill Kristol's column today lectures Democrats for lacking moral seriousness, putting politics ahead of the national interest, thinking of politics as just a game, and so on. I won't say the point is totally unfair -- there are always some people in any party who get caught up in partisanship. But, my God, do have to hear this from Bill Kristol?
Kristol charges that "the quality of thought of the Democrats’ academic and media supporters — a permanent and, as it were, pensioned opposition — seems to me to have deteriorated." Kristol's idea of high quality of thought is to assert that anybody who doesn't support the Bush administration's foreign policy does not "support the troops," to insist that war critics believe that the United States is winning but actually want their own country to lose, and to embrace the metaphor of the "stab in the back" to illustrate this notion.
Kristol goes on to call the Democrats "an opposition party that takes no responsibility for the consequences of the choices involved in governing."
Does Kristol not remember his role in defeating health care reform in 1994, in which he told Republicans:
"At bottom this debate is now a political one," he wrote in a strategy memo on July 26. "Sight unseen, Republicans should oppose [the new Democratic bills]."
and in which he warned that successful passage of reform would "revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests"? Please, Mr. Kristol, tell us more about how liberals should make highbrow intellectual arguments and take responsibility for responsible governance in opposition.
It's bad enough that the Times gave a weekly column to a partisan operator and thoroughly mediocre writer instead of the many competent conservative writers who would have jumped at the role. But does this hack also have to lecture the rest of us on our responsibilities as intellectuals? Were no members of the Gambino family available to write the ethics column?
--Jonathan Chait
11 comments
Also, one shouldn't invoke Orwell for stirctly partisan gains. One thing Orwell showed us, consistently, is not to let facts be bent around your prejudices and partisan leanings. Kristol neatly inverts that, which is a good trick, I suppose.
Also, there is zero indication that Kristol himself has read any Kipling, which is fun.
- boneill
February 18, 2008 at 12:42pm
"An opposition party that takes no responsibility for the consequences of the choices involved in governing."
Wouldn't this also describe a party that, say, starts a war and cuts taxes at the same time?
- glacialspeed
February 18, 2008 at 12:45pm
Kristol is a disciple of Goebbels, and I don't say that lightly. If you are going to lie, the bigger the better, and be sure to accuse your opposition, or target, of engaging in exactly the nefarious conduct that you are engaged in. Adopt a tone of high moral outrage at the perfidious opponent. This is a time-proven disinformation tactic for those who are engaged in execrable behavior.
It is an absolute disgrace that the Times would lend credibility to this ultra-partisan, reactionary hack, but it is a long, long time ago that the Times could legitimately be accused of being part of the "liberal medai." As if.
- roidubouloi
February 18, 2008 at 12:51pm
My heavens, the NYT has screwed this one up badly. Kristol has been as bad (if not even worse) as was widely predicted, but the Gray Lady has no way out. If they fire him, they inflame the right wing yet again. If they keep him, Kristol removes the final shreds of journalistic integrity that the Times once had.
The sad thing is, anybody with an IQ over 70 should have seen this coming from a mile away.
- Brent
February 18, 2008 at 12:54pm
What happened to those people who used to throw pies in the faces of public people? Bill Gates got one. Did they go by the wayside post 9/11? Kristol is the perfect candidate.
- Wandreycer1
February 18, 2008 at 12:54pm
I, personally, will spring for the bananas and cream.
- drdannyu
February 18, 2008 at 1:10pm
Interestingly, Kristol fails to provide us with the sentences following his Orwell quote:
"Although he [Kipling] had no direct connexion with any political party, Kipling was a Conservative, a thing that does not exist nowadays. Those who now call themselves Conservatives are either Liberals, Fascists or the accomplices of Fascists."
Perhaps in the context of today on this side of the pond, that might come out as "those who call themselves Conservatives are either smug fundamentalist scolds, corporate bushwhackers, or people who fetishize military power to the exclusion of all else."
- ironyroad
February 18, 2008 at 1:44pm
The best part of the editorial was the last line: "Is this generation of Democrats capable of governing?"
Is this guy serious? I think Kristol just set a new record for lack of self awareness, breaking the record previously set by...Bill Kristol.
- glacialspeed
February 18, 2008 at 1:57pm
brent, hey me likes Bill Pistol, think he be berry good communist for times, and I be plenty smart, he be my favrite in the nuw yolk time paper, after comics.
- blackton
February 18, 2008 at 2:03pm
Doesn the generational shift from William Saffire to Bill Kristol pretty much capture the unravelling of the conservative mind? Saffire may have infuriated, but he held your attention, and he never ever caused eyes to roll. Kristol achieves little else?
- emigdio
February 18, 2008 at 2:10pm
Unfortunately, these days being a thoroughly disgraced and discredited neconservative means never having to say you're sorry. You can always count on having a soft place to land. As a long-time subscriber, I'm still shaking my head about the Times' decision. I mean, it's not like Kristol didn't already have a high-visibility platform to spew his nonsensical rantings.
- WayneJM
February 19, 2008 at 1:31pm