THE PLANK SEPTEMBER 8, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Conor Friedersdorf again makes the point that, although conservatives outside of Washington are largely correct that their inside-the-Beltway brethren can be divided into hackish, careerist sellouts and people who write and say what they actually believe, their conception of which is which is almost exactly reversed--that is, the moderate heretics and iconoclasts tend to fall into the latter category, and the down-the-line partisan warriors into the former. He first argued this back in July, comparing Ross Douthat and Human Events, to the decided detriment of the latter. This time out, he notes that, pace Robert Stacy McCain, conservatives trying to quell the birther lunacy are actually treating the grassroots with respect and those trying to inflame it, with cynicsm bordering on contempt:
The right’s fringe problem at this moment in time is one that elites have created as much as any crazy fringe righty. Outfits like Fox News, people like Glenn Beck, talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh — these outfits deliberately play on the worst impulses of the conservative base, stoking their paranoia and misleading them about reality, all for the sake of bigger audiences and greater revenues. That ought to outrage anyone who actually respects the grassroots, and has their best interests at heart.
This is, of course, pretty much exactly what one would expect, economic incentives being what they are: I'm certain David Brooks makes an entirely healthy living, but also certain it pales next to the lucre of a Limbaugh, Beck, or Hannity.
Bruce Bartlett also writes about the conservative-careerism problem, though from a somewhat different vantage:
When I talk to old timers from the Reagan years, many express the same concerns I have. But they all work for Republican-oriented think tanks like AEI and Hoover and don’t wish to be fired like I was from NCPA . Or they just don’t want to be bothered or lose friends.
These are complicated times to be an honest conservative.
2 comments
I think you are confusing the importance of pundits over normal people. My brother is a died in the wool Conservative, it does not seem the least bit complicated for him. The things that motivate him pretty much transcend the Fox news generated hysteria. Simply put, he is a pro-life, traditional values, low taxes guy. His type is built into the system regardless of media circuses. (circii?) I do agree though with your point that it must be pretty unpleasant to be a Conservative pundit who wants to act in good faith. I have given up reading National Review because it has way too many hacks. The same with the Weekly Standard (I first heard of Jack Abramoff from them). It seems they all made the determination the only way to stay in business is to feed red meat to the wolves, otherwise lunatic sites like freerepublic would drive them under.
- blackton
September 8, 2009 at 12:57pm
CO: Conor Friedersdorf again makes the point that, although conservatives outside of Washington are largely correct that their inside-the-Beltway brethren can be divided into hackish, careerist sellouts and people who write and say what they actually believe.... george: This is a false dichotomy. Or, in philosophy, what is often construed to be a "category mistake". A mistake by which a property ascribed to something is not a property that can logically [necessarily] be ascribed to it. At least not all the time. Just because someone is said to actually believe what he or she says and does does not necessarily mean that what he or she says or does is something we should take more seriously...or more agreeably. I'm sure there were any number of German citizens in the 2nd world war who sincerely believed in both Hitler and the Final Solution. Just as there were citizens who embraced the same publically and than did whatever they could to fight the Nazis tooth and nail privately. For some today, speculating about the right's "fringe problem" is analogous to speculating about those who are said to be either passionaitely wrong about the right things or passionaitely right about the wrong things. As though right and wrong here can revolve around both the ends and the means. So, who in the conservative [or liberal] movement are the "sellouts" and who are the "true believers" in, say, the healthcare debate? Is there a way in which healthcare in America can be tackled so as to effectively differentiate them....other than by the civilized or uncivilized, scrupulous or unscrupulous ways and means each side might choose to express their views? And this only gets all the more convoluted when you acknowledge that many of the players [both in and outside the beltway] have to approach these things as an employee of "the system". It's their job to run the government. So the last thing they want to do is aid and abet those who are doing their jobs now. They want them voted out so that they can be voted in. It's really a very, very thin line here that is walked sometimes between doing the right thing and doing the wrong thing. In part because many of them already know how much rhetorical bullshit is invested in either rendition. george
- iambiguous
September 8, 2009 at 1:51pm