Elitism

George Will: Empty suit behind the bow tie

This morning's George Will column has convinced me that this guy is like some beat-up pitcher who ought to be sent to the showers.

He tells us "All shall not be lost"  Why? http://townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2008/11/02/all_shall_not_be_lost

Because--in a banal rehash of antiseptic voting statistics that read like a rejected first draft of Michael Barone's Almanac of American Politics --we got our butt handed to us worse in 1964 and 1974. 

Jeez, maybe we won't see another Great Society or another Cambodian killing fields. And Mr. Will's column fails to answer a rather obvious question: why not?

I don't expect a honest commentator to blindly salute every dumb thing the party he is more closely aligned with does. I applaud the exposure of the corrupt and the correction of the misguided. But, hell, George Will is up in the press box rooting against his team for sport. 

If "All is not lost", well, elitist once-upon-a-time "conservative" journalists like George Will and Peggy Noonan are part of the reason it may well be "lost".

Will's last columm, a trite putdown of Sarah Palin's alleged inadequacies as a constitutional scholar, offered little insight to the voter except to see inside the mind of Will as someone eager to prove his own intellectual superiority.  You see, George Will is the "real conservative" while Govenor Palin is the "faux conservative"  http://townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2008/10/30/the_downfall_of_faux_conservatism

The reason I'm so ripped about this is at the same time former law professor Barack Obama was found to have endorsed a theory of constitutional jurisprudence radical in its very concept--the use of the courts to redistribute wealth.  Not a word of complaint from Mr. Will about something you'd think he'd care about. George Will would rather frag his own troops than critique the opposition.

No, Mr. Will, you are a faux intellectual, a man who cares deeply about the punctuality of trains but cares not where they are going.  I'm no man of the mind, but dammit, if I want to go to Grand Central I'm not getting on even the nicest and fastest train to New Haven.    But like the rest of your ilk, you'd rather go in the wrong direction in style.

George Will has proven himself to be shallow, petty and used up. He's an empty suit behind the bow tie. Once he brought his A-game to his columm, now he is a tired old knuckleballer trying to fool people with junk pitches.

So, go on with your writing. Maybe Moneyball needs a sequel.  Stick to baseball, George. Free agents switching teams are more commonly accepted in that sport.

 

The Cardinal Sin: Laughter In The GOP

One would have to be disengaged not to notice that the Democratic Party, and the party's scribes in the press, are really quite angry about the ascension of Sarah Palin. But it is not Sarah Palin that has them upset; it is not John McCain or George W. Bush or Mitt Romney or Rudy Guiliani that has the left in high dudgeon. It is not any one person or defined group that has given them fits. What has them so agitated is that the very visible Republican National Convention showed Republicans doing the worst of all possible things: It showed Republicans laughing at the Democratic Party and its candidate. And there really can be no greater sin.

Please take a few minutes to read the inane (and mostly insulting) comments of New York Times columnists Paul Krugman, Judith Warner, and (inane to a lesser degree) Bob Herbert. You should also read today's piece by the Times' Frank Rich, "Palin And McCain's Shotgun Marriage." I urge you to read these pieces because they prove two things: they prove that Mr. Krugman is wrong that Democrats, at least many Democrats, do not consider themselves elite, and they prove that Republican laughter is justified.

If we simply take as a starting point Mr. Krugman's apparent incredulity at the assertion that Democrats who propose to lead this country come across as elitists, and juxtapose this with the essays mentioned above drafted by his own colleagues, we end up not merely with a glaring contradiction. What we end up with is a rousing good joke. We end up with something to laugh at (even if we are not Republican). And we end up with something to pity.

The very title of Frank Rich's piece is condescension of the highest order. It is the sort of condescension one would expect to hear in the Hamptons, or perhaps over cocktails on a Montauk veranda. McCain and Palin -- a shotgun marriage? How funny! How cute, Mr. Rich! How clever and deft! How deliciously and naughtily adroit in an ironic and pleasing "get-the-dinner-guests-laughing" sort of way! (Of course, you prove that Paul Krugman must be in another room.) And that first line, Mr Rich. How daring and devilish! Who would have thought to describe John McCain as old? Brilliant. I love to hear you speak truth to power!

Ms. Warner's statements hardly help Mr. Krugman's defense of the indefensible. Nor do Mr. Herbert's. When Ms. Warner (she found Gov. Palin's nomination "nauseating") suggests in an essay about Ms. Palin that women "are perhaps reaching historic lows in their comfort levels with themselves and their choices," you know you are not just hearing a malicious woman, you are hearing an elitist woman. But if you can't hear Ms. Warner's elitism, perhaps this quote will shout elitism loud and clear, and in a most vicious tone:

"Why does this woman [Sarah Palin] – who to some of us seems as fake as they can come, with her delicate infant son hauled out night after night under the klieg lights and her pregnant teenage daughter shamelessly instrumentalized for political purposes — deserve, to a unique extent among political women, to rank as so 'real?'"[emphasis added]

And this statement by Mr. Herbert is surely not issued from the muted bowels of intellectual lowliness, but from the voluble summit of smugness:

 

"If there were any good ideas at this convention of mostly rich and mostly right-wing delegates about how to haul the country out of this mess that the G.O.P. has gotten it into, they were kept well hidden. Perhaps they were tucked away behind the more prominently displayed creationism and “just-say-no to global warming” documents."

That "creationism" pokes its head up here is as funny, as twistedly funny, as Mr. Krugman's swipe about alleged Republican anger at the convention being in part fueled by "fundamentalists" ticked off about evolution and abortion (forget those pro-life Catholics, for they suggest so much more than "fundamentalists"). Surely the truly sophisticated among us know what these columnists are doing: they are reacting from their very high places, throwing out insults and code words all designed to make the smug even more smug (and playing on elitists' fears). And Republicans do, and should, find all this rather funny.

Sarah Palin laughed at Barack Obama on Wednesday night. She poked fun at him. She mocked his ridiculously lofty rhetoric. She pointed out his condescension: she held him to account for his own words about gun-clinging, Bible-hugging, embittered townies allegedly uncomfortable with differences in skin color. On Thursday night, John McCain did the same thing. And they both did so in language that indicates something rather plainly: Republicans made Democrats look like a joke. (And I think this is the root of Bush/Cheney hatred, as both men have been known NOT to take their critics seriously, and have had the temerity to laugh at Democratic Party ideas and tactics.)

Paul Krugman is wrong about the politics of resentment, but only in part. There has never been a columnist, in my opinion, as resentful as Paul Krugman. Resentment is what he sells. But resentment is what his party sells, too. It is the very marrow of class and social warfare; resentment politics are what this election is about. But what Mr. Krugman does not realize is that Republican resentment is bred by men like Mr. Krugman. He -- and countless other pundits and wannbe pundits -- continually portray Republicans as a joke. All the Republicans are doing is demonstrating that they are sick of the gross misrepresentations about them manifested in print, in broadcast journalism, and in film. Republicans are tired of being the media's favorite caricatures, and they fought back in Minneapolis by enjoying a good laugh or two at the big corporation built around the Barack Obama brand.

What Mr. Krugman and his colleagues don't understand is that the reaction to Gov. Palin coursing through the media like a pandemic proves that the Democrats are ultimately a humorless, petulant bunch. They can dish it out, but they can never take it. That's always funny.

And what we are discovering in this political process is that what really galls the humorless Democrats is that Republican resentment manifests itself not as a grimace, but as a very toothy grin.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Syndicate content