By Kevin D. Williamson
Sunday, February 19, 2017
The problem with the man currently leading the Republican
party is that he is, as the Washington
Post puts it, a hostage to the “fanatical policies of the extreme right.”
His administration “insults women” and his unwelcome presence in public life
“insults us all.” And, because the Republican party is all about the winning these days, the GOP
establishment is “ready to forgive” . . . what? . . . “just about anything — as
long as he wins.”
So says the Post,
which is not alone in this estimate: Extreme on economic issues, extreme on the
so-called social issues, he even has had an “extreme foreign-policy makeover,”
according to The Atlantic. His views
on immigration, MSNBC says, represent the Republican party “shrinking down to
its most extreme elements.” One cable-news panelist insists he was the most
extreme Republican presidential candidate ever.
Paul Krugman laments that he has forsaken all serious policy thinking for
“dangerous fantasy.” Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times is also alert to the “dangers” he presents, the
“most dangerous of all” being his views on Iran, though Kristof also worries
that he is too buddy-buddy with that awful, scheming Benjamin Netanyahu.
Predictably, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow dogpiled him for his perplexing
relationship with Moscow. Vice calls
him a “sociopath” and Maureen Dowd dismissed him as “an out-of-touch plutocrat”
who keeps “his true nature . . . buried where we can’t see it,” a devious
figure who is so awful deep down inside that he “must hide an essential part of
who he is” from the public.
President Mitt Romney sounds like he would have been a
riot. Alas, his presidency never came to pass, thanks in no small part to the
hysteria chronicled above. Every Republican president is “the most extreme
ever,” or so Democrats and their media friends insist.
(“We do always say that,” one Democratic friend
acknowledged. “And it is always true.” Well . . . )
In this corner, the American Press; in the opposite
corner, the American President. The time has come for choosing sides — or so do
many of our friends on the left and in the media (there is some crossover in
that group) insist, as do more than a few of our friends on the right.
On Friday, I was scolded by Joe Hagan of New York magazine (he must have taken a
break from the vital service he is offering to the republic at the moment,
composing a biography of Jann Wenner) for daring to criticize my media colleagues
in the age of Trump, “since you are supposedly a journalist.” It is, he
insisted, “as if you, as a conservative, can’t see objective reality along with
somebody you assume is a political opposite.” No, it is as if the American news
media is predictably biased and incompetent, and would be writing almost
precisely what it is writing about Donald Trump if the election had been won by
Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, or Pat Sajak. Or, as the example above shows,
Mitt Romney, who is a great many things (some of them admirable) but hardly an
“extremist” or a “danger” to the republic.
It is possible, if you are not mentally crippled, to hold
your mind two non-exclusive ideas: Donald J. Trump stinks, and the press
stinks. Trump’s spat with the press is a bloodless Iran–Iraq war, and I myself
am cheering for (metaphorical) casualties. If you find yourself only able to
focus on which party stinks worse,
then you have adopted the pre-kindergarten “binary choice” rhetoric of the
campaign, in which both Trump and Clinton supporters insisted that we must
ignore the obvious character defects, financial shenanigans, lies, and
foolishness of A or B on the theory that B or A is so much worse that we simply
cannot acknowledge any shortcomings on the other side.
Those of us who have not entirely surrendered our
neocortices to one cable-news tribe or the other are perfectly capable of
criticizing Trump and criticizing the
media.
Of course the American media is terrible. Everybody knows
this. Everybody who follows the public debate about guns, taxes, or abortion
knows this. Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the New York Times, knows this, which is why he sheepishly acknowledged
that the so-called Newspaper of Record and its editors “don’t get religion.”
And that is just a little bit of what they don’t get. Other senior editors at
major media outlets know this, too. The people who run the Washington Post know this. The reflexive Democratic affiliation of
most of the major media is a simple fact of life that you’d have to be foolish
or dishonest to deny: Hell, I got the business about being a conservative when
I was being considered for a copy-editor’s job a million years ago at the Philadelphia Inquirer—working in the sports
section.
The tragedy of all this is that, yeah, we really could
use an effective, active, and credible press right now. We have an active one
five days out of the week, an effective one five days out of the month, and a
credible one . . . not that often. My criticisms of Trump do not go so far as
those who believe that he is a budding fascist dictator on the verge of
building concentration camps, but if you really did believe that, wouldn’t you
wish, at least a little, that the media hadn’t been exactly as hysterical when faced with the bland, anodyne visage of
Mitt Romney? Or John McCain? You want to be taken seriously now after insisting that Dick Cheney was
the new American Gestapo?
The last wolf show we bought tickets for wasn’t really
all that spectacularly lupine.
It would be really very useful to have an authoritative
source. I do not agree with Barack Obama about much of anything, but there is
something to his argument that our public discourse suffers from our lack of
anything that might be generally agreed upon as an authoritative source. The
problem is that Barack Obama believes that this authoritative source should be
Rachel Maddow or someone like her, or the editorial columns of the New York Times, dopey and predictable as
they are. And, of course, there are people like Joe Hagan of New York, who believe that the current
moment is simply too dangerous—it’s always dangerous
with these people—to acknowledge that.
Hagan’s opposite number is a correspondent who on the
same day sneered at me for relying on the New
York Times as a source for a historical question, because we all know that
no conservative can trust the New York
Times. The Times column in
question was written by the eminent historian John Lukacs, whose conservative
bona fides are such that there is literally a chapter on him in a book called Catholic Intellectuals and Conservative
Politics in America 1950–1985, alongside Russell Kirk, Michael Novak (RIP),
and William F. Buckley Jr. It did not matter to him what was written or by
whom, only that it came from the other side—from the enemy camp.
We deserve a better press, and a better president, too.
If you are the sort of partisan who cannot entertain the possibility that both
of these things may be true at the same time, then you ought to consider the
possibility that you are one of the reasons why we do not have a better press
or a better president.
No comments:
Post a Comment