According to National Review, Rep. Mike Pence is a viable presidential candidate because of his authentic fiscal conservatism:
Pence identifies himself as a fiscal and social conservative and has the voting record to prove it.
Unfortunately, National Review doesn't offer much explanation for what it means to be a fiscal conservative, though it suggests it has something to do with "voting against big-spending initiatives." But Pence supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars -- big-spending initiatives that contributed greatly to the deficit. And he supported the Bush tax cuts, and wants to extend them all -- that's another huge driver of deficits.
But National Review doesn't even mention the words "tax" or Iraq in its Pence profile, much less make any effort to reconcile its description of Pence as a fiscal conservative with his support for massive government spending on war and policies that run up the deficit. So I'm honestly curious: What does the National Review think it means to be a "fiscal conservative"? Is it simply opposition to government spending the National Review doesn't like?
Here's National Review columnist Mona Charen in a column dated today:
Obamacare is deeply unpopular. But the president (unlike the country, we must hope) is stuck with it. The measure that was supposed to be the Democrats' bid for greatness has become Obama's tar baby. He must defend it or risk discrediting his presidency. And yet his resistance to repeal will hurt his bid for reelection.
The term "tar baby" has been described by Politico and the Washington Post as "racially charged." The New York Times, in reporting an apology by John McCain for using the term, noted it is "considered by some to be a racial epithet." A separate New York Times article noting its use by then-White House press secretary Tony Snow reported that the term "has been used as a derogatory term for a black."
You could probably construct a more brazenly hypocritical argument than Jonah Goldberg's latest rant about liberals if you tried, but you'd really have to work at it.
Responding to a column by the Washington Post's Anne Applebaum, Goldberg writes that "the simple fact is that the objections offered by the anti-elitists right now have almost nothing to do with Ivy League education. Fair or not, to the extent the Ivy League comes up it is as a codeword or symbol for the agenda of progressives." And Goldberg spells out what these "anti-elitists" on the Right dislike about the progressive agenda:
Applebaum doesn't seem to comprehend that it is not status-class anxiety that is driving the main critique of the elite. It is that this particular elite is hellbent on bossing the country around that will make America less meritocratic.
To date, I've seen not one instance of Tea Partiers denouncing engineers, physicists, cardiologists, accountants, biologist, archeologists or a thousand other professions who've emerged from elite schools. Because those people aren't bossing anybody around.
Got that? Conservative "anti-elitists" dislike the "elite" because it is a bunch of liberals "hellbent on bossing the country around." Goldberg italicizes "bossing … around" twice, so it's pretty clear he thinks this is his key point.
But it's an absolutely stupid point. In this context, "bossing people around" is just a negative term for "leading." Every politician's agenda can be disparaged as "bossing people around" if you don't like what they're trying to do.
If "bossing people around" is the complaint, where's the conservative outrage over a governing elite telling two loving adults that they can't get married? Where's the conservative outrage over a governing elite telling a Marine that, unlike his peers, he'll be fired if he publicly acknowledges his relationship status?
You won't find clearer examples of "bossing people around" on any progressive agenda. And so it is obvious that Goldberg's claim that conservative "anti-elitists" dislike liberals because liberals are "hellbent on bossing the country around" is bunk. The Right's complaint isn't that the Left wants to boss people around, it's that it doesn't like what the Left wants to do. And they have every right to dislike it. But dressing that dislike up, as Goldberg does, as some principled commitment to individual liberty is simply dishonest. Or dumb. Or both. With Goldberg, it's hard to tell.
(Goldberg himself wrote in 2008 that gay marriage is "likely inevitable and won't be nearly the disaster many of my fellow conservatives fear it will be" and on December 31, 2009 (via Nexis) that it should be delayed, which basically means that he's in favor of bossing people around for the sake of bossing them around.)
In other words, it is the agenda of a very specific and very self-styled elite, not the existence of an elite that is pissing so many people off. Some of the angriest and most dedicated people I meet at Tea Party events are quite wealthy and successful, often with shiny educations equal to Applebaum's.
So, basically, wealthy and successful people who are used to bossing others around resent being bossed around themselves. And Jonah Goldberg thinks this is a principled objection to people bossing people around. Got it.
And Goldberg provides this hilarious example of projection:
[I]t's only one subset of Ivy Leaguers that seems to bother anybody on the right: the lawyer-social engineers-journalist-activists they churn out by the boatload. No one begrudges kids who've made good from tough backgrounds. What bothers lots of Americans is when those kids then think they are entitled to cajole, nudge, command and denigrate the rest of America.
When did you last hear a prominent liberal politician denigrate "ignorant bible-thumping rubes in Kansas?" Probably back on the Fifth of Never, right? But conservative politicians suggest that effete, godless coastal elites aren't "Real Americans" all the time. Goldberg himself refers to liberals as "filthy hippies," to pick one of many slurs. But in Jonah Goldberg's fantasy world of paranoia and oppression, it is liberals who denigrate the rest of America.
If you ever catch yourself thinking Jonah Goldberg is completely useless, just remember that in his attacks on liberals, he provides convenient reminders of the flaws of conservatives.
National Review wants you to think it disapproves of xenophobia:
Hmmm. Xenophobic attempts to stoke fears about foreign influence on U.S. elections … why does that sound familiar? Oh, right, now I remember:
That's a 1997 National Review cover. Many Asian-Americans were not amused:
Asian-Americans are in an uproar over the cover of a leading conservative weekly that depicts President Clinton and the First Lady bucktoothed, with narrow-slit eyes, wearing stereotypical Chinese clothing.
"We find the cover extremely offensive and racist," said Daphne Kwok, executive director of the Organization of Chinese Americans, one of many groups that have flooded the National Review's New York office with protest letters since the magazine hit newsstands last week.
"It's reminiscent of the caricature made of the Chinese in the 1800s. The derogatory cartoons then were exactly the same," Kwok said of the magazine's cover illustration, which also has Vice President Gore wearing reddish Buddist robes money popping out of a donation tin.
But National Review editor John O'Sullivan insisted there was nothing wrong with the cover:
"They are not going to get an apology," O'Sullivan said. "These groups clearly have to make an issue out of it in order to keep going. I have talked to Asian-Americans who are not offended."
Here's how San Francisco Chronicle columnist Jeff Yang describes the cover:
Going back to the National Review "Manchurian Candidates" cover now, what you see is that there's more going on in the images of the Clintons and Gore than the typical flamboyant exaggeration used in cartooning. In addition to Bill's bulbous nose and Gore's pursed, almost sneering lips (both typical of their respective caricatures), you see...hmm...narrowed eyes...oversized, bucked teeth...a Fu Manchu moustache -- hey, just about every racist synecdoche in the anti-Asian propaganda library!
And, Yang notes, that wasn't a one-time thing for National Review. Remember this cover from last year, inexplicably depicting Sonia Sotomayor as the Buddha?
National Review editors later explained the thinking behind that cover: "Sotomayor has squinty eyes." Oh. OK.
Anyway: National Review is totally against xenophobia. Sometimes.
National Review columnist Dennis Prager pens "A Letter from a Republican to Hispanics":
How many people can this country allow to come in?
The moment you answer that question is the moment you realize that Americans' worries about illegal immigration have nothing to do with "racism" or any negative feeling toward Hispanics.
Those who tell you it is racism or xenophobia are lying about their fellow Americans for political or ideological reasons.
Democrats will act as your defenders, telling you that opposition to your presence here is race-based. There is no truth to that.
Nothing to do with racism? No truth to that? Really? That doesn't seem right to me:
Now, given Dennis Prager's comments about Keith Ellison and the Quran, it's possible Prager just doesn't recognize bigotry when he sees it, and sincerely believes there is absolutely no "negative feeling toward Hispanics"in America. But it seems more likely that Prager knows he's badly exaggerating his case. How could he not? And what is his case? That Democrats lie about opposition to immigration in order to score political points.
In short: Dennis Prager is spreading falsehoods about opposition to immigration in order to score political points against Democrats by accusing them of lying about opposition to immigration in order to score political points. He's doing exactly what he purports to denounce Democrats for doing: "lying about their fellow Americans for political or ideological reasons."
Remember when Joe Lieberman lost his Senate primary in 2006, then ran against his party's nominee in the general election, earning praise from National Review for recognizing the "importance of fortitude in a good cause"? Or when National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez called Harry Reid a "bully" for suggesting that campaigning against Democratic nominees for Senate and President might carry some consequences for Lieberman?
As it turns out, National Review isn't quite so forgiving of lapses in party loyalty when the Republicans are the spurned party:
What does it take to earn the opprobrium of the Senate Republican caucus? Would running a write-in campaign against a Republican Senate candidate who won a fairly contested primary be enough to do it? If the offender is Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski, apparently not.
As we all know, Murkowski lost to Joe Miller a few weeks ago in the Alaska primary, proceeded to pout for a while, then announced a write-in bid for the Senate, which we had urged her in the strongest terms to forgo.
Given this, it would make sense to strip Murkowski of her status as the ranking member of the Energy Committee because 1) she deserves it; and 2) her appeal is primarily based on her pork-barreling prowess as an inside-D.C. player.
Remember just last week, when right-wingers were running around whining that President Obama hadn't properly praised George W. Bush's Iraq war strategy? Here's a piece from the editors of the National Review to refresh your memory:
In its failure to credit explicitly Bush's surge for turning around the war, the speech was graceless; in its cursory treatment of Iraq, it lacked strategic vision; and in its attempt to hijack the troops for Obama's domestic priorities ("we must tackle . . . challenges at home with as much energy and grit, and sense of common purpose, as our men and women in uniform"), it was shameless. Altogether a poor performance.
The theory behind this insistence that Bush be praised for his eventual approach to a war he started on false pretenses against a nation that didn't attack us is, I suppose, that regardless of your disagreements with someone, or with some aspects of their leadership, there are times when the right thing to do is to praise some of their actions.
So, for example, even if you're a far-right opinion magazine and you hate organized labor and disagree with much of what they've done and the way they've done it, it would be graceless to fail to recognize the labor movement's positive accomplishments on Labor Day.
With that in mind, here's a look at the pieces leading National Review's web page today:
"Hypocrisy Problem," indeed.
A piece in National Review claimed that Elena Kagan is anti-small business because as solicitor general, she filed a Supreme Court brief arguing that the Court should throw out a case brought by a business. But Kagan's alleged anti-small business argument was first made by the Bush Justice Department, and legal experts say Kagan's solicitor general briefs are not necessarily proof of her personal views.
Over at "Planet Gore" (National Review's blog dedicated to mocking the reality of global warming) Greg Pollowitz approvingly quotes a column claiming "the warmists" (Pollowitz's word) are guilty of "attribut[ing to global warming almost any unusual weather event anywhere in the world."
Seeing Greg Pollowitz, of all people, pretend to disapprove of using "almost any unusual weather event anywhere in the world" to bolster an argument about global warming is utterly hilarious. It's like seeing Andrew Hayward complain that his neighbor's dog relieved itself in his swimming pool: Even if it's a legitimate complaint, he probably isn't the best person to make it.
See, Greg Pollowitz routinely points to "almost any unusual weather event anywhere in the world" in a lame attempt to undermine the scientific reality of global warming. Actually, he doesn't constrain himself to "unusual" weather events: If it snows in Moscow in February, Pollowitz pretends that means global warming is a hoax. (Record high temperatures in Moscow in December, however, somehow escape his attention.)
Conservative media have claimed the White House's controversial conversations with Rep. Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff -- which have been described by experts as "garden-variety politics" -- constituted criminal activity. But when Bush administration official Scooter Libby was investigated, tried, and convicted, conservative media decried it as "criminalizing politics."
National Review's Ed Whelan throws the kitchen sink at Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan:
In addition to her kicking military recruiters off Harvard's campus during wartime* and being paid for a comfy position on a Goldman Sachs advisory board, this passage (from this article) nicely captures Elena Kagan's remoteness from the lives of most Americans:Kagan ... is such a product of New York City that she did not learn to drive until her late 20s. According to her friend John Q. Barrett, a law professor at St. John's University, it is a skill she has not yet mastered.
Now, my first reaction to that was shock that Whelan would actually criticize a woman nominated to the nation's highest court for being a bad driver. I can only assume Whelan is now hard at work on a follow-up post portraying Kagan as bad at math.
But that was quickly followed by annoyance at the silly regional warfare Whelan is trying to provoke by painting Kagan as an out-of-touch New Yorker. First, as Matt Gertz notes, that's a mindless smear of millions of residents of New York City (and, by the way, the kind of geographic bigotry conservatives would rage about if it were directed at Southerners or Midwesterners.)
I was also amused by Whelan's linking of not learning to drive with being a subway-riding city-slicker. See, though I (barely) learned to drive when I was 16, I never got around to getting a driver's license and haven't driven a car since my learner's permit expired shortly thereafter. But I didn't grow up in mid-town Manhattan; I grew up in a town of about 300 people -- a town with no gas station, no stop lights, no ... well, no anything. The nearest movie theater, for example, was about 20 miles away. But I didn't have a car, or the money to buy one. Getting a driver's license would have been a largely symbolic exercise. (Since then, I have lived in Washington, DC, where driving is not particularly necessary.)
To be sure, most people I knew growing up -- and most people I know now -- know how to drive. But I'm quite certain that there are plenty of other adults who have negligible driving experience not because they are the embodiment of the conservative caricature of a limo-riding New York City elitist but because they couldn't afford to drive. And I'm quite certain you can find people like that in small cities and towns throughout America. Whelan reveals his own elitist assumptions when he links a lack of driving experience with purported big-city elitism.
* No, Whelan isn't telling the truth: Kagan did not "kick military recruiters off Harvard's campus."
National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez is bothered by the fact that two consecutive Supreme Court nominees have been women:
On the surface, Lopez seems to be criticizing SCOTUS nominations that take potential nominees' gender into consideration -- but, in reality, she is endorsing exactly that. Lopez's post implies support for a quota system in which (at least) every other SCOTUS nominee must be a man.
I can find no record of Lopez wondering whether women are allowed to be nominated to the high court in the wake of consecutive men ascending to the high court as a result of nominations by President Bush. She did, however, write in 2005 that President Bush should "just go for the best. Quotas be damned" in making Supreme Court nominations. She also wrote in 2005:
There is no good reason that this next pick (or any subsequent one) has to comply with anyone's identity-politics rules.
Identity politics is a dangerous thing. It's all about the soft bigotry of low expectations. For the sake of having female role models on the Court--or whatever your "No Boys Allowed" reasoning or goal is--you say, A woman is not going to make it on her own. She won't rise to the top. She can't compete with the guys.It's unfair to all involved.
Now, just five years later, Lopez endorses "identity politics" by suggesting that (at least) every other nominee should be a man.
I honestly have no idea what Bill Bennett is trying to imply in this nasty little piece about Michelle Obama, but it's quite clear that he's badly distorting her entirely innocuous comments to do so.
Who knew "hackish dishonesty" was a virtue?
Following the announcement that President Obama agreed to issue an executive order reaffirming that the recently passed health reform bill maintains current law on federal funding for abortion, conservative media continued to falsely claim that the bill contains federal funding for abortion. In fact, the bill bans federal funding for abortion except in cases currently allowed under the Hyde amendment: rape, incest, and conditions that endanger the life of the pregnant woman.
National Review's Rich Lowry asserts something "most liberals haven't said and can't admit to the public or to themselves":
They care about health care so much that they are willing to resort to any maneuver to pass it. Many liberals have portrayed it as practically an everyday occurrence that far-reaching, historic social legislation lacking 60 votes in the Senate is passed through the reconciliation process. This is nonsense. Why not say that an end this important justifies almost any means, and Republicans, in the same position, would probably do the same thing? This would have the ring of truth about it. But such a concession would add another political burden to a bill with plenty of them already. Better to pretend that nothing extraordinary is going on.
Of course, health care reform has already passed the Senate, having got the 60 votes in needed in order to do so. Reconciliation isn't being used to pass "far-reaching, historic social legislation," it is being used to pass comparably small changes to that legislation.
You almost have to be impressed by someone who is willing to be so completely misleading in order to criticize criticize other people for (supposedly) not telling the truth. Almost.