Damned If...

Obviously, I agree with Sebastian Mallaby that I wish Democrats had been a bit more vigorous in their opposition to the torture bill. That said, let's get real. Does anyone seriously believe that if the Democrats had done that Mallaby would have written a column saying "Democrats are great, the GOP sucks, go out and put Pelosi in the Speaker's office?" Mark me down as a "no," on that one. Instead, we would have had a column about how Democrats are right about torture, but somehow "soft" on terrorism nonetheless. Or else he would have made something else up to complain about.\

A certain number of our elite pundits -- Mallaby high among them -- are just constitutionally incapable of being nice to the Democratic Party or to American liberals. As the right's rule proves itself to be worse and worse, they'll become increasingly critical of Bush. But that merely forces them to devise ever-more complaints about the opposition. And one of the Democrats' very worst instincts is a tendecy to care about what these kind of people think.

Comments

Exactly. And this is one of the reasons why the leading lights of Left Blogistan have a much clearer view of the political terrain than the Dems do: we don't give a flip what Broder and Brooks, Cohen and Friedman, Will and Ignatius and Mallaby think.

This puts us on an even footing with the GOP, which also doesn't give a flip what people like that think. But it genuinely handicaps the Democrats, by messing up their minds. They're always trying to please a punditocracy that will always find things wrong with them.

The Democratic Party really IS like an abused spouse.

Posted by RT | October 2, 2006 4:22 PM

What's even more interesting in Mallaby's column is the part about Social Security. This obviously won't fit in to the "no clear agenda" frame, so he simply pivots seamlessly to an attack on the Democrats for being too clear about their agenda, failing to embrace the holy grail of "centrist" columnists -- a commission of wise men to undertake the solemn task of gutting Social Security. None of them are capable of recalling that the last time the wise men "saved" Social Security, the Republicans just diverted the surplus to ridiculous tax cuts. But at least they had a clear agenda.

Posted by Kevin | October 2, 2006 4:58 PM

Right on to everybody. The WP editorial page especially is stuffed with so-called "centrist" twits. Dare I dream...Matt is the leading edge of a new commentariat who has seen through the nonsense.

Posted by MQ | October 2, 2006 5:29 PM

I've noticed the phenomenon also, though I've come to realize I've been primarily focused on those who identify as "libertarians." For that group I think it's a matter of simultaneously needing to criticize both parties (otherwise they'd have to join one) but at the same time hoping that the "small government" cant of the Republicans was really something other than a blatant lie to justify cutting social programs in favor of redirecting the money toward rich cronies.

For pundits, the need for "balance" may substitute for the need of libertarians not to identify with any given administratiion (a libertarian will always be betrayed by any functioning government, and a pundit to takes sides too obviously will be seen as a mere hack). It may be that the wish-fullfillment fantasy part comes from the fact that the right wing spreads all that yummy propaganda money around and nobody ever feels that they're being paid as much as their insights and wisdom are truly worth.

Posted by James Killus | October 2, 2006 7:11 PM

I care what "these kind of people" think, but only to the extent they have any influence. The Washington Post editorial page is a pretty big megaphone, so simply ignoring them is not an option.

Posted by paul | October 2, 2006 7:13 PM

Double right-on. Another odd thing about the column was how, as proof of the general fecklessness of Democrats, Mallaby argued that Dem Senators should have made "common cause" with like-minded Republicans to filibuster the President's torture legislation. Only Chafee voted against the bill. Even Specter, railing against the unconstitutionality of the habeas provision, voted for it. And John McCain . . . well, history will not look kindly on how he betrayed his so-called principles in order to fulfill his dream of becoming Bush's political heir.

Mallaby's like Broder, sinking fast into irrelevancy . . .

Posted by Brklynlibrul | October 2, 2006 7:14 PM

Another odd thing about the column was how, as proof of the general fecklessness of Democrats, Mallaby argued that Dem Senators should have made "common cause" with like-minded Republicans to filibuster the President's torture legislation.

Mallaby's a fool for arguing it. The closest that Reid could get to scuttling the bill was the Specter amendment, which had the support of Specter himself, Chafee, Sununu and Smith; in return for any amendments, he had to abandon the option to filibuster. That was the 'common cause' moment with like-minded Republicans, and showed the true shallowness of the 'moderate Republican' Senate (where 'moderate' means 'pro-habeas').

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | October 2, 2006 7:47 PM

Agreed on the anti-Democratic biases of the Beltway/National Media Elite (even though Matthews and Russert, Broder, Friedman, Brooks et al. all live in the DC region, their influence dissipates throughout the nation, and, like some kind of horrible particulate, is reabsorbed by the regional media).

It would have been good to come out against the destruction of the Constitution, anyway, no matter what Mallaby and his ilk think.

Also, George F. Will is a very good writer, if a total reactionary (but so was Churchill).

Posted by Ben C | October 2, 2006 10:45 PM

One should always remember the influence of environment. Bush has been a very bad president, but -- he has been perhaps the best president D.C. area has ever seen. No other president has poured the money into D.C. area think tanks, tech companies, and other things connected, by some verbal twist or another, to 'security'. In consequence, the area has experienced a huge and unexpected boom. In 2001, after the attacks, it looked like D.C. was going to suffer a recession -- instead, the war on terrorism turned on a spigot of money that just keeps flowing.

Now, local papers are connected at the hip to local boosters, the local business men, and other assorted types. How could they look around at such pure and unadulterated wealth and complain about the man who did it? To complain, they have to think about abstractions like, oh, what the average Joe in Pittsburg is going through, or what American soldiers in Ramadi are going through (don't even think about what Iraqis are going through. In that fantasy, the Iraqis have to speak english to get through. Better view them as numbers).

So you have a choice -- view this prosperity as the just result of a response to a threat not unlike World War II - or view it as a tissue of greed, corruption, and the piecemeal destruction of the constitution.

The Lordly Dems live there too, after all. And they have sniffed that money out too, after all. How can you be against a foreign policy that fattens your friends and relatives like this one?

Nixon's mistake, obviously, was not to pour more money on the D.C. area. If he had, Watergate would never have come to the attention of the Post.

Posted by rgathman | October 2, 2006 11:15 PM

Mallaby is busy intellectually diddling himself; there is no better example of the effete bystander.

Posted by della Rovere | October 2, 2006 11:54 PM

agreed.

Posted by looj | October 3, 2006 10:07 AM

Dare I dream...Matt is the leading edge of a new commentariat who has seen through the nonsense.

Matt will certainly be writing for an elite op-ed page one of these days. The question is, will he still be the clear-thinking guy whose blog we're reading, or will he have turned into some kind of hack?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | October 3, 2006 10:20 AM

Matt, there's another missed opportunity besides the one you (rightly) dismiss.

The general public has managed to formulate an overall opinion about the war in Iraq that is wildly at odds with virtually everything said by people the major media give attention to. They've picked up on this bit and that bit and assembled into a view of the war's messed-up and undesirable nature that you and I would agree is basically correct, and they've done it despite the constant media drumbeat.

This is what some of us think might have happened if the Democrats had been consistent and firm in opposing torture. It wouldn't have gotten good press coverage, but it would have been out there for the public to acquire and think about and respond to.

Posted by Bruce Baugh | October 3, 2006 12:08 PM

Matt will certainly be writing for an elite op-ed page one of these days. The question is, will he still be the clear-thinking guy whose blog we're reading, or will he have turned into some kind of hack?

A year or so ago, I would have said (and did say) that the Broderization of Yglesias was well underway. So far in 2006, I think that he's reversed the trend.

Posted by paperwight | October 3, 2006 2:32 PM

You just don't understand - Mallaby doesn't like torture but he really doesn't want to pay higher taxes to support entitlements. It is all a question of priorities

Posted by didn't we save Social Security in 1986? | October 3, 2006 4:17 PM

"And one of the Democrats' very worst instincts is a tendecy to care about what these kind of people think."

:-) :-)

Posted by John Emerson | October 3, 2006 11:38 PM

Matt started out fairly Broderish. He was like a young Kinsley. I think he's improved.

Posted by John Emerson | October 3, 2006 11:40 PM