Interesting stuff from Brad DeLong.
« Star Wars In Order | Main | The Catch-22 »
Some Broder Perspective
03 Jul 2008 05:26 pm
Comments (12)
Wow. Not only does he not back impeachment, but his whole analysis about what would happen if it failed was completely off base. And we got to see that with Clinton. The Republicans didn't suffer at all from it. They only suffered when people became tired of their policies. If we need to have a King of Washington journalism, isn't it time for a new one? And given this, how did he become King anyway?
Seems like he always had his lips kissing at the wrong places.
fostert: Actually, the GOP did suffer from the Clinton impeachment saga, as the Dems gained seats in 1998 (first time a second term prez gained seats since early 19th Century), and it lead directly to the downfall of Gingrich and Livingston. Of course it would take a while to take the House back.
I do enjoy the fact that that old man, Broder, is seeing his entire persona torn to shreds by the blogosphere. Let's just hope he sticks around for a while longer to take more virtual beatings, and his conservative hackdom actually becomes the conventional wisdom in judgement on him, as opposed to his Dean-ness.
One can dream.
Broder always was a Royalist. He is now also THE DEAN and so everyone else has to be as well.
"the Dems gained seats in 1998"
Okay, I'll grant you that, but it was hardly the disaster that Broder predicted in the Nixon days. The Republicans didn't really face disaster until 2006. And they're facing it again now. Not because of the impeachment of Clinton, but because their policies are truly insane.
Look, in hindsight, everything is clear. In hindsight, Jesse Owens is a hero standing up to Nazi tyranny. But I venture to guess that if any American athlete sports a "Free Tibet" t-shirt while on the awards podium in China, NBC will proclaim that athlete an ingrate.
Moral courage is courageous not thirty years afterwards, but because it's made in the moment. Far be it for me, an anonymous commentator on Matt Yglesias's lowly trafficked blog, to opine on what is courageous and what is not.
But let it be said that DAVID BRODER IS A MOTHER FUCKER. HE WAS IN 1972 and HE IS NOW. What's more, there are a lot of people like David Broder running around right now. David Brooks comes to mind. Thomas Friedman. Marc Ambinder. Andrew Sullivan. Jeffrey Goldberg.
These are people who are writing currently for the Atlantic Monthly. They should not be writing for a magazine that Booker T. Washington once wrote for.
But whatever man. I may, as a libertarian, disagree with Matt Yglesias and Brad DeLong on a whole host of issues. But I would not suspect their general good will.
I am writing to disagree with Matt's thesis that Nixon's criminal behavior related to Watergate is essentially equivalent to Bush's regarding FISA or torture.
The key difference that sparked outrage with Nixon was that he was cheating to get re-elected. The ethical violation was clear and not in the interest of the country.
Clinton's ethical violation was also quite clear, but was of a less serious nature because it was essentially about his professionalism.
MY's assertions against Bush are potentially more serious than Clinton's, but they are less clearly ethical violations. As MY points out, there are those who agree that they are/were good policy.
A technical legal infraction that is in the interest of the country is not the same as working to rig an election for yourself.
I agree with the general sentiment of the comments about the quality of journalists (or lack thereof) both then and now, but the main difference between then and now was public outrage in general.
It had far more to do with drafting and killing our children than anything else. Get the public outraged about something that hits that close to home and they suddenly will not stand for a whole lot of other stuff.
Folks today are completely detached from both DC and it's policies. Get them outraged (a good media would go a long way toward that) and you'd be amazed at what they won't tolerate at all levels.
The worst thing about the old column DeLong linked to, in my view, is that it just seems to be self-indulgent fantasizing. It's not as if he spreads some vicious libel or the like -- it's just scripting how he wishes the next few years would go. It strikes me as more sad than pernicious in this instance (maybe not Broder generally, but this column in particular).
The idea that Bush's power grab was ever, in any way, "in the interest of the country" is laughable. The only people who put forth this notion are those who put party ahead of country.
"A technical legal infraction that is in the interest of the country is not the same as working to rig an election for yourself."
I'll admit I've not read it, but the impeachment resolution submitted by Kuchinich is supposed to go pretty heavily on accusations that Bush did in fact rig his re-election in 2004.
Comments closed July 17, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Re. Broder and impeachment, you must remember that not too long ago (a year maybe) David Broder wrote that nothing George W. Bush has done rises to the level of the criminality of Clinton's lies about Monica.
Thus impeachment talk about W is just wacko, fringe stuff, said he.
Posted by Ben Bain | July 3, 2008 5:41 PM